chicot

Clinton was a bit of an amateur compared to Berlusconi.

Or an Italian politician, in which case he could say or do whatever the hell he pleased, never apologize for anything and still get re-elected.

She probably was a bigot but it's important not to alienate the bigot vote. Brown made it far worse with his reaction after being caught out - being filmed with his head in his hands was not a great idea. He should simply have said that he spoke in the heat of the moment, apologised for any offence given and moved on. Going back to her house with the accompanying media scrum was daft and just drew even more attention to the issue. If you're in a hole, stop digging. None of this is likely, however, to affect the outcome - in all probability, a hung parliament with no overall majority for any party.

Hmmm...I must have missed that interception being returned for a game-winning td then. There is an unbelievable amount of bs going on to do with that interception - worst interception ever..., blah, blah, blah. Don't get me wrong - it was a stupid decision but as interceptions go it was far from being the worst as the limited time meant the Saints had no opportunity to take advantage of it. The interception did not lose the game - it denied the Vikings a chance at winning the game in regular time but it certainly did not lose the game - the Vikings still could have stopped the Saints in OT and won. Even if Favre hadn't thrown that interception there is absolutely no guarantee the Vikings would have gone on to get a field goal there. There are plenty of things that lost the Vikings the game - the turnovers, the fact that Childress did a Jauron and went ultra-conservative as soon as the Vikings were on the edge of field-goal range, dubious calls etc... To single out that interception as the deciding factor is daft.

So you really think he's looks the same player now that he did before the concussion? Certainly, he was no Joe Montana before it, but, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I thought he looked like he was developing into a very good qb. As I remember it, he was fast, decisive and accurate. It would be snap, look, completion. On the (admittedly few) occasions, he threw the deep ball it was usually on target. I don't remember him checking down that much. Sure he did on occasions, but only as a last resort. Even rentaquote himself, Whitner, said that with him on the field the defence could sit back and relax since they knew he'd get the job done. Compare that to the way he looks now. He seems to take an absolute age to release the ball, staring down one receiver all the time. He checks down way too much and his deep balls are horribly inaccurate. I don't believe (as some would say) that it is all do with his hot streak coinciding with the Bills playing crappy teams or that it's all down to defences knowing his tendencies. Receivers do still get open but he just can't find them like he used to. I don't know what exactly has happened to him - whether it's the concussion, bad coaching, poor offensive line play etc... but he's a fraction of the player he was. Maybe a decent coach would be able to salvage something there but I think his time in Buffalo is done and it's best for both parties that he moves on.

Better late than never.

Yes, some do. However, most overweight people are that way because they eat too much and exercise too little.

I don't think Edwards is being coached into repeatedly going to checkdowns but, then again, he's not being coached out of it either. A decent coach would make it clear to him that checking down all the time is not acceptable and that if he didn't snap out of it he would find himself benched.

One thing that everyone seems to be forgetting is that Fitz hasn't had to work with the completely ineffective no-huddle offense. Before he left the game last week Edwards was 5/5.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. He did have good games after the hit. It's clear that his confidence is shot. From what I remember from his best games, he'd get rid of the ball, on target, in a hurry. It would be look, bang, completion. I just don't see that nowadays. He seems to stare down the receiver and take ages to get his passes away. Sure other things have changed - the offensive line is worse, different oc, opposing coaches can gameplan for him etc... but I don't believe it's all down to that. I still think Trent could be a good qb in this league but it would take a decent coach to get him out of his funk. He needs someone to tell him to stop checking down, throw the ball and not worry about interceptions. Someone who will get him to believe in his ability again. Sadly, Jauron is just not that guy. In fact, he's probably quite happy with the ultracautious approach.

And the Palestinian involvement in 9/11 was what?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so there's no inconsistency with that example at least.

