Mother of Slain Soldier Protests outside

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 09:00 AM']1. As I said before, Iraq never attacked us.[right][post="126685"][/post][/right][/quote]

As I said...Germany never attacked us in WW2 either.

[quote]2. If Saddam did have weapons of mass destructions, Im sure the US would have known because the Reagan administation supplied him with it during the Iran-Iraq war.[/quote]

How can we supply him with something that isn`t there ?


[quote]3.Where is the proof of these weapons of mass destruction, dont remember us finding any, please explain. ("maybe they were moved to Syria?" doesn't cut it)[/quote]

Well maybe if Saddam hadn`t kicked out weapons inspectors
and defied EVERY resoluiton that was placed against him
as terms of SURRENDER...then we wouldn`t have HAD to
go look for ourselves ?


[quote]4. He surrendered under the terms of the "U.N. resolutions", this was not a "U.N supported or sanctioned" attack[/quote]

Wait...they ALL signed resoultion 1441. It plainly stated that
it was his LAST CHANCE to comply. The reason it wasn`t
a U.N. sanctioned attack is because our "ALLIES" were
profitting off of The Oil for Food program...
And 77% of the U.S. Congress voted for War in Iraq.
Bush "lied" as much as they did...

[quote]5.What is the exit plan? Are we going to be in Iraq forever?[/quote]

Our exit plan is to get the Iraqi`s ready to be able to defend their
country for theirselves. We can not leave until THEY ARE READY.



[quote]6. Thanks for educating me , I have learned alot.........  [/quote]



Hey if you don`t think we have the right to MAKE
a guy that we had already been at war with COMPLY
with terms of his SURRENDER 11 years after the fact.
And a FULL YEAR after we suffered the worst attack EVER
on American soil ...then you`ll never be educated.
9/11 had alot to do with how Saddam HAD to be dealt with.
Deal with it...we are there.

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 11:00 AM']2. If Saddam did have weapons of mass destructions, Im sure the US would have known because the Reagan administation supplied him with it during the Iran-Iraq war.
[right][post="126685"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Leftist brainwashing. If any weapons of mass destruction were given to Iraq in that war, it would have been from Russia, France or Germany. The USA was not allowed to supply any weapons to Iraq at that time.

[Guest bengalrick]

interesting tid bit about the protesting woman on the [url="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm"]drudge report[/url]

[img]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050807/capt.txsa10708072032.bush_peace_mom_txsa107.jpg[/img]

[b][quote]PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH[/b]
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET


The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Developing...[/quote]

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 8 2005, 10:48 AM']Leftist brainwashing. If any weapons of mass destruction were given to Iraq in that war, it would have been from Russia, France or Germany. The USA was not allowed to supply any weapons to Iraq at that time.
[right][post="126702"][/post][/right][/quote]


mmmm....really......

I found this pretty interesting though

[url="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm"]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm[/url]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Bengalrick....

"If" the drudge report is correct.... and she did already meet with him and it was a good meeting like it mentions in the first part.... then the dumb bitch needs to get the fuck off his lawn.[/b][/i]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Leftist brainwashing. If any weapons of mass destruction were given to Iraq in that war, it would have been from Russia, France or Germany. The USA was not allowed to supply any weapons to Iraq at that time[/quote]



[color="purple"]1979: Saddam Seizes power with US approval; moves allegiance from Soviets to USA in Cold War.

1980: Invades Iran, then the "Unicycle of Evil," with US encouragement and [u]arms[/u].

1982: Reagan regime removes Saddam's regime from official US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

1983: Saddam hosts Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Agrees to "go steady" with US corporate suppliers.

[u]1984: US Commerce Department issues license for export of aflatoxin to Iraq useable in biological weapons. [/u]

1988: Kurds in Halabja, Iraq, gassed.

1987-88: [u]US warships destroy Iranian oil platforms in Gulf and break Iranian blockade of Iraq shipping lanes[/u], tipping war advantage back to Saddam.[/color]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 8 2005, 11:16 AM'][i][b]Bengalrick....

"If" the drudge report is correct.... and she did already meet with him and it was a good meeting like it mentions in the first part.... then the dumb bitch needs to get the fuck off his lawn.[/b][/i]
[right][post="126730"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

agreed... IF is the key word...

