RCow

Bush is pulling out of PA and NJ -- it's not in play. (No, I don't have a link).

Joe Gibbs was 0-5 his first year in Washington. Parcells was 3-12-1 his first year. Bill Belicheck 1991 cle 6 - 10 1992 cle 7 - 9 1993 cle 7 - 9 1994 cle 11- 5 1995 cle 5-11 2000 nwe 5-11 2001 nwe 11- 5

The palpable hysteria of the PPP Republicans today. You can cut the tension with a knife.

Ah, thanks. I think.

Lighten Up, Francis.

George Bush is the country's Kryptonite. No one is safe if he can kill Superman.

If Kerry loses -- Joe Biden If W loses - George Allen or Jeb Bush

1992: "Re-elect President Bush" 2004: "Re-elect President Bush"

Too painfully obvious.

8 minutes into the game: 1. Jets 5 for 7 on 3rd Down 2. Bills 5 penalties for 70 yards

Best friend growing up had season tickets to the NYR. Sabers are second favorite (big fan of Gilbert P) but in the pre-ESPN days it was impossible to see many games on TV.

Most of my family is from Buffalo -- Bills were my first sports team although I grew up in the NYC suburbs (could only see the Bills twice a year when they played the Jets -- and God knows they didn't get many national games). Passion was sealed when I went to school upstate in the late 80s just before the SB run. I "like" the Giants (that is, will usually root from them when I see them on TV) but can't stand the Jets and Islanders/Devils & Yankees - and never spent any energy on the Nets. [ironically, Munson and Mattingly are in my top ten favorite sports stars]. Lived in MD for a while now.

Talk about red herrings . . . your post drips with irony.

1. Bills 2. Mets 3. Knicks 4. Rangers Though on the bright side: Maryland basketball and football have rolled and Red Sox are my second favorite BB team (please no more 10:05PM start times. )

The MI GOP attempt to prosecute Moore for his voter registration stunt is symbolic of the Bush/Cheney adminstration.

Yeah, you think THAT's bad, look at Bob Dole. I'm what a bad soldier, he's a few weeks in Italy and he gets himself blown to pieces. I mean, the guy was just trying to get wounded or wasn't good enough soldier to dodge an artillery attack. Loser. Oh, don't even get me started on George the First, man, the guy got his plane all full of holes the had the temerity to jump out of it. He couldn't even protect the all the other pilots. That goes, too, for those 58,000 guys on the wall and 300K+ wounded who really sucked in Vietnam. Looks like 58K just didn't know "how to get wounded." Yeah, Kerry played it right. Volunteering to go to Vietnam, volunteering for dangerous swift boat duty, then cleverly finding a few ways to get wounded but not maimed. Or perhaps he just didn't know how to correctly play war -- didn't know how get a proper wound or avoid all them bullets and shrapnel altogether.

Time after time after time. I always get a bad feeling when we had to "force" the other team to throw. For years the D has given up 3rd and long over and over again. What is the problem?

I political piece wrapped in historical fragments. No doubt people often mistakenly say we are reliving Vietnam, what they are trying to say is we are in a Quagmire. Vietnam equals Quagmire, but Quagmire doesn't necessarily mean another Vietnam. But Guadacanal is not a very good analogy either. If that's the case we have to equate the whole "War on Terror" with World War II. As many on both sides of the aisle have noted: it ain't same the deal. There isn't a readily identifiable nation, no clear map to victory (i.e., destory the other nation) and there is tremendous disagreement as to how to achieve victory. (yes, there were some strategic and tactical disagreements but they are minor in comparison). This is not anything close to Total War. First, who are these "Historical apologists . . . that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar?" This is simple garbage. Almost no one really believes the US was at fault in 1941 and as many "believe" "American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda." Next, Hardly a "crucial similarity." Japan was "anti-Western" but NOT in the same way as radical Muslim fundamentalism. Then how do you explain Nazi Germany and Facist Italy? Facism was the political ideology of the day NOT an entire cultural phenomenon woven into the fabric of their society. Ah, what about our "ally" in the Soviet Union? WOW. That's deep. "National survival," huh? How many Americans believe this is a war of "national survival?" Sure doesn't feel that way. Again, very profound. How exactly is the Iraq policy akin to terroism and how are we going to "convince 'them' they can't win? "Who" are we bludgeoning in Iraq? Which populations support "them?" Which of Al Quada's tactics are we going to learn and use again them? Car bombs? Hijackings? Suicide attacks? How about strip civil rights and chip away at the Constitution? Oops, sorry, my bad -- were doing that in the US. The difference is easy. It's like after Pearl Harbor we strike them at Midway then turned around and attacked Spain. After all they were facist, totalitarian regime whose demise would "benefit" the world and the Spanish people. Of course, we get a little "stuck" with all the facist guerilla attacks and have a tough time taking on our much more dangerous enemies.

Thanks, ICE -- that settles it. If you're 100% certain that Brady is merely a "system QB" (however you define that) then buftex must be 100% correct.

