John Adams

I can say this, as someone who dislikes Obama immensely: I don't care if he was born at a Mount Kilamanjaro base camp...he's as American as any of us so who cares where he came out of his mom's womb? It's not like he was raised elsewhere with some foreign loyalty (Arnold).

Guys like Kelsay aren't trade bait. No one is giving up picks for him.

Really.

Jesus can walk on water, but Chuck Norris can walk on Jesus.

That was well-covered in the HBO documentary. The NBA was bombing until CBS bought the rights and created the Bird-Magic thing. That rivalry saved the NBA. Jordan took it to its zenith by being the sole superpower in his sport, grinding every challenger to dust. His first two retirements probably cost him 3-4 more titles. I wouldn't say Jordan saved the NBA. Bird-Magic saved it from an advertising and rating's abyss. Jordan was able to become a one-man focal point where Bird and Magic needed their teams and each other to carry the league.

But of course they didn't. Jordan got plugged into a relatively talentless team and was at first just a one man show like Dominique. As the team got better around him and his game changed--especially as he became the dominant post-threat--he became legend. Also, he had that crazy competitive streak that made him even more dominant (and more of an !@#$). I don't think I ever saw a guy make more shots as the shot clock wound down as Jordan. Everyone watching knew that he was going to shoot the ball on those plays and still no one could stop him. Magic and Bird were a brief pinnacle of team play between eras of individual play. Jordan was the epitome of the individual player. Sure, he didn't win until he had a decent supporting cast but no one is dumb enough to say much about Jordan's ability to make his team better. That's not what he was about.

How do you reach that conclusion? People who believe in god can't do awful things?

He's running a huge business and can afford the lifestyle. Did he ever say differently?

Chuck Norris is so tough he can roundhouse kick a fart back into his own ass.

I read it. That board member is a lunatic. But guess what: I don't see any of his lunacy in the first article describing the actual adopted changes. Again, more fake outrage.

So you are upset about the things that DIDN'T make it into the textbooks?! Striiiiiike 1. And yet many additions of famous hispanics were made to the curriculum. Guess what: not everyone makes the cut. Striiiiiiike 2. It would be if these text books were politicized. Striiiiiiiike 3. Even you get the point now. The process may have had some idiots but the textbooks themselves were not offensive in any way. But it's nice to puff up the false outrage isn't it?

He's 90 and remembers that no officer ever pissed himself in a foxhole in the middle of his first fight.

Promo and pbills would rather just keep saying it's screwed up without citing anything from the article. They are so outraged that they can't provide their list of problems. Great, now I'm agreeing with OC. Thanks a lot promo.

You're not willing to floor the brake and gas at the same time going 60mph? Gutless.

I get it. It's why I can't watch lawyer movies/TV shows and why my surgeon friend refuses to watch anything medical. You start to get wrapped up in the inaccuracies. At the same time, the appearance of the M-1 doesn't detract for me and the ships being in tight formation is a detail that doesn't bother me because I am learning about something that I don't know jack squat about.

That's a wonderfully broad assertion and I ask again: Read that article and please let me know what is so outrageous about what they did. You must have a lot of examples to be this worked up.

I'd love that to be true. Mostly, I attend meetings making sure DHS is doing its job and the mom isn't so dumb that she's showing up to court high (which has happened several times). Rarely, I've actually had to dig in and attack something/someone for the benefit of the kid.

Every party has a pooper. I can't imagine how inaccurate something would have to be for me in this series to notice it. "Hey Jones, I just got an email from my mom..."

I don't have that job either. I do that pro bono. I volunteer to be a guardian ad litem, in English the kid's attorney in dependency cases. I don't represent the parents. I don't work for the Department of Healthand Human Services. I just look out for the kid's interests. My normal job is patent lawyer.

That's not really state's rights case. That's a commerce clause case where the commerce clause could not be invoked to override the state law because "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." If the feds had been able to successfully argue that the gun law was an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the state would have lost. Wiki does a fair job covering the issue, noting that in the last 60 years, the Supreme Court sided with the states in two 10th Amendment cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution Again, the states will lose.

Not really. The states will lose like they always do in 10th Amendment cases. The 10th Amendment is our most meaningless one.

Read that article and point out the parts that are outrageous.

I may see cell phones occasionally and cable a little more but trust me, the living conditions among the entrenched poor is nothing you would feel that jealous of. Sure they don't always spend their money wisely but most of the families I see have no beds except a few mattresses on the floor, usually shared by at least 2 kids. Almost never a table or furniture. Only the most meager of dinnerware. Dont get the idea that the $40/mo cell and $50/mo cable would make much of a difference in their lives. And I never ever see a TV of any note. These aren't drug dealers. These are people who are borderline retarded dumb and have no work ethic because their parents didn't and their parents didn't and on and on for 3-4 generations (which means only 50-60 years in most cases because they've had kids so young). It's a deep problem.

The problem with this simplistic approach is that I work almost 100% with the kids of the adult losers...and they would lose out horribly with your approach. Sadly, also in working with the kids, I often work with the grandparents (who are doing the majority of the caregiving) and these elderly folks also need assistance. Like many, I have no problem helping kids, elderly, mentally/physically disabled. But the great wash of the rest can kiss my MFing ass. Sadly, you can't just give them nothing because their dependents will suffer. Like I said, the problem of the entrenched entitlement class is that it's complicated. That said, I'd like to at least see a work for benefits arrangement. If you want your social security/disability/welfare, you have to show up and do something for it. That's always met with great resistance though. Lose your right to vote? Lose your right to reproduce (yay!).

That is a kickass guitar man. It will inspire some electric play in me for a few days. Now you need to amp up and blow out your wife.