[Guest steggyD]

sneaky, that showed hand shaking. However, if you look it up, Russia and France were the main suppliers of weapons to Iraq. We only sold them support type of items.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://home.tiscali.be/cartoo/Nema4/lessons.jpg[/img]

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 8 2005, 10:24 AM']i didn't know we were talking about the civil rights movement... that was obviously a good and very necessary movement... i thought we were talking about current affairs and affirmative action in particular... to be honest, affirmative action was necessary when it was first passed b/c of the racism that existed (not to say that racism doesn't still exist, but nothing like before the 60's and what your grandmother had to go through)... it is now hurting african americans IMO, instead of helping them...

how can there be racism in a business nowadays, when there is a very good percentage of managers and decision makers that are minorities?? like i said, it was necessary in its hay day, but not as much nowadays...

just to tell you where i;m coming from, i'll explain a little about my sister... my sister had some serious problems when she was a young girl... i won't get into the specifics, but it was very, very bad and very hurtful to everyone in the family... your probably getting a decent picture now... anyway, since she had something to blame things on for everything that goes wrong, she used it... most importantly, my mom babied her to death, and let her get away w/ murder... if my sister needed money, she would ask mom... needs new clothes, ask mom... she would start cheerleading, then quit adn nobody would push her for fear she couldn't take it...

to this day, she is struggling to get a job as a waitress, b/c she is always late to work, and doesnt' try that hard, and if a manager says something that hurts her feelings, she'll just quit... you can say my mom didn't do a great job, but i feel that i turned out pretty good, since i haven't quit a thing in my life, and just bought a house w/ MY credit and MY money...

she was handed a crutch (not the awful thing that happened to her, but my mom using that as an excuse for her)... it has hurt her in everything in life... if you are given things in your life b/c of who you are, what you look like, or what you have endured, then it hurts you... i have seen it first hand, and that is why i think that if you get a job (nowadays) b/c of the color of your skin, then you didn't EARN it necessarily... and in the long run, i don't see how it will really help... i would argue that it will do the opposite for most people and hurt them instead...

that is my take and why i feel that way...
[right][post="126690"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You have missed my point entirely. Was Marvin Lewis handed a crutch? Ofcourse not. A couple years ago he couldn't even get a interview for a job. Now he is own the threshold of taking the team formally known as the "Bengals" to the playoffs. All he needed was the same shot Dave Shula, Bruce Coslet and Dick LeBeau got. I am not for hiring minorities just for the sake of hiring them whether they are qualified or not. I'm for equal opportunity. If there is a job opening available, what is wrong with attempting to interview more minority applicants as long as they are qualified for the job. I'm for due process. Contrary to your opinion even though opportunities for minorities have improved through the years, statistics say that in America severe discrepencies remain as far as qualified black applicants being interviewd or hired. If you and I both applied for a job, but you were more qualified than I, you should be hired. But according to statistics most of the time a white male is interviewed and hired at 7 x the rate a minority is only interviewed. Case in pont, division I college football. 117 schools, 2 minority head coaches. Florida didn't interview a minority candidate when it hired Urban Myer, nor did South Carolina, Illinois, or Syracuse. (each school with new coaches in 2005) So if you are Rickey Hunley (the Bengals LB coach) and you aspire to be a division I college head coach (and he is qualified) what do you do? Truth is...... Hunley is "lucky" if he even gets an interview, let alone get hired. In your America, if you think thats fair or good enough.....I strongly disagree.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://home.tiscali.be/cartoo/Nema4/suicidecostume.jpg[/img]