1) I brought up the fact that Al-Qaeda has been killing Iraqi shiites by the thousand. IMHO this is directly relevant since Iran is an overwhelmingly shiite nation and the relationship between Al-Qaeda and shiite muslims is of relevance if you're going to talk about Iran somehow passing on an atom bomb to Al-Qaeda. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of an Iranian Republican Guard presence in Iraq is to this question. 2) What I mean is that I fail to see how anyone, knowing the attitude of Al-Qaeda towards shiite muslims, can make a coherent argument that Iran is somehow going to spend all this time, effort and money on developing the bomb and then just hand it over to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda represents and is made up of, an extreme branch of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as heretics. As I said, thousands of Iraqi Shiites have been slaughtered by Al-Qaeda. On several occasions, they have targetted Iranian pilgrims in Iraq and yet we are somehow to believe that Iran would be on such friendly terms with them that they would supply them with atomic weapons?! 3) Well, what exactly is the real worry. Israel? It has a very large nuclear arsenal of it's own to defend itself with so I wouldn't worry too much on it's behalf. 4) "Chicot" was a character in a Dumas (of 3 Musketeers fame) novel. Where does "Swede316" come from? On a more general theme, I think this idea that Iran is going to just pass on atomic weapons to even friendly groups is doubtful. It just doesn't make sense that they would spend so much time, money and effort developing these weapons and then pass them on to a third-party that they don't have full control over. The risk of dire consequences would be far too high. So they support Hamas and Hizbollah? So what. How many nuclear nations have supplied conventional arms to groups? How many have supplied these same groups with atomic weapons? The US didn't start supplying atomic weapons to the Contras, despite aiding them in numerous other ways. I suppose the answer to this is that Iran is somehow different, that conventional wisdom and common sense doesn't work when predicting their behaviour ...etc I don't buy that. I don't see any real evidence that the Iranian regime has a deathwish. In fact, if you ignore the rhetoric and examine what it actually does, it's actually pretty cautious and pragmatic. I really do not believe it's going to launch an atomic attack on Israel knowing that the response would be absolutely devastating. It won't supply atomic weapons to others for much the same reason. Look, I'd be happier if nuclear weapons were never invented and no nations had them but the fact is they have been. We can't turn back the clock and unmake them. Like it or not, plenty of places we may regard as unstable will eventually acquire nuclear technology and there's not really much that can be done to stop them. People said that India and Pakistan getting the bomb would lead to armaggedon. It didn't. North Korea getting the bomb was supposed to be the end of the world. It wasn't. If and when Iran gets atomic weapons, it won't lead to the end of the world either.

Nice post. High on insults, low on substance. Taking your dumbass questions one by one: 1) What has this got to do with anything? 2) Bah. You know this how? You read it in a paper or saw it on the internet? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, just perhaps, not everything you read is GUARANTEED 100% FACT? Anyone who knows anything at all about the region will tell you that the chances of Iran giving Al-Qaeda an atomic weapon (they'll have so many they'll be handing them out like jellybabies) is non-existent. 3) Firstly, how do you know that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have given the green light for anything? Secondly, why should they being afraid of Iran be of so much concern to you. I thought your worry was Israel (why do so many people find the spelling of this so difficult?) not the Arab states.

Yes, I'm sure the Iranians (Shiite muslims) would give the bomb to Al Qaeda (fanatical Sunnis responsible for killing thousands of Shiites in Iraq) As for the reason that the US used the bomb on Japan. Yes, your reason is the nice, cuddly justification but I don't doubt there were other less worthy reasons as well such as demonstrating the military might of the US to the rest of the world (and especially the Soviet Union).

Thank you Nostradamus. The cold hard fact is that only one country has ever actually used atomic weapons and the irony is that the very same country is the one lecturing this or that country that it is too irresponsible, warlike, (insert justification here) to possess the bomb. If you'd step back for a minute you might realise the absurdity of the situation (though I somewhat doubt it).

I'll admit that the election result looks more than a little dodgy but my original statement still stands. There's more of a debate in Iran than there is Saudi Arabia or Kuwait for example.

Iran is actually more democratic than several of the US's so-called friends in the region (not that that's saying all that much).

Flightless Antarctic waterfowl

Who are these 39 million people of which you speak?

I think Saddam actually went one better and got 100% of the vote on a 100% turnout My point was that saying that this or that country has "elections" proves little by itself.

Iraq under Saddam had elections.

Most of them come from the US.

Find a post of mine where I ever advocated genocide. You won't. Find a post where I referred to Islam as the "religion of peace". You won't. Both of your points have zero merit.

Ah, preaching genocide again. Nice to see that some things don't change.