jjamie12

I have a buddy here in Ithaca, NY that goes to the Business School at Cornell with me. He's a black fellow, about 6'3" 250 lbs... Needless to say, he sticks out like a sore thumb here. He is a graduate of Colgate University, and is a really great guy; fun, good-natured and good-hearted... He's also fabulously wealthy. He's a co-owner of a venture capital firm that has something like $100 million under management. Anyhow... He drives some type of Jaguar. Now, I'm no gearhead, and don't know what the name of this particular vehicle is, but I CAN tell you that this is a very, very, nice ride. In any case, he's been in Ithaca since September and has been pulled over 4 times. He's never been issued a ticket. He's been pulled over because he was 'driving too slow' and because he 'looked lost'. Of course, the first thing that the police officers do when they get to the window is to ask the question, "Who's car is this?" which is surprising because if someone looked lost, I would probably ask them if they needed directions or something. Anyway, I don't think that their concern was the 'slow driving' or the 'lost lookingness' of this guy. The problem with what you're saying (and the point of this story), SilverNRed, is that it doesn't take an 'America full of racists' to persecute Blacks or Indians or Philipinos or whomever... All it takes is a few people here and there, (maybe without them even knowing it) doing things like I've brought up in my two anecdotal examples, and a larger group of people that either don't or won't see the problems that this (relatively) small amount of people cause... Instead, they spend time on message boards, saying that the problems are minimal, Black people being poor is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and generally minimizing the difficulties that Black people have to deal with in these United States. I happen to agree with you on one thing... I think that people like Rev.'s Sharpton and Jackson have probably done more harm than good for their people by playing racial politics in cases where there probably was no race case to be made. However, what you're doing, by minimizing the impact of prejudice, and, to a lesser degree, racism in our society, is just as bad as sensationalizing race problems...

I don't really know... I was only down there for a week, and I really didn't feel like getting to know them much more than that. I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths... I DO know that my in-laws go to a small Catholic Church that had a significant Philipino population, probably around 30% or so... There were some problems with the white people in the church trying to keep the Philipinos out of leadership positions in the church, and with the typical non-inclusion problems that you might think would exist. It is better now, with some different lay leadership in that church, the most vocal of the 'discriminators' have stopped being vocal (I'm pretty sure they still feel the same way, obviously) and/or left the church.

I was in Florida last week on vacation and went skeet shooting with my Father-in-law. He and a group of about 12 guys get together every Thursday for a shooting 'league'. Well, there happened to be another new guy (he was from Fort Pierce, Florida) shooting, as well. As he finished up a round (he shot extremely well), one of the guys felt comfortable enough to say, within earshot of everyone in the group "That's how you shoot them ni@#$rs down in Fort Pierce, in't it!?" Most of the group had a real good laugh at that...

I always get a little chuckle when people / analysts say this... Isn't this true about every QB who ever played? They don't do as well when they get smacked around a little bit?!?!? Of course Manning doesn't play as well when he gets beaten up... Nobody does.

...

The K-Gun WAS named for Keith McKellar, fyi, so he most assuredly was not joking.

Not a good date, indeed. I actually had been around since 1999, but for some reason, my login got messed up, and I had to switch. I was working in NYC then (24th and Madison) and logged in to try and see what was going on, and to see if I could get a message somehow to my parents or friends... Not good times...

I've seen this (or some other derivative of this) posted by you numerous times, but I have never heard what your thoughts are on how schools *should* be run. Was interested to know what your ideas were...

I think the punishments were justified. What I don't understand is how the Pistons (as a club) aren't being punished... At the very least, I would think that they would have to play one game without any fans at the game.

Maybe because, while it might be 'fun' for you to watch the new kid get some experience, it isn't an 'obvious' choice. NFL history is littered with 1st round 'can't miss' QB's who were thrust into situations before they were ready, and it killed them. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, these guys know what they are doing, and don't want to rush Losman, for any number of reasons.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I'm not going to call you an idiot, I'm just going to say that what you said was idiotic. You can find something called the 'expected runs matrix' here: Expected Runs This tells you how many runs a team can expect to score given a base-out situation. From this chart you can see that a team can expect to score .46 runs in an inning when there are 0 outs and no one on. Further, a team can expect to score .81 runs in the 0 out, runner on first situation. Now... You would rather have Barry lead off with a homerun, than walk him. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding baseball. In the situation where Barry hits a homerun to lead off an inning, you could expect the Giants to score 1.46 runs (Barry's homer and then the .46 runs expected given the base-out situation). If you walk him (runner on first, o out), you could expect the Giants to score .81 runs. Tell me again how 1.46 is < .81? Without even bringing this table into consideration, your statement makes ZERO sense, baseball or otherwise. Say Bonds hits a homerun. Giants are guaranteed to score 1 run, for sure. If Barry walks, the Giants still don't have any runs, and aren't guaranteed to get any. You would rather guarantee that the Giants score a run, than have a chance to not give up any??? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you the chance to backtrack from the quote above. I could accept that you just had a 'McCarverism', and meant something other than what you said. Please tell me you meant something other than what you said. Really.