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 01:40 PM']You have missed my point entirely. Was Marvin Lewis handed a crutch? Ofcourse not. A couple years ago he couldn't even get a interview for a job. Now he is own the threshold of taking the team formally known as the "Bengals" to the playoffs. All he needed was the same shot Dave Shula, Bruce Coslet and Dick LeBeau got. I am not for hiring minorities just for the sake of hiring them whether they are qualified or not. I'm for equal opportunity. If there is a job opening available, what is wrong with attempting to interview more minority applicants as long as they are qualified for the job. I'm for due process. Contrary to your opinion even though opportunities for minorities have improved through the years, statistics say that in America severe discrepencies remain as far as qualified black applicants being interviewd or hired. If you and I both applied for a job, but you were more qualified than I, you should be hired. But according to statistics most of the time a white male is interviewed and hired at 7 x the rate a minority is only interviewed. Case in pont, division I college football. 117 schools, 2 minority head coaches. Florida didn't interview a minority candidate when it hired Urban Myer, nor did South Carolina, Illinois, or Syracuse. (each school with new coaches in 2005) So if you are Rickey Hunley (the Bengals LB coach) and you aspire to be a division I college head coach (and he is qualified) what do you do? Truth is...... Hunley is "lucky" if he even gets an interview, let alone get hired. In your America, if you think thats fair or good enough.....I strongly disagree.
[right][post="126837"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Did you ever think that maybe teams began to look at him because he was an assistant head coach with the Redskins? Or do you want to think that he got his job only because he was a minority? I would like to think it's because he worked his way up to that position, and he worked hard.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 8 2005, 12:58 PM']Did you ever think that maybe teams began to look at him because he was an assistant head coach with the Redskins? Or do you want to think that he got his job only because he was a minority? I would like to think it's because he worked his way up to that position, and he worked hard.
[right][post="126851"][/post][/right][/quote]

Dude.......are you comprehending anything I have said? For the last time, Marvin Lewis had all the credintials. He was the most celebrated defensive coordinator since Buddy Ryan. After being the architect of a defense that allowed the fewest points in the regular season and dominated the Giants in the Super Bowl, the man couldn't even get an interview for a head coaching job. Right after the Ravens Super Bowl win, Tampa Bay hired John Gruden, and Buffalo hired Greg Williams. Marvin didn't even get a chance to interview for the Buffalo job. This is the NFL, the same league where guys like Dave Campo, Dave Shula, Marty Morhninweg have been hired as coaches, but Lewis despite his credentials, couldn't even get an interview. This prompted the NFL to mandate that teams give minorities who are qualified an interview (not a job) when there is a head coaching vacancy. Because year after year minority coaches were looked over and never given a shot at the job. When the Bengals interviewd Lewis, Mike Brown and his daughter Katie Blackburn were overwhelmed of just how sharp he was. The rest is history. He got this job because he is a awesome coach. Without the NFL policy for hiring minorities, he may have never been interviewed and could still have been a coordinator today. He didn't get hired because he was black, he got hired because he is a great coach. Mike Brown may have never known this if the league did not mandate him to interview minorities. I cant break it down any simpler than that. I quit. I'm going to lunch now.

[Jamie_B]

Uhm, correct me if im wrong, but didnt Marvin get interviewed in Tampa after Dungy left, before they decided to go with Gruden. Wait no need to Correct me ....


The NFL's Race Problem

[url="http://www.capitalismcenter.org/initium/01-01-03.htm"]http://www.capitalismcenter.org/initium/01-01-03.htm[/url]

[quote]On Saturday, the New York Jets and Indianapolis Colts will face off in the opening round of the 2003 NFL playoffs. The coaches of the two teams, the Colts' Tony Dungy and New York's Herman Edwards, will have a reunion of sorts, since both men worked in Tampa Bay, where Dungy was the head coach until last year, and Edwards was his top assistant. Both teams play a similar style of football, and both feature exciting young quarterbacks looking to make their mark in the postseason. By all expectations, it should be an exciting game that showcases some of the NFL's best playing and coaching talents.

But for some people, the story of this game will be race. Dungy and Edwards are the only African-American head coaches in the NFL, and this game serves as a symbol of racism to those people—notably the sports media—who feel there aren't enough black head coaches in the league. This fixation on race is unfortunate, and irrational, but it nonetheless has become an issue the NFL feels compelled to address. The league's solution, however, may in fact exacerbate the perceived problem.

Earlier this month, NFL owners adopted a quasi-affirmative action program for coaching hires. Under the policy, any team that has a coaching vacancy agrees to interview at least one "minority" candidate for the position. The idea behind this is to give black candidates "exposure" to the interview process, which will in turn increase the likelihood of additional black coaching hires.

It sounds nice in theory, but its practical application has already fallen short. Since Monday, three teams have fired their coaches: Dallas, Cincinnati, and Jacksonville. All three teams have talked to black candidates, but the impact has not been what the NFL expected. In Dallas, former Minnesota Vikings coach Dennis Green—a "minority" candidate—was given a token interview before owner Jerry Jones hired Bill Parcells. It had been known for more than a week that Parcells, who is white, was Jones' preferred candidate. Green is still considered a candidate in Jacksonville, though his hiring is unlikely, as owner Wayne Weaver is unwilling to give Green the personnel control he is seeking.

