John Adams

And your support for the "inside" part is?

I like the White House's answers to the questions about it today (not the spaking it earlier gave CBS). "We're not going to talk about it." And they shouldn't. It doesn't matter and is stupid. IF she wants to answer the (dumb) question, she can. Just because your favorite network so aptly describes its anchors does not mean the left has a monopoly on fuglies.

Flutie was not a good QB. He was just better than those who have come after him. Akili Smith may be a better QB than those who succeeded Flutie. And I'm not sure he's better than Bledsoe, though maybe in their Buffalo tenures, Flutie was better than Bledsoe.

That's absurd. The Bills made the playoffs that year because they had the 2nd best ranked defense in the NFL.

She's a lesbian (maybe). Who cares.

She's not as liberal as the left wants or as conservative as the right wants. The President gets to pick the SC Justices. She's eminently qualified and should pass in a breeze but of course, the right will embarrass itself (again) and vote against her almost en masse. Setting up the left to do the same when some future Republican nominates a conservative judge. Isn't this fun?

Peters quit on the Bills after the holdout. With the Eagles, he's just like he was here. A few "Wow" plays a game and a few "Wow, that guy really sucks" plays where his QB gets killed or he takes a false start on 3rd and inches. He's never been consistent enough to earn much respect from me. I would have liked the Bills to keep him because he was certainly better than Bell but he was a PIA and I don't shed tears at his departure. If the Bills get Gaither, that solves the LT problem and we'll have a guy who's younger (maybe the same age?) and better than Peters. Gaither, Levitre, and Wood (if he can recover) would be a nice line to build around for years to come.

Just an FYI consumer tip. God knows how it does it but TiVo recognizes those 63 minute recordings and gets them. The only things it cuts off are live recordings (sports events). For those, I manually tell it to record long.

I see a few people already commented on this but this Bills was a great idea poorly executed. The last thing the Fed needs is Congress poking around in its underpants. Still, having NO ONE poking around in their underpants is kinda ****ty too and I'm not sure I know the better solution. The macroecon guys probably have some suggestions.

Why do we have laws that force kids to go to school in the first place?

Good for them. Some expensive property.

This is one of those times I'm to exhausted to play whack-a-mole. Thank you for handling the mallet.

Obsess on me much?

Exactly. Requiring teachers to get the absurd Masters in Education degree is stupid. Who would you rather teach science? A teacher with a PhD or Masters in Physics or someone with a BS in psychology who has a Masters in Education. Or how about this--just find someone who loves and knows science...maybe someone who worked in the field. Masters in Education is the Masters equivalent of a Communications major. (Sorry Dean or whoever was on OTW defending a communications major as useful.)

Why would you want to argue about "whether" there is a terroristic threat? Do you also want to argue that child rapists are bad? Perhaps the argument departed from the statement "There is no terrorist threat" to the broader topic about how the government is growing/expanding (in people and scope) disproportionately in response to it because that is actually a topic worth discussing and that was Moore's point, however it was taken out of context. Carry on though: You obviously feel it's worthwhile to debate whether there is a terroristic threat.

Let's simplify things for you. The "size" of government has less to do with the bodies in it (though that increases every day) but also something to do with its reach, control, and role in your life. You're for it. Which means you're for bigger government. That's OK. Hypocritical like 99% of modern would-be conservatives but at least own it. And as to Moore's comment, you obviously know what he meant because you are arguing about it. Moore is mostly moron, but on this topic he's kind of right. The terrorist threat was used as a reason to expand government powers disproportionately to the threat. You have no problem with that. I do.

http:/www.cia.gov/secret_shit.html

Allies suck.

Why can't someone put a bomb in their boob just to see what would naturally follow at the airports? But nooooo, all we get are stinky feet. As an aside, my family and I were in Times Square at exactly that intersection 24 hours before the Miracle Grow bomb. When my secretary found out, she said, "Guess you won't be going back there." I replied, "Yup. Be back there in 5 weeks. Exact same spot. With my wife and daughter."

And how in the !@#$ do the cops know this d-bag isn't about to do what the Seles guy did? Of course,, they don't! And that's why they use force to take him down. And why should they put themselves at risk in a fist fight? Bad guy gets tased. Good guy doesn't. That's a best case scenario.

Tell them adios and thanks for not being a drain on the system.

I'm with Tom. Function within the Constitution and do what you can. Guess what: Sometimes the bad guys will bomb you and use your freedoms against you. The right only bitches about government intervention when it's against issues they care about. But when it comes to spying on citizens, gay marriage, etc, suddenly government can do no wrong.

Extremely Anti. Own all the guns you want. (And if you want to know where I draw the line on that, I have to admit I'm not expert enough to answer. Something like this: If you pull a trigger/push a button and something bigger than my fist shoots out, maybe it shouldn't be in the hands of citizens. If you pull the trigger and lots of little pieces of metal come out at a fast rate, I'm probably OK with it. And frankly, I can be convinced to give more and bigger guns to more people easily.)

So you think it's better for a cop to tackle the guy and risk his own bodily injury instead of using the taser and guarantee that he won't be hurt? No. Douchey guys get hurt. Cop stays safe. Monica Seles wishes security had a taser.

So you are a fan of big government. And government being your nanny. And government intervention in your life. You can't have it both ways. I'm willing to live more free and take the risk of more attacks. You want to give up freedoms and put your trust in government efficiency in order to feel safer. Just a difference in philosophy. I prefer small government--you prefer big government.