OGTEleven
-
Posts
2,030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OGTEleven
-
-
-
I guess by all means then...
http://media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/1734000...4453.hsmall.jpg
In the realm of politics, I guess I'd have to agree. But if we're throwing out the requirement of beig born in the USA, why not throw out the unwritten rule of being a politican? If we're going for hot, then let's go for hot.
-
-
How about saying that JP is a rookie who has missed 10 weeks of practice and hasn't thrown a pass in a game situation (preseason) since mid-August?
I can't wait to watch the guy play either, but rusty and inexperienced isn't a good combination in the NFL. You might be able to get by by being one or the other, but not both at the same time.
You also can't get away with being slow and dumb at the same time. Bledsoe won't ever get any faster or smarter, but JP will get more experienced and less rusty.
As a matter of fact wouldn't an average speed, weak armed, smart, and somewhat gutty qb be better than an incredibly slow, strong armed, dumb, somewhat gutty qb?
-
But why? You've obviously formed your opinion on Mein Kampf and White Power music based on others' reports or criticisms of them. Because those criticisms are (in this case rightly) generally accepted, this is OK. But if no scholar had ever deconstructed or sought to understand what Hitler was doing or what white supremacists are doing, likely many more would be under the sway of those ideas. In the same way, eliminating the distance you've fabricated between yourself and in this case the Moore film would enable you to make an honest judgement about it instead of jabbering on about how Michael Moore is an !@#$. Is it that you don't like the idea that the movie could affect you in some way other than that which you already feel?
As I've said, I've seen the film and think it raises some valid concerns but goes way overboard in other respects. But I own that criticism as a viewer. I will admit he hasn't done everything in his power to earn Americans' respect, but those who haven't seen F 9/11 and criticize specific aspects of it haven't proven anything other than that they toe the party line in hating Moore blindly.
How do you feel about the book "Unfit for Command"?
-
I've been a Bills fan since I was 4 years old. I've seen some bad teams in that time, I've seen some great teams of course. Until the last few years I haven't seen a team that is so hard to love.
Right now I see a team of losers. It is a team with some players like Coy Wire that have absolutely no talent, and a team with some players that have talent but do not use it properly.
Drew Bledsoe - In the NFL today, you have to have a good combination of arm, feet, brains and guts to be an effective QB. You don't have to have tons of each, but you need at least some. Bledsoe still has his arm. He has some of his guts left. Not much. He never had too much of a brain and is even more prone to dumb plays than ever. He has no feet whatsoever. This combination makes him tremendously easy to game plan against. Other teams can simply take away huge chunks of a basic NFL offense before the game even starts. He's a great guy and started a great cause called Parenting with Dignity. He should retire with dignity. There is not a chance he can bring a team to a championship in the NFL. Ever.
London Fletcher - He is way too aggresive and overplays too much. You can't afford your MLB to do this. He plays dumb.
Lawyer Milloy - This quick healer is needed by his team. Where in the blue hell is he? Does he have to show up at OBD each week or are the Bills able to use direct deposit for his paycheck?
Troy Vincent - His injured knee will allow this character guy to focus his attention on his budding union career instead of letting giving a stevestojan about winning get in the way.
Travis Henry - If the drafting of McGahee was such a slap in the face why hasn't he learned to pick up a blitz in the year and a half since the pick?
Nate Clements - He will do well after he skates out of town and goes to a team where he can let other guys do the dirty work. This way he can be a "playmaker" and not have to worry about little things like knocking down passes on 4th down,
Rian Lindell - How hard can it be to practice kicking in the off season? On second thought, how hard is it to spell Ryan?
What do all of these guys have in common? The GM. TD never won a thing in Pittsburgh and it sure doesn't look much better here. The choices of Vincent, Milloy, Bledsoe, Wire and Lindell are obvious failures (with some exception for the time being with Vincent). That does not bode well for Josh Reed. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since it basically takes a miracle to have a positive play in this offense. TD's utter lack of attention to the OL is baffling. His last choice of a coach (Williams) was a dud. I like MM so far but that doesn't mean he'll be great. He just doesn't have any winners to work with right now. Evans had better watch his back because he looks pretty good right now which makes him an exception. There is no 1st rounder next year beacuse we preferred someone that I hope turns out to be the next Jim Kelly. So far, he is Rob Johnson with brittle bones. I hope that is a fluke but TD seems to have a knack for injury prone selections.
All of this would be depressing but livable if anyone in the organization seemed to give a stevestojan at all. My guess is that some do, but I have seen no evidence of it.
I've been posting on this forum for several years. I've never posted something as negative as this. I just think that losing a game or two at the end is inevitable. Losing four in a row at the beginning of the season is absolute proof of a loser's mentality. It is hard to get rid of that mentality, but that is now MM's job. I wish him luck. I'm rooting hard for him.
-
heartless
-
From Fox News fact check:
If Kerry/Edwards are so against sub chapter s corps why are they not trying to repeal them? Why has Edwards avoided medicare taxes for years by using this vehicle?
-
MM is out to make money...his claim to fame is his political views..so if he lies, why does he care..he needs to sell his movie to make his millions...I'll give him this..He's carved a nice niche for himself and done quite well..But I wonder how he sleeps at night myself. ...But I doubt he has trouble.
I gotta believe he does have trouble sleeping. A dude that size has to have some major snoring issues. It probably wakes him up all the time.