Cincinnati meanwhile received permission to speak with Washington Redskins assistant head coach Marvin Lewis, a "minority" candidate. Lewis is reportedly uncertain about the job, in part because he feels the organization may not give him the support he would need, and in part because he fears he's a red herring like Green, an intermediate obstacle towards Cincinnati's reported frontrunner, former Jacksonville coach Tom Coughlin.

Lewis will not interview with a team that's not serious about him. This is rational and completely understandable. No man should allow himself to be used as a pawn. But if that is the case—if Cincinnati is using Lewis—than the guilty party is not the Bengals organization, but the NFL itself. It is the league that foisted this idiotic interviewing policy. They did so in response to pressure from racial interest groups and the media, who would have you believe a lack of racial diversity among 32 NFL coaches is akin to genocide.

The policy is supposed to promote minority candidates for head coaching jobs. But the two men who have allegedly benefited from the policy so far—Green and Lewis—were not lacking for promotion beforehand. They have been, in fact, the two most prominent black coaching candidates for more than a year. Green is an ESPN commentator, while Lewis is the highest paid NFL assistant coach at more than $1 million per year. Neither man requires special assistance from the league office to get an interview. And the new policy will not make it any more likely that either will be hired.

If anything, the NFL policy may work against hiring coaches like Green and Lewis. After all, why would an NFL team risk hiring a black coach that may not work out. Given the immense media pressure to hire a black coach, firing one—and as the NFL axiom goes, coaches are hired to be fired—would create a potential backlash. Furthermore, coaches like Lewis will be suspicious of any interview granted to them, since they'll now assume it was granted because of skin color, not ability or credentials. This essentially poisons the hiring process before it has even begun.

Frankly, it's not even clear why the current lack of black head coaches is even a genuine problem. In other industries, the lack of black managers is thought to imply institutional racism. But the NFL, like most sports leagues, has an inverted business model. The players—not the coaches and general managers—tend to make far more money. The players are what sell tickets and generate revenue and fan interest, far more so than any coach does. And the majority of NFL players are black. In a sense, they possess the economic power within the league, and that strikes me as being far more relevant than the guys wearing headsets on the sidelines.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that suggests NFL owners are themselves racist when it comes to coaching hires. That was not the case in generations past, when many NFL owners resisted even having black players. Institutional racism was common in most professional sports through the 1960s. But that is not the case today, and it's completely irrational to hold today's owners responsible for past sins.

If you're looking for a factor that contributes to certain qualified coaches not getting jobs, consider specialization. Football, unlike say basketball, is a sport built on highly specialized talents and systems. What works for one team does not necessarily work for another. Teams often don't hire the best coach available—black or white—but the coach that best fits a particular system or need. Take Green Bay for example. When Ray Rhodes was fired after one season, some claimed it was because Rhodes was black. In fact, the decision had more to do with preserving Green Bay's traditional offensive system, which management felt changed too drastically under Rhodes. Rhodes was replaced with Mike Sherman, a former Green Bay assistant who on paper looked less qualified than Rhodes. But the move worked, and Green Bay is now near the top of the NFL standings. This doesn't mean Rhodes was a bad coach; it just meant he didn't meet the particular needs of Green Bay at the time.

Football coaches are themselves specialists, with most earning their credentials as offensive or defensive coordinators. This can work against you when you apply for a head coaching job with a team looking to go the other way. Last year Marvin Lewis was nearly offered the Tampa Bay head coaching job before ownership vetoed the deal. The issue wasn't Lewis' race or qualifications, but his specialty. Lewis is a defensive coach. Tampa Bay wanted an offensive specialist, so they went out and hired Jon Gruden. You can argue whether Tampa made the right call, but you cannot reasonably attribute their decision to skin color.

If there is a race problem in the NFL, it's one that originates with the media writers who insist on making race a factor in coaching decisions. Michael Wilbon, a veteran columnist for the Washington Post, is the most frightening example of this. In 2000, when Washington dumped head coach Norv Turner and promoted black assistant Terry Robiskie to be interim coach (a promotion that came after Ray Rhodes, the defensive coordinator, turned it down), Wilbon openly stated that the Redskin players would play harder for Robiskie than Turner, because Robiskie was black and the team would have a vested racial interest in seeing him succeed. That prediction was quickly disproven by Washington's anemic 1-2 finish.

