UConn James

Bill Clinton weighs in on the subject... https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/156687_4507381209894_1437041021_n.jpg?dl=1

Wow. This presidency is in a !@#$ing shambles. On the note of the moderators... is it just me, or does anyone else think they should get Watson --- the computer that competed on Jeopardy a couple-few years ago --- to host these things? It becomes more clear every cycle that what we have just doesn't work.

This. If, OTOH, Chan and Buddy are married to Fitz and can't accept that this guy physically just can't make the throws, then !@#$ it --- the baby goes out with the bath water. I mean... the guy isn't willing to throw the ball more than 10 yards. On 2nd and 27 this week, he threw it behind the LOS on the next two passes. Is it a dead arm / Kelly Holcomb thing? Or is he just that erratic? I hope the coach and FO can finally see what we have at QB... what they're paying $10M/year for!!!... and finally get the stones to DO something about quarterback in the draft and not blame it on our slot or whatever. Try SOMETHING else because Fitz ain't it. If Chan does that, he gets more time. If he remains adamant that he can make chicken salad out of chicken stevestojan... I won't be spending $ or time on this team next year. I mowed the lawn on Sunday. And I can find other stuff to do if they're not serious about trying to win and do more than beat the KCs and Clevelands of the league. The OL is now good. Maybe invest more at another guard spot. But we've got a good line that a rookie QB won't die or get gunshy behind. Geni Smith, the kid from Miami-Ohio, whatever. Try something else. Try someone who can physically make ALL THE THROWS an NFL QB needs to make these days. We can't compete with a lame duck.

Dogs are awesome! (Well, MOST dogs, James says, as he looks at his left hand and winces a bit at the scars.)

Fifty to one the team gets switched in pre-production at the insistence of the league.

Exaggerate / lie and flail your arms with the headline and then when totally unable to back up the headline with the facts, you hide behind a weasel word. (In this case, a lame-ass weasel word even among weasel words.) Go stick your head in the oven. You know you want to.

Suffolk polling calling FL, VA and NC for Romney and is discontinuing polling in these states to focus on closer battlegrounds. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/09/suffolk_calls_nc_va_fl_for_romney_will_no_longer_poll_states.html

Seeing as they've done exactly jack stevestojan about China ripping trademarks/copyright... I'd say Team Obama just doesn't know the law, or care to enforce the law.

I get that most guys think about stories like this with their penis. 'If that we're me back in high school... / Lucky kid...." It's what our culture has devolved to. Kids are being sexualized by the media, by record companies, by their own parents. Like the 8-year-old who got killed with the Uzi he was firing a few years back, who was in my nephew's class, kids are just being driven to too much too soon. But don't for a minute think that this story and countless others have no impact on a kid and later life. Across the board, victims of sexual abuse, even the statutory kind, have effects. They are more prone to depression... and what seals the argument for me is that, as learned from a development class from the U, they are IIRC 200% more likely to themselves rape and abuse minors. Victims frequently become offenders, in the cycle of sexual abuse. For many of these kids, the story doesn't stop with teacher convicted and boy got lucky and gets high-fives. Sorry to burst the balloon. They can/will be growing up with warped beliefs that sexual contact with minors is normal. And their victim could be your children --- it could be YOUR 12-year-old daughter that he goes on to molest. Guys need to get out of the mentality that this kid is "lucky" when in reality this kid and others have just been introduced into the cycle of sexual abuse. There is no OK level of abuse, it's not OK if the offender is a woman any more than it boils your blood when it's a guy going after a little girl. It doesn't matter if she's plain. It doesn't matter if she's beautiful. It doesn't matter if she's a cheerleader. It does matter that what she's done will have a lifelong effect in ways that you guys who think only with your penis are totally unaware of. NO abuse is OK. No abuse should just be swept under the rug.

Headline implies that the brawl caused the heart attack. Story later says he was found outside. WTF?

