6 Thoughts
1) It was a good game, both teams played hard.
2) It was a good game, both teams played hard.
3) It was a good game, both teams played hard.
4) It was a good game, both teams played hard.
5) Derrick Stafford sucks.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=53439
6) Been reading a great deal about British parliamentary politics of the 1830s the past couple of months. Basically, you had three guys each trying to create a large enough coalition to install himself as Prime Minister and thus direct policy - especially economic policy, which was the focus of the era, along with the expansion of the voting franchise. Russell, the head of the liberal Whig party, pieced together a coalition of liberal aristocrats, Irish ministers, and radical dissenters. Historical opinion is somewhat divided on whether Russell was a true altruistic reformer, or merely an aristocrat who sought to protect landed interests by promoting moderate reform, thus avoiding what might otherwise have festered in to a more radical revision of the social order. Obama, he is kind of like Russell. Peel was the leader of the conservative Tory party, although he was far more centrist than much of his party, and always existed with them in an uneasy alliance. Because he always lacked a majority in parliament, he had to be centrist enough to attract conservative Whigs, but still appease his radical ultra Tory followers. That is kind of like McCain. Stanley was the third major figure of the era. He was a Whig as a young man, but soon his aristocratic proclivities compelled him to split from the Whigs over the issue of church appropriation in Ireland. Basically, the Whig Russell wanted the income of the Anglican Church, to which Irish Catholic citizens were forced to tithe (Ireland was not an independent nation at this time), to be shared for the education of all Irish, not just Anglican Church members (Ireland was 90% Catholic, 10% Anglican). Stanley couldn't abide by this, feeling it his duty to protect the interests of both the national Anglican Church, as well as his perception of the basic property rights of significantly landed persons or entities. An irascible and combative man by nature, the Whigs were happy to force him out over this issue, whereupon he promptly joined Peel in the Tory party. Soon, however, he and Peel parted ways when Peel began to promote free trade - again, Stanley couldn't abide by landed interests being forced to give up some of their legislative advantages. Stanley formed his own party, essentially, and tried to create a coalition based around a landed protectionist theme, but was never successful during this time, mainly because his combative style had made him so many enemies. In the ensuing decade, he would outlast everyone to become PM three times, but they were short, unsatisfying stays at the top for the same reason. Stanley, he's pretty much The Captain, who in true Stanley-esque style, manages to take political shots at me, Obama, McCain, and Buck Owens in the following comment about our Will i am post:
Dear Dos, Will.i.am did a cool little hip hop number that was considered a valuable tool in getting your Obama elected President of these United States, as it rallied the young as well as the minority vote. You should thank, rather than denigrate, him. John McCain might have won that election if he had a catchy little ditty to promote his cause, but he couldn't get Roy Clark and Buck Owens to come out of retirement since "He Haw" was cancelled. The Captain
Dos responds: "My" Obama?