Wilbon's comments amounted to pure tribalism. His theory was that players thought of themselves first as the member of a racial group, not as fully-realized individuals seeking to accomplish a goal in a team setting. This is not the first time Wilbon has made that suggestion. In a column last year on Tiger Woods, Wilbon dismissed any talk of Woods being judged as an individual; Wilbon said Woods would always be viewed by the outside world as a black athlete, and Woods would have to accept that role as fate. Indeed, if Woods were to accept this fate, he would richly deserve the label of "black athlete." But to his credit, the world's top professional golfer continues to operate as an individual unshackled by the burdens of tribal chieftains like Wilbon.

When all is said and done, I do hope Marvin Lewis and Dennis Green return to the NFL as head coaches. But I want their returns to be on the merits and in the right situations, not as the result of pandering to self-proclaimed media. Lewis has made it clear that he'll accept a job on his terms, not because he sees himself as a symbol of racial progress. That belief alone makes me think Lewis is more than ready to take over an NFL team and lead it to a Super Bowl.[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 09:44 AM']Thurgood Marshall....... His presentation of the argument against the "separate but equal" doctrine achieved its greatest impact with the landmark decision handed down in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). His appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1961 was opposed by some Southern senators and was not confirmed until 1962. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him to the Supreme Court two years later; he was the first black to sit on the high court, where he consistently supported the position taken by those challenging discrimination based on race or sex, opposed the death penalty, and supported the rights of criminal defendants. His support for affirmative action led to his strong dissent in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). As appointments by Presidents Nixon and Reagan changed the outlook of the Court, Marshall found himself increasingly in the minority; in retirement he was outspoken in his criticism of the court...........................................................................
..........
so your point is???????
[right][post="126681"][/post][/right][/quote]

Bengalrick asked if this were imaginable in the 60s. I replied. Thanks for adding the relevant synopsis.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 8 2005, 02:03 PM']Uhm, correct me if im wrong, but didnt Marvin get interviewed in Tampa after Dungy left, before they decided to go with Gruden. Wait no need to Correct me ....
The NFL's Race Problem

[url="http://www.capitalismcenter.org/initium/01-01-03.htm"]http://www.capitalismcenter.org/initium/01-01-03.htm[/url]
[right][post="126884"][/post][/right][/quote]


Very interesting read Jamie B However thats a editorial or a writers opinion from over 2 year ago. I would liked your own opinion better.

[Guest steggyD]

But the opinion makes sense, and besides... That is an organization's decision to make this rule. Self governing is better than big brother's governing.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' date='Aug 8 2005, 03:17 PM']Very interesting read Jamie B   However thats a editorial or a writers opinion from over 2 year ago. I would liked your own opinion better.
[right][post="126895"][/post][/right][/quote]


My own opinion is that while race is still indeed a problem, I personally would be insulted if I was being interviewed just to fit a quota, I agree that Marvin had the credentals, and I also agree with his stance on not being interviewed unless it was a serious offer, seems he might have been insulted too. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 02:17 PM']Very interesting read Jamie B   However thats a editorial or a writers opinion from over 2 year ago. I would liked your own opinion better.
[right][post="126895"][/post][/right][/quote]

he was pointing out that lewis DID recieve an interview (contrary to your point of "[i]For the last time, Marvin Lewis had all the credintials. He was the most celebrated defensive coordinator since Buddy Ryan. After being the architect of a defense that allowed the fewest points in the regular season and dominated the Giants in the Super Bowl, the man couldn't even get an interview for a head coaching job. Right after the Ravens Super Bowl win, Tampa Bay hired John Gruden, and Buffalo hired Greg Williams. Marvin didn't even get a chance to interview for the Buffalo job."[/i]

i see you only mentioned buffalo as the team that didn't interview but marvin DID recieve an interview and it sounds like he almost got it <thanks God he didn't>

[i]Football coaches are themselves specialists, with most earning their credentials as offensive or defensive coordinators. This can work against you when you apply for a head coaching job with a team looking to go the other way. [b]Last year Marvin Lewis was nearly offered the Tampa Bay head coaching job before ownership vetoed the deal. The issue wasn't Lewis' race or qualifications, but his specialty[/b]. Lewis is a defensive coach. Tampa Bay wanted an offensive specialist, so they went out and hired Jon Gruden. You can argue whether Tampa made the right call, but you cannot reasonably attribute their decision to skin color. [/i] - taken from jaime's post...

