Uh, make that "aren't"Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 30.06.2009 @ 11:22
"This is the story not being told by the White House, the State Department, most of the mainstream press, and liberal blogs who have their panties in a twist and are close to apoplexy because Obama isn’t sending in the Marines to restore the Chavez stooge to power."
You obviously aren'Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 30.06.2009 @ 11:21
t familiar with the story of the "Life, Miracles and Martyrdom of Saint Salvador Allende".
Mike Giles: professional basketball players under 6?4? are extremely rare. Most starting point guards (college or pro) are 6?5? or taller. They just look short standing next to Shaq.
You're confusing the Shooting Guards with the Point Guard's position. Tall point guards are the exception rather then the rule. They simply have to put the ball on the floor too often. Not to mention that they usually have to make their own plays as opposed to having the ball passed in to them.
You are correct about football players- there are a handful in the 5?10? to 6?2? range. Only… those guys can run the 40 in about 4.2 seconds.
Almost all running backs and defensive backs are in the range you stated, dexterity and a lower center of gravity being an advantage among larger, but less mobile players.
I would be surprised if there are more than 10 MLB players under 6 ft.
Bobby Korecky, Arizona Diamondbacks, 5'11"
Augie Ojeda, Arizona Diamondbacks, 5'9"
Kenshin Kawakami, Atlanta Braves, 5'11"
Cesar Izturis, Baltimore Orioles, 5'9"
Brian Roberts, Baltimore Orioles, 5'9"
Travis Denker, Boston Red Sox, 5'9"
Argenis Diaz, Boston Red Sox, 5'11"
Andres Blanco, Chicago Cubs, 5'10"
Aaron Miles, Chicago Cubs, 5'9"
Brent Lillibridge, Chicago White Sox, 5'11"
Bartolo Colon, Chicago White Sox, 5'11'
Tony Abreu, Los Angeles Dodgers, 5'9"
No Brainer. Just check out the Second Basemen, Shortstops and Japanese playersComment Posted By Michael Giles On 30.06.2009 @ 13:27
Busboy33:Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 25.06.2009 @ 08:14
Here is the URL for the original Kaiser survey:
Having read the actual report, I must say that I can find no support for the 89% figure quoted in the National Review article. Perhaps I overlooked it, perhaps they just have their figures wrong.
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGE5OWFjYWU1OWNhOTMxNzAxYzQ1ZDFlMTdhN2QyNzU=Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 24.06.2009 @ 13:17
"Can you give me a link to that poll? I was under the understanding that more than 11% of Americans don’t have healthcare (or have limited healthcare), so that would mean that many Americans are happy without healthcare, and everybody that has healthcare are %100 satisfied with it."
You're making the mistake of assuming that lack of health insurance, equals lack of healthcare. Don't confuse the two.
Here is the link to the poll.Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 24.06.2009 @ 13:09
"According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care." Source
"Are there alot of those same people who are saying “Damn, if only McCain and Palin were in the White House all our troubles would be solved”? I haven’t heard any."
That could be because people who voted for McCain and Palin tend to be those people that don't believe that government (i.e., those people "in the White House") is the answer to solving the majority of our troubles.Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 24.06.2009 @ 13:01
Perhaps the White House is more aware of the POTUS actual popularity, as opposed to what the MSM keeps telling the rest of us. Polls that tell us that 89% of Americans are satisfied with their health care, may be giving Congress pause. Just as indications that Obama's spending spree may not be the "slam dunk" it was thought to be. A real fight to pass legislation may reveal a lack of depth to Obama's "popularity". Which would dispel the "aura of invincibility" supposedly surrounding him. In fact, I think the constant indicators, that Obama himself is far more popular then his policies, may be nothing more then a reluctance of the public to speak badly of him, for obvious reasons.Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 23.06.2009 @ 09:50
Question: if "by law" - and I'm assuming this is law passed by the various state legislatures - the taxpayers are required to pay these gold plated pensions, then "by law" can't those same legislatures make the "gold plating" go away?Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 23.06.2009 @ 09:56
First off, I treat anything reported in the NY Times, with a mountain sized grain of salt. Second, to hear still another repeat of that the old "Halliburton/No bid" canard, is beneath you. By now, it should be well known that only two companies in the world could meet the requirements of the Halliburton contract, and the other company was French. Thirdly, as someone pointed out above about the Marshall Plan; this isn't a question of simply providing the necessaries for getting long established, industrialized, "democracies" back on their feet - it was a question of basically creating everything from scratch. Besides, having witnessed the general waste and incompetence on any given government contract within the US, why should we assume it will better overseas? The country that gave us the "The Big Dig", shouldn't pretended to be unacquainted with "public servants" using wads of cash for toilet tissue.Comment Posted By Michael Giles On 14.12.2008 @ 15:08
Pages (2) :  2