OGTEleven

....and linguist Thread, meet gutter.

You really have to stop with that hockey player = tough mantra. You are losing your credibility. Why you ask? Well, I play hockey (goalie in fact) and I'm willing to wager "tough" would not be one of the first 50 words used to describe me. What the heck, I have time, let's start counting: Handsome Brilliant Debonair Suave Charming Wonderful Modest Insightful Guapo (I'll throw in a spanish one for ya) Articulate Sensitive (JK and the ladies like that one) Genius Tough.... ....oh, I guess you're right. It would be in the top 50. Disclaimer: All or some of the descriptive words about me could be made up and not very accurate. I do, however, play hockey and I don't think tough is near the top of my list of attributes.

Like the other two bets (Mickey and DC), my bet would be no. Like DC I think it is impossible to have a "feeling" about it. We just don't know. I also think blaming Bush for stopping an atack and/or upping the threat level, or blaming him if an attack occurs is unreasonable. For one thing, if Bush upped the threat level (in response to something real or not), there is a distinct chance he could lose out because many would claim it was political. I'd hope that any president would up the threat level if the situation merits and downgrade it or leave it alone if the situation merits. Politics should not enter into it. Mickster, as for the rest of your post, I agree with some (AQ probably doesn't have a good read on an attack's impact on US voters) and disagree with some (the real reason for the attack on Spain was Iraq). Iraq and the upcoming Spanish elections may indeed have been a tactical reason for the Spain attack, but radical Islam's beef with Spain goes back about 1000 years. Their tactics may be different iwth Europe because of their perceptions of Europe's likely response(s), but Europe is their enemy as well. If George W. Bush is elected will AQ want us all dead? Yup If John Kerry is elected will AQ want us all dead? Absolutely If Nader Wins? Uh-huh If KRC Wins? Yes, but they'll probably be a little more scared.

I don't know the numbers but that would surprise me. I was under the impression that the baby boomers are starting to retire and would have thought those would generate big numbers. Maybe they aren't quite at that age yet. In general I agree with AD that the economy itself has to be generating the jobs. The best any president/government can do is (basically) get out of the way, or at least not cause problems.

There is no one retiring from anywhere?

I'm just sayin.

What was the reason Edwards chose to talk only about the coalition? Could it be because it made the numbers "better"? Should he get to frame all of the arguments in the debate or should Cheney call him out when he chooses to argue about a portion of an overall topic? The real argument about building a coalition is multi-faceted. There are very real questions about side deals France, Germany and Russia (not to mention the UN) had going with Saddam. Assuming for the moment that side deals existed and would not reflect well on the leadership of these countries, would they have EVER joined a coalition anyway? Even if there were no side deals, but these countries had a vested interest in seeing the US knocked down a peg, might that have left them against a coalition? Who decides how big a coalition is big enough? (Seriously, who decides that?) If the US decides now is the time to take action or the consequences will detrimental to us, should we still wait to be nice guys? An argument about why it was the wrong decision is one thing, but this coalition thing is a big red herring. John Kerry has still not joined the 91 coalition. Is it big enough yet or should we leave Saddam in Kuwait?

Why would he use coalition figures only? To make the percentage higher for the sake of using it in a debate? In what universe does Iraqi effort not count in an Iraqi war? His use of that figure was misleading and he inteded it to be. There is a total number of people that have died in the war. Some of them were the good guys (US, coalition, Iraqi fighters, Iraqi bystanders). Some of them were the bad guys. The ultimate test of whether the war is worth it lies in whether their sacrifice has made the world a better place. That determination remains to be seen, but anyone that expected it to be clear by now was clearly misguided. Parsing up numbers to make someone look bad is a common tactic in a debate. Edwards used it. Cheney called him on it. Pretty striaghtforward really.

Your grip on subtlety is slipping. My point was that Edwards clearly excluded people that had given their lives to make a percentage figure look higher for the purpose of the debate. That is disrespectful to the people who've died. I started out typing something like the Americans have teaken 100% of the left handed, blue eyed men over six feet tall casualty figure, but changed when I realized caucasian sort of sounds like coalition. There. A two paragraph description of what should be obvious from the get-go. I hope that's enough to help you.

Why do only coalition casualties count to begin with? Did Edwards really mean caucasian casualties? A person is a person and the Iraqis that have died gave their lives just as much as anyone else. Back to the coalition.....The war was either right or it was not. Argue about that all day. The matter of whether it was right does not hinge on whether France, Germany or the UN think so. Assuming it was right, we shouldn't have waited for France. Assuming it was wrong, Edwards argument s/b it was wrong because x,y,z, not about how many French guys we should have had with us. We're still waiting for John Kerry to join the coalition to get Saddam out of Kuwait.

I think the assumption is because Bledsoe got it to within 38 feet of Reed. That should be close enough. Also, Neufeld should have caught that pass over the middle just before Harrison nailed him. Sure, it would have taken a world record high jump while in pads, but he would have only had to break the old record by a foot. They should practice the Fosbury flop.