-
I am looking for a house -- probably a twin or a rowhouse. The median price for a home here is $168K, which is about my price range. Yet every time I tell my realtor I'm interested in a property, it's already been sold, sometimes in a matter of days
My question is: can the economy really be as bad as the Democrats say when the housing market, at least here in the Philadelphia area, is still robust? Is housing a leading or lagging indicator?
Also, I was preapproved for a loan at 5.75 percent. Is that a good rate, or should I shop around some more?
IMO, you've partially answered your own question. The housing market is up (at least to a degree) due to low interest rates. Also IMO the current "values" of homes are a bit dangerous. The consumer debt numbers in the US are not good. If people begin to default on home mortgages down the line somewhere due to mounting debt from other sources, the values will be sure to take a hit and there could be a downward spiral.
I don't want to rain on your parade. It sounds like you've planned out a budget and can afford the new home. That is a great thing. It doesn't really make sense to wait until the market crashes until you buy your home. The market will have a large impact on what you pay. The best advice I can give is that you get a house you can picture yourself living in for a long while. The money is important, but the house is what you live in. Unfortunately, the current climate may mean you have to make a quick decision. Make it a good one.
As for the mortgage, it is good you have a rate locked in. In most of those loans you can take advantage of rate drops if they come along. Keep your eyes open. I am not too up on the current rates, but they are always changing. Even a quarter point can make a difference.
-
You guys have some weird stevestojan up there in Alaska. How in the Blue hell does it watch Survivor? Down here in the lower 48, stevestojan doesn't even have eyes.
P.S. I'm not really expecting stevestojan to save the republic. I'll be happy if I don't get any on my shoe.
-
-
You mean you guys don't base your votes on lawn signs? I've always voted for the guy on the last sign I saw on my way to vote.
Hmmmm. Maybe I shouldn't.
I feel free already. I'll have to call up that guy that lives next to the polling place to tell him he no longer decides my vote.
Any suggestions on a new decision making process?
-
This is not to incite any kind of insane remarks even though I know Michael Moore is an object of both irrational love and disdain.
But I find it very interesting that a lot of people criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 or make remarks about it -- some valid -- and later reveal they have not seen the film. When asked if that invalidates their statement, most of these critics, politicians, etc. respond that they don't need to see it, they know what it's about.
As a media grad student I find it most interesting, that these figures are not really called on this, and that half of the public finds it to be an acceptable resolution. Is this only because Moore has elicited so much hatred by calling Bush a deserter, the incident at the Oscars, etc? Because there was so much press that explained moments in the film in detail?
Again, please no "Michael Moore is an idiot/fat slob/jerk/genius" posts. Everyone already knows/has made up their mind about those things. I am really more interested in the authority of criticism of this film. Please share your educated opinions on this one...
Same thing goes for the book by the Swift Boat Veteran guy.
-
-
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.
-
I hope you are wrong but given what they did in Madrid, I am not very confident. There are some things that might argue against an attack. OBL believes that we are responsible for what our government does since we are a democracy. This is our first chance to change our government since 9/11 so he might be waiting to see what we do and if there is a change, see what the new President does in the middle east. Also, he seemingly is concentrating on separating us from our allies hence the attack on Spain that caused them to withdraw. He is smart enough to know that an "ally" who only sends a handful of non-military advisors or troops, is not really all that enthusiastic about being there. Those allies can be convinced to leave by an attack since they aren't all that interested in being there to begin with. Again, that made the attack on Spain all that much more logical. He is hitting us where we are soft which is the weak bonds holding the coalition, such as it is, together. Attacking civilians is still a problem for AQ in selling their crap to fellow muslims. They can kill Americans easily enough now that we are in Iraq so there is no need to go after civilian targets in the US. There are plenty of Americans close by in Iraq.
I think there is reason to believe that they aren't all that certain what the reaction of the voters in the US would be to another attack on US soil. Not knowing how we would react, any attack they did could backfire on them. It could have the opposite effect they intend. They may know a lot of things but one thing I am sure they don't really understand is how Americans think and react to things. People thinking for themselves in a democracy is just not something they have any experience with. If that is true, it would make more sense for them to just not get involved with the US election. They might have concluded that since anything they do might backfire, better to do nothing in the US until after the election.
Just as compelling an argument could be made for them to attack before November 2, I know. I am arguing the other way because it will make it easier for me to sleep.
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.
-
-
I'm just sayin.
-
That's just crap, IMO. Look at the transcript, I posted the portion of relevance in this thread. Edwards was talking about a specific part of this war, not the war in general. He was talking about going it alone, and the Kerry position of not getting a strong enough or big enough coalition before enetring it. Edwards was not talking about ALL people in the war, he was talking about specifically the coaltion forces and the Americans dying because Bush couldn't build a coalition. Cheney just flat lied when he said the 90% figure is dead wrong because the 90% figure of coalition casualties is dead right.
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.
-
This was another total stevestojan answer, and a flat lie by Cheney. Edwards was tal;king about building a coalition rather than going at things basically alone. Edwards CLEARLY said the U.S. has taken 90% of THE COALITION CASUALTIES. Cheney came right back ten seconds later and said "That 90% is just dead wrong. If you add the Iraqi's...
Here is the exchange:
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 am not giving up
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Have you ever seen a version of the Bills with less heart and killer instinct? Have you ever seen a player or team grow heart?