leh-nerd skin-erd

She does that 70s rock dj voice, and I end up wondering why she's doing a rock dj voice decades after it went out of style.

The play sequence when the jets defense tackled the rb for a 7 yard loss, and then they made the lions guy kick the ball with his foot. Is that legal? I didn't see the ravens do that yesterday.

A team not wanting to sign a guy because he's a PR nightmare, and by some accounts moderately talented, equates to "blackballing"? To me, it simply equates to a moderately talented guy who isn't worth the trouble, whining about how there is a 32 team league -wide conspiracy to keep him from the destiny he and he alone so richly deserves. The cool part is how as a society, we're reached a point where people can be outraged that someone is not offered a job because he "deserves" it after walking away for $14m. Progress.

It would screw up the ad campaign. Multimillionaire football player risks losing everything, some people will buy it. Multimillionaire football player risks everything, loses all (except the money), comes back to play qb in Buffalo only to find collusion is actually the better option? No way.

The last time someone looked at a tape this horrific, a creepy little girl with wet and stringy long hair climbed out of the tv and stole the soul of anyone who watched it.

When you put aside the score and general flow of 60 minutes of football, and look at intangibles, it's, you know, all that matters from 50,000 feet.

Doc, I'm not anti-union, recognize the need for social programs and don't begrudge anyone the deal they have even if it's a deal better than I have. That said, in the world of haves and have nots, public sector employees are in the "have" category and it's not even close. The union(s) that represent the members do exactly what you accuse the health insurance companies of, that is, strike deals that are in the best interest of their members regardless of the financial impact on the have nots. To make matters worse, the deals that were/are struck for retirement benefits directly benefiting everyone involved in the negotiations. As I see it, the NYSTU is less a union, and more a corporation acting in its own best interests. On on the other hand, when you talk about 'free market insurance' companies, the regulatory environment pre-NYS dictated what was covered, how it was covered, rates that could be charged and who got what, when and where. It also dictated the penalties for non-compliance. As stated earlier, I'm not ant-union, and I am not pro-insurance company for a number of reasons. However, as with most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Reasonable regulation coupled with a competitive market probably makes the most sense. But when you have people out there screaming about greedy insurance companies denying people for "pre-existing conditions", the situation was always much more complex than "poor Suzie paid her premiums for 10 years straight and found a lump and they cancelled her on the spot!". Very little happened without the approval of the state government.

There "The Dude, contractor, part-time electrician and President-Emeritus of the He-man-woman-driver-hating Club reads B-man's reply, turns to the refrigerator, opens the door and applies some Land O' Lakes butter to that burn..." end scene

Thanks for the feedback, I thought you were speaking of SM but reading some other comments thought I missed it. SM is far too rigid, demanding and process-oriented to be beloved by 53 guys, plus anyone else who may have passed through the clubhouse. Hell his faith alone will make him a target for some people who see the world differently, think it's hokey or even bs. I think when you're the guy expected to lead a professional sports team defined by: guys with passion for the game playing at a high level, guys with the talent to be special walking through the motions, the ego(s) some of these insanely athletic guys must have after what probably is decades of being the best athlete around, the mix of well-heeled guys and hard scrabble guys from the streets, the perpetual threat of serious, catastrophic and career-ending injury virtually every time you suit up, the natural tension between management and the players/union...and toss in a whole boatload of $$$$, it's just bound to happen. It it just makes sense, really. And to sum it all up, one guy's truth is often another guy's lie. Almost forgot...Tyrod had every chance under the sun to lock down that spot, no questions asked, big money to follow and he simply did not do it. The fact that the coaching staff had to even consider benching of TT in favor of Peterman tells you all that you need to know. No hard feelings for me with TT, but he was just almost consistent/good enough to make it close, but not so good as to make it obvious. Onward.

Which means, sadly, they are profiteering off one of the hot button social issues of our time. Or, you know, leave it to George Soros and his crowd. Time will tell, but screw 'em either way.

This person strikes me as a narcissist, with an agenda carved in stone. To assume he/she is being truthful in what he/she thinks seems at odds with the part about being a coward. I think it could literally be anyone, of any political stripe, though it seems most likely to me that the NYT is readily complicit in an elaborate ruse to f with Trump.

Seriously, the death march angle, with the number of children aborted? These people are dumb as stumps, and have little sense of fashion. Orange is the new black I'm told.