Romney will repeal Obamacare on Day One. He said he would keep some portions of it (possible coverage to 26 on parents' plan, no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) in a new bill that replaces it... that addresses cost controls and kicks much of the heavy lifting to each state so they can craft bills that are tailored to their state's situations --- like they did in Mass. --- rather than the one-size-fits-some that is Obamacare.

Damn. Second to dead last because of stevestojanny cab drivers. I was really rooting for this team. That's just an amazing competitive spirit and kudos to AR for being TOTALLY inclusive to people with disabilities... and then have them show the world that they're more "able" than many. This team had better be offered a slot in the next Second Chances race.

Big Bird is Richer Than Mitt Romney http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/04/Big-Bird-Richer-Than-Romney

Guess who's back? http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2012/10/04/look-whos-back/?xrs=synd_facebook

Except, Barry Bonds hit home runs. He was juiced, of course, but....

Digital over-the-air signal quality is better than cable/satellite because it's uncompressed. ON EDIT: Oh. You're a moron. It's not that I physically cut the cable. "Cutting the cable/cord" is standard lingo for canceling pay-teevee, especially given the subject matter around it in that graf. How do you not know this? I don't really need anything pay-teevee offers.

"Romney's domineering attitude toward Lehrer"? Obama walked all over Lehrer too. "Five seconds" followed by a 1:30 more from Obama ring a bell? Lehrer did a piss-poor job at time management. I also hate how it's like the PDC instructs moderators to chime in with lines like "So, this is an issue where there's a clear difference?" as if people have been too stupid to follow along. I clearly remember Sheiffer doing this four years ago and have seen it in past debates. Do I ask the guy next to me in economy-class whether he's currently flying on an airplane too? I did like how Lehrer allowed them to ask each other a question a couple of times, tho. This mod job was probably a tip of the hat to Lehrer, tho. This is likely his last run.

Dude, better to have someone who you're paying to think you're a schmuck for about 5 seconds before they don't really give a stevestojan anymore as long as they get paid... than to have wifey discover that you said it wasn't a special occasion.

This has been an issue for some time. It's all in the picture for belt-tightening for how public $ are spent. Look, I love PBS. I cut the cable 15 years ago and put up an antenna (I've posted in the consumer forum on this and given advice to several posters here about antenna / OTA / digital switch stuff) and PBS provides a lot of great viewing as networks have mostly churned out crap. I love FRONTLINE, Masterpiece, NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, cooking shows... even Bob Ross as a way to zone out every now and then. My niece loves Curious George and Cat in the Hat and I'll encourage her to watch Cyberchase as she grows up. In other words, they're the go-to stations (I get Boston, Providence and Hartford markets in this overlapping Venn diagram of a location.) But do I think PBS ought to get public tax money? No. And there's some at PBS who feel the same way and are taking the steps with sponsorships to phase out this small part of their budget. IIRC, it's ~ 5% of the PBS budget. There's a woman named Linda Merrilll who just posted on the WGBH (Boston, the flagship PBS station) Facebook page that she used to work at WGBH and loves NPR... but still believes that everything in the federal budget should be up for a haircut, that there's a lot of merch sales (Elmo dolls, anyone?) and corporate and private funding (CPB, Children's Television Workshop, etc.), that it would create more of an incentive for people to pledge when they know it's fully on them the viewers to support what they want to watch and that "Big Bird isn't going to be in the figurative bread line anytime soon." The idea that defunding would break the back of PBS and NPR is coming from someone who doesn't know jack stevestojan. This may have been a great idea back when there were four channels, as a means of encouraging variety and educational shows. But we have the Internet now, we have New Media, we're moving into a different age. Masterpiece just recently partnered with Ralph Lauren. They can do more of this. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set up to handle defunding or phasing out funding very well. It is, and should be, funded by the people watch it with large donations from major funders, large donations from private people, small donations, donations of old cars where the auction proceeds go to PBS, etc. (I've donated several old cars over the years.) There's actually some cogent arguments that defunding PBS would be the best thing for it : http://www.scribd.com/doc/93529835/If-You-Love-Something-Set-It-Free-A-Case-for-Defunding-Public-Broadcasting-Cato-Policy-Analysis-No-697 And, as noted, this doesn't just come from the Right. For a small drop, they can get out of the shadow of government and a vague public impression that tax dollars are enough to keep PBS going (when that's very much not the case) and make viewers more aware that if they don't contribute.... The government shouldn't have to subsidize commercial-free teevee. As said, this is a new age. This is an age of iPad subscriptions and the NYT and the Buffalo News and countless other media sources finally phasing in 'we'll give you X amount for free,' but pay-for-full-access. Again, I HEART PBS. It doesn't need training wheels anymore.