How can you argue with his record, play and stats over the last 18 games? Who else has had that level of remarkable consistancy? No one. Brady over and over again found the right receiver and threw balls only a few would/could try, let alone make. I saw him make one, maybe two poorly thrown balls (both sailed over the receiver) and one he should not have thrown. I hate to say it but he's on his way to a Hall of Fame-type career.

Quarterback draw.

Could Indy do more to lose?

Since you pulled this "original" post off the internet I'll post someone else's reply. 1. Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... ...because they were already there, having won a bid on a LOGCAP contract in 1992 and started work in the Balkans and his temporary contract award just allowed them to finish what they had started. 2. Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... ..because of the impropriety of awarding a lucrative contract under conditions in which a clear conflict of interest could be said to exist, and then lying about the VP's role in the decision in an effort to distance the administration from the charge. 3. Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... ...for a total cost of roughly $90 billion, 79 day air war, minimal loss of American life, ending a decade of ethnic cleansing in a multi-lateral effort of NATO. 4. Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad... ...because close to $125 billion has already been approved, with $25 billion more being submitted to Congress, coupled with a long-term occupation that could reach as high as $1.5 trillion over the next 5 years. This doesn't take into account the severe depletion of military equipment and manpower and the costs that will be necessary to re-supply both nor the impact on overall American security abroad and readiness to deploy. 5. Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... ... actually NATO imposed it. 6. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... ...because it came at a time when America should have stayed focused on its already-begun war in Afghanistan and the efforts to eliminate al-Qaeda in that region. Our lack of attention has allowed the network to rebuild to unprecedented levels, resulting in a steep increase in worldwide terrorist attacks. 7. Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good... ...because one's religion still doesn't give one the right to commit genocide. 8. Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... ...no one says this is bad, but we were still involved in a war in Afghanistan which we had not finished, not to mention ignoring the worst humanitarian crisis in the world happening in Sudan. 9. Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... ...because NATO discovered it was being used to help Milosevic's forces with communications. 10. Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad.... ...because it has only been a half-hearted effort and not at all effective in stopping terrorists. 11. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... ...because the "felony" in question was lying about something which was no one's business in the first place. 12. Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... ...because he used American forces as stage-props for a political photo opportunity and declared an end to combat operations even as American deaths continued to mount. 13.Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... ...because he was right and new mass graves are being discovered almost daily near Belgrade and Petrovo Selo. 14. Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad... ...because weapons inspectors weren't allowed to complete inspections nor given cooperation by America with whatever alleged intelligence was to be had. 15. Stock market cras hes in 2000 under Clinton - good... ...because it ended an artificial inflation based on tech promises that were too speculative. Thankfully, the overall growth of the Clinton economy saved us from Depression. 16. Recession under Bush - bad... ...because his only solution has been voodoo economics, a tried and failed approach. 17. Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... ...because the US doesn't enter negotiations with self-appointed third parties who are only looking to profit, such as what happened between the US and Sudan, not to mention the fact that Sudan couldn't have delivered anyway. 18. World Trade Center falls under Bush - Bad... ...because he spent the year preceding the attack ignoring distinct warning signs such as intelligence that bin Laden was contemplating using aircraft as weapons, not to mention a total lack of interest in counter-terrorism in not meeting with his own counter-terrorism official. 19. Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... ...because it was a call for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country and for the international community to lend a hand in whatever way they could. 20. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... ...because it was the wrong time and method for doing so. America was still involved in Afghanistan and the focus should have been on the terrorist threat, which even the Bush administration said Iraq didn't pose...before 9/11. 21. Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... ...because Clinton worked through diplomacy and calls for international pressure on Afghanistan's Taliban. 22. Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... ... NO ONE says this is bad, but the job isn't done b/c were fuggin around in Iraq. 23. No mass graves found in Serbia - good... ...because there have been mass graves found in Serbia. [Did you even READ this crap before you posted it?] 24. No WMD found Iraq - bad... ...because that was the entire premise for going to war in the first place and now that it is blown, the administration is backpeddaling and pushing the humanitarian angle. 25. Milosevic not yet convicted - good... ...because his case is still working through a legitimate legal system. 26. Saddam in custody - bad... Who says this? 27. Ah, it's so confusing! Made even moreso by the disingenuous usage of good and bad when describing these events. So which is it? All of Clinton's actions were good, or they were bad but since Clinton did them then so can Bush?

What is your definition of a bust? - A bust gets cut from the team. Denney wasn't cut. - A bust cannot start. Denney could easily start over Kelsey. - A bust cannot beat out higher draft picks. Kelsey has consensus 1st round talent. - A bust isn't worth anywhere near the money he pulls down. I don't see anyone crying about his salary. - A bust doesn't play. No reason to think he won't get at least 40% of playing time. - A bust doesn't contribute. Denney may ably back-up two starters. It's difficult to call a player a bust when coaches essentially consider then 1B and the "starter" 1A. For all we know it's for this week only. Let's see how he performs before he's a declared a bust.

Of course the bill would do no such thing. I'm sure it's all just a "misunderstanding" since most people can't read legislative bills; hey, but what's the harm in a little demogogergy and propaganda?