Rob's House

It depends on the tax.

That's not necessarily untrue, the problem is that the opposition is even more into all those things, except the bedroom issue which I don't see picking up any mainstream support even within the party. The left may back off the bedroom (except for making me provide them with the bedroom, its furnishings, etc.) but they're awful antsy to get into every other area of my life.

They had one of the best defenses in the league back then and still had an elite O-line. Edit: And Brady wasn't putting up gaudy numbers back then, either. Is there any other argument for keeping Montana out of the top spot?

Harrison hasn't been a factor since 06, Wayne's good but nowhere near what Moss was, and Gronk & Gonzo more than make up for the disappearance of Moss. And it's been a long time since Edge was relevant. I'd probably rank him higher than that, but I do think the Brady crowd chooses to ignore the fact that he's been in the ideal situation ever since taking the reigns in NE.

http://news.yahoo.co...s-politics.html This guy said NATIONALLY that 20 years ago he ran a marathon in around 3 hours. Well it just so happens that his time was actually around 4 hours. How can we trust anything this guy says? Edit: This article was posted right next to the Ryan article on Yahoo. Now we know what to look for. http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/8-words-most-liars-210400115.html 8 Words that Most Liars Use I know he's used these words.

He's actually fairly reasonable on the main board. Politics does funny things to otherwise intelligent people's sensibilities.

You're right about the 9 years; my memory got fuzzy on that one. I should have gone with 7 - It makes my argument work better . As far as the bold part, unless you're looking exclusively at receivers I don't know how you get there. NE's O-line has been one of, if not the single best units in the league year in year out. And since 07 NE's had arguably (almost certainly) better receivers, and with the exception of a year or two under Dungy, Indys D has been mediocre at best. I know it gets repeated ad nauseum, but it's hard to argue that a team that went 11-5 under a guy who hadn't started a game since HS has a solid supporting cast.

I'd take TO over either WR. And I don't think this team would have a even a remote shot at 8-8 but I could see them winning a game or two over the course of a season.

Forgetting for a minute the differences between the bailout of Chryler in the 80s and Obama's "bailout" of GM, can you explain the similarities between Reagan's stimulus and Obama's stimulus?

Fixed

My primary question was how the hell you equate Obama's stimulus to anything Reagan did. And I'm well aware of the Nazis being fascist. Fascism is a close cousin to socialism. We could get into those distinctions if you like, but claiming Fascism is somehow related to private free enterprise capitalism is laughable. They justify the "right-wing" label based on militarism. But again, how is Obama's "stimulus" in any way similar to anything Reagan did?

Explain And BTW, Hitler was a socialist.

I only mention it because the SBs are what everyone rests the Brady's the Greatest argument on. 3 SBs by a FG each, I think it's a valid question. I think Brady's one of the greatest either way. I thought he was very underrated back then. The line on that team was that there was no star on the team. Now we know there were stars and Brady was the biggest star. All the same, it's a tale of 2 careers. Early Brady didn't put up monster numbers, but he won SBs - all under a cloud of controversy. Over the last 8 or 9 years Brady has put up monster numbers, but has been mediocre in the playoffs. During that same time Manning, with less of a supporting cast (I really don't think this is even debatable) has put up equally impressive numbers, has been to as many SBs, and unlike Brady actually won one. It's a testament to the guy that even his detractors concede he's one of the best who ever did it. And when evaluating him overall I don't think Spygate takes much away from him overall. But when you're comparing against the other greats of the game, those subtle distinctions take on a lot more meaning.

Reminds me of Spygate. If Brady didn't have the 3 SBs would we still talk about him this way? Would anyone still say he was better than Manning?

People put too much stock in post-season record when evaluating the QB. He's one position. When One QBs team takes on the other, it's not like either one has any impact on the D the other faces. it's fun for us to look at the rivalry, but it's a game of 22 guys on the field at any time, and not all coaches are created equal. Some guys, like Brady, have one coach their whole careers. Other guys see their coach go to Seattle and have to muddle through the likes of Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman before they finally get a decent coach in the waning days of their careers. How does Marino not get in on this action? He was putting up numbers that would be among league leaders now back in the 80s. And what about Favre. In the late 90s he was the best player in the league and the gap wasn't close. Neither of those guys had much around them. Marino never had a defense or running game around him. He was so good he could single handedly pick most teams apart in the regular season, but come playoff time you're going to come up against some complete teams and if all you have is a great QB you're going to lose, period. No QB is Superman. When Favre had an O-line and a D he won a SB and put his team in position to win another. He had surrounding casts in the early and late stages of his career, when his teams were dominant, but in the middle years he played for some piss poor teams with HORRIBLE coaching that he single handedly carried to .500 or better seasons all but once in his career (not counting the debacle that was his last season in MN when he was all beat up). The fact that I agree with you makes me think perhaps I should reevaluate my position

I've noticed a new meme this year from the (*^*&%^$^#wing of the Democratic party. Call everything you disagree with a lie. No need to support it, just say it with righteous indignation and go hide behind your mommy's skirt like the dickless little B word that she raised.

I know Marv wasn't much of a GM, but I find it sad how little regard this community has for him.

I look at the bottom line, figure 20% and round up to the nearest dollar. Sometimes I throw in an extra dollar or 2 for good measure. It's good karma.

How much was allocated to disaster relief, what is the right amount, & does his plan preclude the government from allocating additional funds if necessary?

I didn't ask.

I must have missed all those years of stacked Indy teams & scrub NE teams. The only year I remember the Colts having a defense they won the SB.

I don't get it. That's the point of what?

He's definitely in the conversation, but the SBs are why people put him up there & he was considered little more than a game manager back then. Since he started putting up Manning-like #s he's also had a Manning-like playoff record. He didn't get enough credit in the SB years & he's gotten too much credit since.

It was never going to work. The Bills were looking for someone that was good & Tank sucked. Just not a good fit there.

I'm all for insurance companies providing birth control, & I'd be fine with Medicaid covering it too, but that in no way makes birth control analogous to viagara. One treats a disorder, the other prevents proper body function. They're not principally similar.