Roughly 50% of new marriages end in divorce. People are able to get married 3,4,5, 10 times in their life. People can (and do) get married, and have it anulled within 48 hours. Marriage is sacred? Tell that to the guys who are cheating on their wives. Tell that to the wives cheating on their husbands. Tell that to the husbands cheating on their wives with the pool boy!!! What, exactly, is sacred about marriage? That the only qualifying factor is that it includes a man and a woman? who aren't related? who aren't married to someone else? I think you're really missing the boat on the people to whom you should be targeting with your 'keep marriage sacred' point of view. Marriage is only sacred when the two individuals who are involved MAKE it sacred. 100 years from now, our great grand-children are going to look back on this and think we were idiots because we refuse to let two guys get insurance together, all in the name of protecting the sacred ability of Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez to marry whomever they want, as many times as they want.

So then, it's safe to assume that, if you were able to, you would ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance?

I'll look into that. Thanks for the suggestion.

Exactly... YOU think. Other people think differently. You're entitled to your opinion, shouldn't others be entitled to theirs? After all there is only one true judge, rigth? And isn't His punishment going to be worse than anything you can come up with? Good, then we agree. You've come up with your own problem... What do you think about 'the pill'? From my understanding about how 'the pill' works, a woman can actually get pregnant (egg fertilized, implanted in the womb), but 'the pill' tricks the body (thru hormones) into menstrating; in effect, 'aborting' that child... Would you ban 'the pill'? If not, why is that collection of cells not life, but a one month old fetus is? Where to draw the line, indeed... (Note: I may be wrong about what 'the pill' does, but this is my understanding of how it works... If I am wrong, anyone, please chime in and tell me) Reasonable people do NOT make this argument. There is no argument to be made for 'beating' children. None. A spanking? Sure. Some people think that's effective, others don't, and BOTH of those people are free to parent their children in their own way. You keep calling it a baby. Other people don't call it that. Are you right? I'm sure that you believe that you are. I am equally sure, however, that 'other' people think that they are right as well.

For me, what separates it is pretty clear. Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree). Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb. I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them. Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not. I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'. That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong.

That's crap, and you know it. If Kerry would have pulled it out, someone could be saying the same thing about the "elitist, liberal, Northeast". We are one country, and the people of the country have spoken, however much I may not like the decision, making comments like this only prove partisanship, and really serve only to divide. Like it or not, the people in the 'Bible Belt' have their way of looking at things. Reasonable people can disagree about the direction of the country without resorting to wishing a portion of the country not belong to the rest.

Not racist. Prejudiced. Go Sox.

Do you believe that anyone who is not Catholic is going to hell? Or, rather, do you belive that anyone who doesn't follow 'the rules' of Catholicism is going to hell?

But you just did it wonderfully, BIB. I don't think it's too much to ask the President to be as good at that as somebody who posts on twobillsdrive.com, do you?? I agree that the public is used to their info in small doses, and soundbites, however, is that because that's all we get, or because we aren't able to process the information? I just think that the President should be able to articulate the plan. In truth, the public (of the US, and the world, actually) were ready to get behind the President and pretty much do whatever it was that he wanted to. He could have gotten up before the world and talked about root causes of terrorism, and express how important it is to have a democratic stronghold in the Middle East to give people hope AND to help stop the proliferation of WMD's, by going in and getting rid of a murderous dictator who ruthlessly kills his own people, has started wars in the past, and who continued to have the ability to manufacture these WMD's at some point in the future. I really believe people would have rallied to that... But that's not what they did. They framed it completely as a "He's going to kill us, and kill us soon.", which turned out to be completely (? I don't presume to know FOR SURE that this part is true, but it would seem so) false. If they framed this invasion differently, and explained themselves differently, I really believe it's a completely different situation, and you have much more support throughout the world, and more importantly, at home. The danger, in my opinion, is that we swing too far the other way, (and that's why I'm torn over who to vote for in this case...) and abandon what would seem to be good policy because that policy was articulated in such a piss poor way that people don't really know what we're doing there. They told us it was WMD. There are no WMD (with the caveat that I don't know that for sure), so it would seem that the policy is a failure... Except that it isn't the real policy... I agree as well, but if that "reason" turned out to be wrong (or, at least, is perceived to be wrong), there should have been something else to fall back on as a "reason", right? I think it was a big political miscalculation, if you believe that this is all part of a larger strategy, rather than they actually believed that Saddam had WMD pointed at us, or was ready to sell them to terrorists. If that's what they believed, then it's just a muck-up. If they had explained it properly, it's not a big deal that there are no WMD, because that wasn't necessarily the only reason to go there (which is true, and always was, just not used as part of the discussion and NEEDED to be in order for all of the things that they are saying now about bringing democracy and doing it for human rights reasons to be taken seriously). They framed it this way, and have to deal with the consequences of that framing instead of doing other things that might be more productive... I guess I just don't understand why they didn't, at the least, *try* to frame it your way. I think it was a real big political mistake (they are obviously dealing with the ramifications of that now), and I fear that it's going to be a real big mistake strategically. Baically, what I'm saying is this: Why not BIB for National Security Advisor!?!?! EDIT: Then again, I just looked at the front page, and we have a thread that is four pages long with the title "Vote for John Kerry and Parapalegics will walk again", so maybe you're right that we're too stupid (or blinded by partisanship) to understand the intricacies of global foreign policy.