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 8 2005, 02:27 PM']he was pointing out that lewis DID recieve an interview (contrary to your point of "[i]For the last time, Marvin Lewis had all the credintials. He was the most celebrated defensive coordinator since Buddy Ryan. After being the architect of a defense that allowed the fewest points in the regular season and dominated the Giants in the Super Bowl, the man couldn't even get an interview for a head coaching job. Right after the Ravens Super Bowl win, Tampa Bay hired John Gruden, and Buffalo hired Greg Williams. Marvin didn't even get a chance to interview for the Buffalo job."[/i]

i see you only mentioned buffalo as the team that didn't interview but marvin DID recieve an interview and it sounds like he almost got it <thanks God he didn't>

[i]Football coaches are themselves specialists, with most earning their credentials as offensive or defensive coordinators. This can work against you when you apply for a head coaching job with a team looking to go the other way. [b]Last year Marvin Lewis was nearly offered the Tampa Bay head coaching job before ownership vetoed the deal. The issue wasn't Lewis' race or qualifications, but his specialty[/b]. Lewis is a defensive coach. Tampa Bay wanted an offensive specialist, so they went out and hired Jon Gruden. You can argue whether Tampa made the right call, but you cannot reasonably attribute their decision to skin color. [/i] - taken from jaime's post...
[right][post="126910"][/post][/right][/quote]

Ok, since we all want to use links and editorials now, lets try this one.

From Tony Dungy about Marvin Lewis. This quote came just 10 days removed of Lewis leading the Ravens defense to a title.

[url="http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0202/1057834.html"]http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0202/1057834.html[/url]


and oh by the way, I was wrong about him not being interviewed in Buffalo, it was the only one he got.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' date='Aug 8 2005, 03:56 PM']Ok, since we all want to use links and editorials now, lets try this one.

From Tony Dungy about Marvin Lewis. This quote came just 10 days removed of Lewis leading the Ravens defense to a title.

[url="http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0202/1057834.html"]http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0202/1057834.html[/url]
and oh by the way, I was wrong about him not being interviewed in Buffalo, it was the only one he got.
[right][post="126936"][/post][/right][/quote]


Im missing something or not following you here, the buffolo interview was only one he got?? Marvin was nearly highered in Tampa.

[Guest oldschooler]

Stealing a post by BengalBacker...

The President addresses the nation.
Some excerpts:
to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.


[url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]Click Here[/url]

[Guest BengalBacker]

I love that speech.

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 8 2005, 09:00 AM']2. If Saddam did have weapons of mass destructions, Im sure the US would have known because the Reagan administation supplied him with it during the Iran-Iraq war.
[right][post="126685"][/post][/right][/quote]



I tried to find this post earlier...that I had made awhile back...
But my twins wouldn`t let me earlier ...


Don’t pass the line of bullshit that the US sold them the chemical weapons used against the Kurds. Iraq bought its weapons from the Soviet Union and the PRC - the US sold Iraq agricultural implements. Iraq’s chemical weapons factories have been linked our friends in Old Europe. The Federation of American Scientists has more on the real history of the Iraqi CW program.

[b]Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program[/b]
[url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html"]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html[/url]

[b]Chemical Weapons Programs: History[/b]

[url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm"]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm[/url]

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 7 2005, 04:47 PM'] NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BJ....say it isn't so. Someone has framed Black Jesus!!!!!
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//20.gif[/img]   But BJ was my role model????
I wont hold against him, we have all said some dumb shit in the past.....right???
I'm sure BJ, has seen the light now, and is a better man for it.
INTELLECTUAL LIBERAL FOR LIFE AND PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!
F--K BUSH.
F--K THE GOP.
F--K THE RACIST, NAZI- FACIST REPUBLICANS POSING AS AMERICANS.
GOD BLESS BLACK JESUS.
GOD BLESS MICHEAL MOORE.
AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!
[right][post="126365"][/post][/right][/quote]

sneaky, I was starting to like you also until that Michael Moore comment. Even though he has done some good digging, he has his motives also which are not entirely pure. He gets a big in my book.

BJ is great for a forum because he actually makes people think. You HAVE to examine each and every possibility before coming to a conclusion IMO. Even though I don't agree with a large portions of BJ's beleifs, especially religion, you certainly cannot automatically discount them.