To be fair, some early voting and absentee voting is already happening. And the changes in overseas military absentee ballot requests (IIRC, dev created a thread) are EXTREMELY EXTREMELY suspicious. A decrease of ~90%? Something's going on.

It was to me. It was to Romney. How Obama can call something a "tax cut" when tax revenue is going to stay the same is beyond stupid. Romney said he's going to lower the tax rates for middle income Americans (higher income people will get a reduction, but not as much) and then cut loopholes that people can use. Romney did EXACTLY this in Massachusetts. Loopholes, you know those things that everyone often decries that corporations and "the rich" use to get out of paying taxes, were slashed and the tax code was simplified. (Of course, in the face of this, the Left has called the rate reductions combined with the elimination of loopholes "tax increases" even tho it's revenue neutral... in addition to the hypocrisy that the Left has called for loophole/deductibles reduction for "the rich" time out of mind and never saw a tax increase they didn't like, if they could get away with it.) Obama's charge that Romney isn't giving specifics is crap. What did Obama himself specify four years ago? We have a choice between a guy who's in over his head and can't deliver... and a man who actually accomplished on smaller scales -- with business / macroeconomic experience in the private sector and state government level -- what he promises to do on the national scale. I'll take past performance as an indicator of future success over "hope and change" any day. The details are for the negotiating table, but the rule will be for reducing rates combined with closing loopholes. Again, Obama is taking half of what Romney is proposing and trying to get people to believe it's the whole. This finally became obvious to a lot of people last night. Obama can't define himself and what he's going to do (add in a pinch that what he wants to do is unpopular) so he's trying to deceitfully define Romney.

Still waiting for anything about the supposed $5T tax cut that materialized from Obama's *. Also, nice touch how when Romney said there will be an option in Medicare to EITHER stay with it as it is OR to take a voucher, Obama kept trying to kick the football that a voucher was Romney's ONLY option, when the Ryan plan has been very specific since it was released last year(?) that Medicare users would be allowed to choose. The problem was not an off night for Obama. He tried to define Romney, pigeonhole him and try to make people believe policy proposals that Romney has never championed. He's done this throughout the campaign, and it's worked to a degree. Up on that stage, tho, it was like watching a lame schoolyard bully snarking that Romney wet the bed last night. Debate the actual proposals, Mr. Obama. Don't just make stevestojan up. It makes you look like a moron.

Short answer... because they're !@#$ing stupid. Long answer... because they're REALLY !@#$ing stupid. And they've had plenty of time to get used to the stench of their own hypocrisy.

Where the hell was Obama getting that "$5T tax cut" hooey? I've read extensively and this is the first time I've heard something like this, combined with Romney being literally nonplussed and saying that with five sons, he's learned to not accept the veracity of everything someone says, and the phenomenon of someone saying something over and over in. an effort to get people to believe it's true. Where did O get this... besides out if his own *? I can do it too, tho. What about Obama's $9 gazillion plan to starve the inhabitants of Venus? Seriously, I don't know why Obama had $5T on his brain, but that was a friggin train wreck.