Brandon

Neither. They may not be winless, but I think Kansas City is the worst team in the league.

I had DirecTV for the last 9 years until I recently moved. I'm stuck with city cable this season. I wouldn't mind it so bad if there was a little variety, but I get to see the Titans and Cowboys EVERY DAMNED WEEK.

The defense, without question. They gave up touchdowns on the Cards' first three drives, and while yes, that first drive wasn't entirely their fault, the next two (14 plays, 80 yds; 12 plays, 78 yards) can be blamed on no one else. The Cards scored on 7 of their first 8 possessions of the game. They allowed 28 first downs, all but three in the first 40 minutes or so of the game, I believe. Losman? Yeah, he stunk up the 4th quarter (when they were already down 34-17; thanks D), but he also led them to scores on three of the Bills first four possessions with him at QB and 17 points, which is more than they averaged per game last season. No, it seems rather obvious where the blame lies. The defense choked.

You're right, it should not have been close. The Bills actually beat them pretty badly in every way except the scoreboard. They led in total yards 378-247 (and 84 of that latter number was on one play), 25-10 in first downs and had nearly a 10 minute time of possession advantage. The three Bills turnovers were the equalizer and nearly cost them a victory. Otherwise, this probably would've been a blowout.

You're probably right about that. There's no doubt that those who dislike her will twist it to their advantage, as they're already doing.

If Georgia were a member of NATO and if they were attacked by Russia, as the question was hypothetically posed, indeed, the United States would be obligated by the terms of that alliance to come to Georgia's defense in some fashion. This is why we have mutual defense treaties, folks. What exactly should she have said? Screw you guys, we only care about ourselves? I don't like the idea any more than anyone else, but you don't turn your back on an ally. If you start signaling that you won't defend Georgia in that situation, then Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and possibly other European NATO members aren't going to be too pleased with that. The alliance wouldn't be worth the paper its written on. She said the right thing and its the same thing that any other responsible politician would have said. I would fully expect Obama or Biden to give the same answer.

I'm not exactly jumping up and down cheering, but after that cheap shot that Wilfork put on Losman last season, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy.

The AP has an image of the hit he took on the play. Image I admit, I am not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that a knee isn't supposed to bend like that. I would not be surprised if he's out for quite a while.

Oh good grief. They're making an issue of that? Someone is getting pretty damn desperate over there this morning.

Its more prevalent even than that at Palin's age. 1 out of every 41. http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/downsyndrome/l/bldownssyn.htm

Despite the stats, I was never that impressed during his time at Arkansas (I've seen probably 2/3rds of his games). He's very, very inconsistent and wasn't very effective unless he was running a deep route. Even then, he often played like he was 5'10 and not 6'5. He was no Anthony Lucas in college. He wasn't even George Wilson, in spite of what the stats say. In his defense, I will say that the Razorbacks coaching staff never did him or the others any favors. It was an afterthought and what little they had was a simplistic, antiquated joke and certainly did not prepare him for the NFL. Is he worth bringing in? Maybe for the practice squad. He might develop, but he has a long way to go.

No, but does it matter? Do you think it actually helps Obama that his own VP choice endorsed a possible Kerry-McCain ticket only four years ago?

Its not bad for the country. On the other hand, I can't see it as anything but a negative for Obama's campaign that his own VP was endorsing McCain in that spot just four years ago.

Yeah, that doesn't look to good, especially combined with this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473

You can argue purpose all day. The results are basically the same.

The ruling itself placed the reasoning squarely in the corner of self-defense, though. The hunting argument has always been a spin placed on the amendment by anti-gun types in order to justify more and more regulations. Their idea of being pro-gun is to allow everyone to have a musket, the weapon available in the 18th century. Of course, I can only imagine the number of people who would kill or injure themselves with these due to improper loading.

If you applied that same logic evenly, it seems to me that the United States government should ban automobiles, as they kill significantly more people than firearms do in this country every year. Where would you put your bumper sticker?

Agreed. Bloomberg would be a horrible choice. If McCain wants to have a shot at winning this election, he can't afford to further alienate his conservative base. He'll have to choose someone further to the political right than he is, and as you say, that really shouldn't be a problem given McCain's longstanding reputation as a moderate.

That's true, but I don't think that applies to Jindal at all. He's in line with most Republican voters and, as such, won't be offensive to the average moderate. In fact, I think his views would likely be fairly popular among rural and suburban voters in the south, midwest and plains states. That said, I don't think he'll be McCain's choice due to his age and lack of experience. If he chose Jindal, it would negate his ability to attack Obama for the same reason.

I think he's the most likely choice. Pawlenty could help McCain in the upper Midwest, where McCain probably needs the most help. In any event, I would expect that his choice will lean pretty sharply to the conservative side. Another strong possibility seems to be Fred Thompson, who has suddenly reappeared in the last couple of weeks.

Either that, or she's just really pissed off at Obama. Oh well, at least its entertaining.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, in this particular case, it seems to me that if Scott McClellan has no credibility, then there's no story here.

Hypocrisy in action: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/ You gotta love ol' Scott's comments on that situation.

Then what is the main issue?

Perhaps its just me, but isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to only now believe the guy because he tells you what you want to hear? I'm sure that the liberals running around didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth a week ago. IMO, Scott McClellan has absolutely no credibility. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.