John Adams

Government unintended consequences Chapter 12: The War on Drugs.

It's so funny how many sheeple there are. Dow is down 10% and the world is freaking out. But when the Dow recovered 80% in a year on BAD data, people didn't wonder at the irrational behavior.

Don't get me wrong: Flutie was amazing to watch and wanted to win. He worked because that line sucked...but he also made the line bad because he was not able to stand in the pocket . The better teams that concentrated on wide edge rushes made him look terrible. Would I rather have him than all the guys since? Yes. But that's not saying much.

The Bills made the playoffs because the defense was kickass those years. Flutie was a football Dominique Wilkins. Great highlights, mediocre performances. Since Kelly, it's a debate between Flutie and Bledsoe over which was the better Bills QB...but that's not because Flutie was good. He's just better than RJ, Collins, AVP, Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick (who'd I miss?).

Next they'll applaud [insert Iraqi president whose name I can say but not spell here Machmoud Amadinajad].

Isn't this debate proof that you're wrong? The big-government people cornered the "ignoring consequences" market.

It is indeed a Libertarian conundrum. I can't find fault with his position at a logical level, but at the same time, I cannot conceive of a society that would only serve people of a certain race.

Pretty big "Holy ****" moment in science. Not quite at the point of creating life from entirely non-living materials but 1 microstep from it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...d=djemalertNEWS

A couple people had articles yesterday predicting gold-$800 by 2012. The gold-nicks (and most are nudnicks) are always a step away frmo doom. It's how they promote their stocks. The reason the market isn't reacting to good news over the last month is because the market had already priced in this good news in the run-up over the last year. I wouldn't expect that good news will start moving the market up substantially unless it keeps coming into 2011. Not only that, peopel are rightfully anxious about Europe. Spain and Portugal will dwarf Greece's problem.

I call bull ****. (I kid.) My wife and I go to bed once it's over, you know, like sane people.

That's an odd thing. Private businesses regularly exclude based on sex, age, "who you know," income, and even race (let's see me try to join a bunch of minority organizations as white dude). I'm not sure he's so wrong but taking that stance publicly will get him skewered. He lost with that answer because people are too stupid to hear the answer.

I'm not arguing with you--we're riffing on the same idea: The current system is broken because we allow it to be. Dumping even 20% of House incumbents in November would be earth-shattering. I doubt we get as high as 15% though. When push comes to shove, people will pull the lever for the name they know.

The problem is less with the parties (though it resides there too) and more with the people. People love to say there's a problem but then go out and reelect their Congressman again and again and again. I remain skeptical about this mythic bloodletting coming in November. Big deal: a few incumbents lost their primaries. Most of the incumbents are running nearly unopposed in November and will win in landslides. Sure, 10% in the House may lose but that's not different than most even years.

If they do, we have the power to deal with them too. 90+% relection rates in the House. The other guy's Rep is always the problem.

Yes, that is weird. LOST inspires me to want to go to Hawaii. The only big question that it looks like they will answer soon is WTF is the sideways universe about. The "light" may come to light, if you will, when Des goes down the chute. The Jacob/MIB/CJ rules and relationship will probably remain unanswered.

You're obviously wrong. He is the only guy who could win 40+% in either party. If he decides to run as an Independent, he will win. For those who think this will be a bloodletting year for incumbents, see my sig link. 15% challenger wins would be a miracle based on history. Maybe we'll get lucky and see ourselves all the way to a 12% turnover like the great bloodletting of '92. At least we know who to blame!

This happens all the time with all sorts of people. I was just enjoying the rare straight affair. I know nothing about the guy but the fewer incumbents, the better.

Newsflash: A Republican Congressman screwed a woman! http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64H4...pe=politicsNews

Who thinks we're out of the woods? Just because we've clawed back from the precipice from the moment doesn't mean much. As the recent equities rollercoaster indicates, people are still plenty worried.

That's what happens when you go back and insert edits.

I agree that he's shown little disregard for popular opinion and his reelection chances. He's done what he things is best for the country without much care for compromising. (In that vein, he's exactly like his predecessor.)

Probably a kook. Go figure.

Undoubtedly, the corporate structure is indeed different from the spiritual one. Otherwise, people could just sue the Trinity.

What you're missing is this wasn't an announcement: The Vatican didn't say bishops are not accountable to the church. The legal position that the bishops may be employed to a different corporate entity than the Vatican in Italy may well be right. I have no idea about the Catholic church's corporate structure.

Living free and having celebs dying to gobble your knob is being punished far worse than prison? That's nuts.