This is where I have a hard time voting in this election. I *think* that this administration is operating under your above scenario, and I think it is sound strategy. However, that's not what they say, is it? I've never heard them articulate anything close to what you've just laid out for us. The things we hear are: 1. Saddam has stockpiles of WMD, and is an imminent threat, then 2. Saddam has stockpiles of WMD, and will give them to terrorists, then 3. Saddam was a brutal dictator, and needed to be ousted, even if 1 and 2 were not true, then 4. Saddam had the capability of re-constituting a WMD program in the future, at some unspecified date, so he had to go, even if 1 and 2 weren't true. If they really believed that Iraq has all of the importance strategically (militarily, economically, and geographically) that you say it does (and I think that it does), why don't they articulate this view of foreign policy to the people? Why do they constantly make themselves look silly with all of that 1-4 stuff? It seems that there are two options, none of which is appealing in my eyes: 1. They really believed 1 (and 2,3 and 4 are just spin after the fact), and got 1,000 of our boys killed (and 10s of 1,000's of Iraqi civilians killed) on a mistake OR 2. They didn't really believe 1 (and by extension 2,3 or 4 after the fact), they actually have the foriegn policy of the above statement by BIB, and lied to the people because they didn't think that they would support it. Now, if it's the former, that's definitely something to lose your job over. If it's the latter, it's also probably something you should lose your job over, BUT, it seems like the actual strategy is sound, it's just the execution of the strategy which is wrong. I tend to think it's the latter, but I can't know for sure, because they articulate the first message, not the second. Thoughts?

Marques is real quick and can shoot the three with alot of effectiveness when he's taking them within the flow and context of the offense. Excellent penetration skills lead to alot of open buckets for teammates. Good college defender for his size but (in my opinion) will struggle a little more on D in the pro game with bigger and stronger bodies as well as there being more flexibility within offensive schemes. Not what you would call an outspoken-type leader, or someone whom other people really gravitate to. Kind of sticks to himself, but plays real hard all the time, and is really fun to watch. A really unique and special player... If you get the chance go watch him play, you (most likely) won't be dissappointed.

Gotcha... sorry about that... you were agreeing with me, and I read it the wrong way! Nothing like trying to win an argument that you aren't having, eh??????!?!?!

My opinion? Brady is not the most talented QB in the NFL or even close to it. He still can't throw the medium to deep ball (not the downfield pass, the intermediate ranges 10-12-15 yards) very well He is, however, among the best at running the system that he was given... I don't think you can even question that one anymore. Other QB's have more talent, but isn't the bottom line scoring points? You don't score points based on talent, you score them based on executing each play that is sent in, in the manner that it was drawn up. Would he succeed in the West Coast offense, or some other scheme that put a premium on precision and intermediate routes? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. But we don't know that, do we? We only know how he performs in the offense that is given to him. On that account, he gets A's across the board. He RUNS that offense just as well, if not better than, any other QB in the league runs their offense, and you have to place him at or near the top of the league based on that, don't you? As a side note, you really have to hand it to Charlie Weiss, who has designed the perfect offense for the talent that those guys have. There is no better match of scheme and personnel in the league, imo. Simply amazing. Disclaimer: I just threw up in my mouth writing this. I hate them.

I'm confused... are you saying that the safeties did or didn't creep up? Because it sounds like you're saying that they didn't creep up. And if they didn't creep up, then what is the point of throwing it deep to 'keep the safeties from creeping up'? If you meant that the safeties WERE creeping up, and we should be throwing the ball deep (I'm assuming you mean to take a couple of shots long downfield to keep the d honest rather than actually expecting to complete these type of passes... just based on your comments) to keep them from doing so, I think that's a valid way of looking at things. I, however, don't want to see the Bills waste TOO many plays on this type of thing, because I don't really think we have a good enough offense to have that luxury. Once or twice a game? OK, I guess...