Like most here I was unimpressed with Edwards. I thought his demeanor would be much better due to his experience as a trial lawyer. He had smug, stupid looking grins all night and I swear his hands were shaking several times. His content, even though I had very low expectations, was disappointing. It was right out of Doonesbury and with a little less backup data than Trudeau offers. Lame. As for Cheney I was also disappointed. Although I thought he "won" the debate, he clearly missed several opportunities to crush Edwards. I thought he was less in command than he normally is, and basically won by default. Overall, I think the topic of Iraq/terror has both sets of candidates reeling. Many of the reasons for going into Iraq are not public. That is clear from the war itself, but also from the actions of both tickets. It must be hard jockeying for votes but only being able to use half of the facts you know.

Kick him in the nuts and then spear him while he's down. Tell him you just changed your name to Rodney Harrison so there is nothing illegal about your actions now.

Damn you liberals. I don't even know what you are talking about and you are making me hungry. STOP damn you STOP.

I gave the answers above already. You missed them. Yours were all WRONG!!!!!! Good logice on Pedro though (mine was the same) and nice obscure MM video.

Census Schmensus. 103% is waaaaayyyy too high to have a 4 year out of date census be the culprit. There is no way that there is any county in the country where 100% of actual eligible voters are registered. It doesn't matter how small the county is. That would be a statistical phnomenon fer greater than winning the lottery.

Answers: 1. (1) Drew (2) Bledsoe (3) Coy (4) Wire 2. Brad Radke. The Twins NEED Santana to do his thing. If he does and Radke comes up big they will be very tough to beat. Their lineup is good enough and their bull pen can do well if not taxed by the first two starters. 3. All of them 4. Porrohman - Big Country 5. Nate Kaeding.

1. That's redundant. WRONG!!!!!! 2. You doubt Rivera in the post season? They have to worry more about their starters. WRONG!!!!!! 3. A. No, she wasn't in it. B. I thought you had your collection and its "actresses" memorized. I guess #28 must one the the boxes that is stuck shut. WRONG!!!!!! 4. WRONG!!!!!! 5. Evans has been ok (especially yesterday) WRONG!!!!!!!

1. Nice ability to count to four. WRONG!!!!!! 2. Not the worst choice. You are on the right track. WRONG!!!!!!! 3. If that's the only one yu know you must be thinking "how could anything be hotter? I must be right". Alas, your answer is WRONG!!!!!! 4. Look at the erudite liberal with the wrestling reference. Wow. Impressive. WRONG!!!!! 5. I said the biggest difference, not miracle working. WRONG!!!!!!

1. Good thinking. WRONG!!!!! That does not involve any planning. It happens on its own. 2. WRONG!!!!!! 3. WRONG!!!!! If you are not already enlightened it is your loss. 4. Not bad but too easy. I hinted it would be (very) difficult. WRONG!!!!! 5. Everybody thinks so. WRONG!!!!!!! 6. Bonus WRONG!!!! for improper use of the quoting mechanism.

1. WRONG WRWONG WRONG WRONG 2. Nice re-try. WRONG!!!!!! (really nice try though, you could make a good case) 3. Um. WRONG!!!!! 4. Siriusly WRONG!!!!!! 5. Let's see, you can edit one, but not the other. WRONG!!!!! Back to editing school for you.

1. Funny but WRONG!!!!!! 2. WRONG. He will most likely dominate. If you assume he does, the outcome will not "swing" based on his performance. 3. I thought your political opinions were dumb. You have now risen to new heights of dumbitude. Unless you want to display your never ending abyss of stupidity, never again post on this topic. 4. Wrong! It doesn't have that build up like "Eye". 5. Good choice. WRONG!!!!!!! but probably a close 2nd.

Don't be a mass hole. If someone on the Bills did that crap to a Pat, I wouldn't like nor would most of the people here. It is a hard hitting game. There is no reson to try to hurt people. If it happens it happens, but intent is another thing.

I can't talk about the Bills in a serious way so here goes a McLaughlin. You know the bit. Answer the questions and I'll tell you why you're WRONG!!!!! I'm leaving for a while so I'll let the first batch of answers build before answering. Here goes: 1. If you know and understand these four words you too can create a winning game plan versus the Bills. They are? (This s/b easy) 2. The success or failure in the baseball playoffs of which individual player (name him) will mean the most to his team's chances this year? (medium difficulty, but if you think....) 3. In which of her videos does Martina McBride look the hottest? (Should be easy, probably won't be) 4. Which song should replace "Eye in the Sky" as an intro song for sports teams/events (you'll master this test if you get this). 5. Which player from the 2004 draft would have made the biggest difference to the Bils this year if they had drafted him? (Medium difficulty - it does not matter what round he was picked or which player they would have not ended up with. Imagine they just had a free pick now and only wanted to have an impact based on performaces thus far).

I can't remember the names of the counties but if you list a few it will remind me and I'll tell you if you are right. It may also be on his web site. I haven't looked.