UConn James

That explains why everyone was shocked when he missed. Now you're dredging up the muck to explain that you knew it all along that "Lindell sucks." Bobby April must suck, too. This is gut-level reaction, and in reality it's moot. We needed a TD & 2-point conversion there to have any chance at OT once Manning got it back. Our O can't move the ball well; that is what lost the game.

Don't tell me what I know and don't know. Lindell had problems when he first arrived. And, like one of his magic tricks, when Dorenbos was released somehow Lindell instantly got better, regularly hitting even on 50-plus for the past two years. It was one fuggin' kick.

Every kick is a pressure kick. Your argument is crap.

Calling for his head? In Bizarro-World, maybe. Lindell is one solid guy that we do have. It was one kick.

I think McGee has been playing Harrison; Nate has Utect. Why? Who knows, but that's how our "Franchise Player" has been used all season.

C'mon, Bobby! Do a fake onside!

Man, the 69ers got PLAYED by Jennings' agent.

We are reaching new heights of futility. A gift from McGee that gets throw in the garbage by Fairchild.

Terrence!

Oh sh--! They put him in the overhead compartment and forgot to let him out!

If by that you mean slam the playbooks into the nearest garbage barrel and let JP just draw plays on the astroturf in the huddle.... well yeah, that might work better. Fairchild is not running this O well, at all. I won't be saddened when he gets tossed out of town for the second time.

Holy sh--. Almost one half of the game over in an hour.

Indy is doing now what our O had to do just to stay in it. Ball control, long drives. This game will be over, early.

Even with a great punt, we just lost a round in the field position battle.

I think A-Train is showing more in this game so far than Willis did in most of his.

From the point of view of John Q. Taxpayer.... How is any of that my problem, or my fault, to the tune that I have to contribute $16,000 per student who doesn't live w/in 75 miles of me? Cities don't have businesses to tax and rural areas do? How is tying property taxes to education funding "discriminatory"? It's not discrimanatory; that's just one of the bullsh-- words they say to justify dumping even more money when the more money they already have doesn't do anything.

Don't think it's quite right to be putting Whitner in that category. Being arrested for a low-level domestic disturbance (where even if it's simply raised voice, police pretty much have to make an arrest in the name of "zero-tolerence") is far and away from the 52 kinds of crazy the other two guys exhibited. Why should OSU's entire program be blamed for the actions of a few players? Sh--heads are all around in this world, and the number is growing rapidly. Donte's problem is, he found out who should not be his 'girlfriend' the hard way. Does Hallmark make a "Get the F--- Out of My Life, You Crazy C---" card?

Explain how doing what your first sentence suggests will help. In this state, one of the better education systems in the country, the budgets of the cities are (and I'm not drawing this number of of the air) over 5 times that of smaller towns, per student. Cities like Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. still rate poorly in test scores. There comes a point where continuing to pump money into them is a waste; and how is it fair to the kids in the smaller towns --- and no, not all of them affluent, especially here east of the river --- who get so much less and do so much better? No, it is not right to 'give up' on those kids, but keeping it structured like this is crap. I begin to side with those people who propose that education funding should come almost entirely from the city/town taxes rather than the larger state and federal pot, where it is disproportionately spent on schools where the problem is that the kids don't care, and no amount of money will make them do better. You see the stereotypical fat mothers on TV, screaming that the city doesn't spend enough and that's why their kids aren't doing well. That they need new computers and new books and this, that and the other, and you're like .... 'Well, what the f--- happened with all the money you already get?' Does the inner city have some kind of 10,000% markup on Roget's Thesauruses? P.S. I missed several pages, can someone tell me how an abortion thread got on the topic of school funding? Or should I not even ask?

So, tell us, how has this strategy worked for the Dey-twaa Lions? Three years, three picks in the high 1st.... And the only reason Matt Millen still has a job must be compromising photos of the entire Ford family.

Saw parts of Lehrer's speech on his show. Leh-h-har-rer-er / Little Bo Peep.

Like I said.... Jack, even tho he saw Sawyer out there in the post-coital moment, only demanded for the Others to let Kate go.

Seconded. If you follow or sing along with the lyrics, it's epic. The jangles, the drum.... Mick in full-yell "I shouted out 'Who killed the Kennedys?!' when after all, it was you and me."

"Hallelujah" -- Jeff Buckley

They determine that set overall number for every player that they then fill the various skill sets to reach. Haven't gotten Madden since 2003, so that's the latest I'm drawing on (older, different more practical interests, have little time and skill for the new video games that require real investment), but... part of it is a defect in how they program it. The game cannot distinguish that Albright might be a 97 on the long-snapping duties, yet a 56 if you would put him in on the normal OL. They put his number low across the board b/c they don't want him to come up as the best OL when he obviously is not. And LS is such a small # of plays that they just arbitrarily assign it to the best OL you have (in 2003, it was actually Fat Mike, who irl wouldn't be able to bend over even halfway in order to snap). In fact, that's the perfect word for how Madden decides the ratings --- it is absolutely arbitrary.

Outgoing senator considers move Chafee is now mulling changing party affiliation, whether that means becoming an independent or a Democrat. In my mind, as I stated above, the only thing that cost him the election was the ® next to his name --- that it would decide who controlled the senate rules, agenda, chairmanships, etc. He and Whitehouse did not differ so much in their policy ideas/stances. I don't know... There's the mindset that people simply voted, even across party lines, for a corrective change or counterbalance, but that this pendulum will swing back once the perceived problems (Iraq, chiefly) are expected to be resolved with this new congress. But does anyone think this was an indication of a larger-scale disaffection that might prompt a certain chunk of people to permanently shift parties? I think if the Dems can show America any sense that, with control they can bring an end to the Iraq situation and keep a very focused, narrow agenda, they could keep that control. Their problems have come when they try to be everywhere, do everything and get off on unpopular tangents like gun control (heartening that many of the Dems who won this time are pro-gun centrists, i.e. Heath Shuler, Webb, Tester, Casey). 1) Come to some resolution in Iraq. Whatever that is.... 2) Work out the kinks of, and provide more funding for NCLB, seeing if it can be gotten from shifting it from inside the bloated Dept of Educ budget. 3) Roll back the tax refunds in a time of mega-deficits. Cleaning up after the mess will never get you credit or make you friends, but for long-term fiscal stability, it has to be done. They need to reach people about the depth of the problem, which this admin's own GAO comptroller has been jumping up and down about. 4) Do something about health care in a baby-step toward universal coverage to see how it could work on a national scale. Say, nationalized prenatal screening, an adaptation of what Jim Kelly has pushed for in NY. The reason people are scared about Universal Health Care is they don't know if it can work, and hell, even the proponents don't know if it will work here. You can point to Canada's, but they don't have nearly the infrastructure we do, nor as big a problem with insurance companies raising the costs of health care exponentially. Trying it on a very small scale could determine the fiscal feasibility once and for all.