And...he makes her look like a simpleton by telling her....its in the book. 15 seconds or less, and while this clip cuts her reply short, she seems to smirk, nod her head reflexively and set up her next WAUA. (Wild assed unfounded accusation)

When someone loves their country soooooo much that they will rat-%#€$ the President to shape the world in their unelected image, anonymously but not privately, all while attempting to send our electoral process into a nose dive during a SC hearing that the dems have chosen to treat like a bra/n/panties match at a WWE event, just prior to the midterms, using one of most obvious examples of left wing bias in the media, quite literally proving the point the President made before, during and after the election, well, that person is truly a patriot. I'm just thankful that this person has made it clear he's just really distasteful, and not crazy enough to blow up the world.

If you take the name out of this, and change the profession, this sounds an awful lot like a guy who thought the enterprise could not function without him, who thought management was ruining the business, who pined for the good old days and cursed progress (as viewed by the owners of the business anyway), and who had difficulty leaving his emotions at the door. In short, it's a story that plays out thousands of times, every day, across the country. I chose not not to read his columns because I didn't like his style. I thought it odd that he was offended he was asked to take a different role, but was willing to stay if Bucky stayed, but reached his limit when Bucky left. When all is said and done, man, it's sort of pathetic to me to hear a guy like this. You had choices, you were given an opportunity to stay in a new role, they offered you a buyout and you left. I'd bet a whole lot of people in America would kill for those options when their company moves in a different direction.

Damn that's funny.

Is part of the fun telling everyone that you don't have time for the fun unless you have time for it? In that case I have to pledge loyalty to the pretender king, because he cares enough to spend some time just having fun.

Now you're either misinformed or a liar. He said "I don't know everyone at that firm", asked at least 2x for context, and said something along the lines of "let me think, not as far as I can recall.". So since he said that, and you claim it would have satisfied the Tiberius litmus test as outlined above, why is that a dodge? I think Senator Harris was really unprepared, not knowing who she was asking about, when, why and where. To think she will be running for president looking like an angry lady fishing through her purse for change for the parking meter....yikes.

Kavanaugh took her to school. She is what she is in this role, rude, snarky, condescending, combative and passive aggressive. He made her look that way as he volleyed back a few times, asking for the date of an issue she brought up (leaving her scrambling with her team of 5 associates on something of supposed great importance to her questioning), answered the questions as he saw fit, adding context in spite of her interruptions demanding a simple answer to a complex question. Her supporters will cheer her, her detractors will forget when their guy dies the same thing, but at the end of the day, he looked like a very capable guy. It's a shame in the swamp that politicians will eviscerate a person, ruin them with innuendo as to racism or sexism or whatevrler.....then whine about how crazy trump is when he bypasses this freak show and just says "I think you're a dick". Buffalo Gal said something similar yesterday, and she was 100% correct.

Seems like it just sets the table for Repubs to follow similar action in the future, when a dem candidate has something really of interest in play, with a reference to CBs actions on 9/6/18.

I think what he meant was that if he suspected Obama of being a traitor. You'd have to incredibly self-absorbed to have missed the millions of people who thought, and think that Obama was a very bad man and used his authority illegally and immorally.

I'm not interested in investing all that much into a story told given the context of how it's delivered. Big studio production, big name star, huge budget with lines written up by professionals. I just want to watch a movie, and as I've gotten older, there are less and less people I'm willing to shell out money to see. I realize it's fantasy, heck even watching Chappaquiddick, hard to say anything was historically accurate other than party..girl dies..teddy flees...and that obxoxious neck donut he put on. This actually brings me back around to kaepernick, kneeling and the &$&$ing incessant desire to revisit it during a game. Snap the ball. Run the ball. Throw the ball. Kick the ball. It's football, not Face the Nation. Anyway. I wasn't aware of the kilt part. Thanks for ruining that for me, the_$&#%ing_dude. Btw, I loved the imagery of WW being disemboweled. All implied, no blood or guts, just a classic movie scene well done. Jesus...was he even disemboweled???

Plus, those aren't even the real guys. Actors. Actors in kilts. And probably not from Scotland. I love that movie. FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!

What a gutless approach by the Times to publish an anonymous letter of this magnitude, and while I generally disagree with the "enemy of the people" tag, the publishing of this supposed "opinion" piece comes pretty close. As for the author, well, just look for the person with the longest arms in the WH as he/she seems pretty fond of themself. I'm asked to believe the president is off his rocker, with a finger on the button, tilting the US toward a totalitarian regime, and this noble soul and other like-minded good guys go around just tidying up the room after he leaves? The world is at a crisis point and the best they can do is a heartfelt and anonymous letter to a left wing news outlet? Why wouldn't the army of formerly faithful soldiers walk out, en masse, with documents supporting their position? Why right as Kavanaugh is being considered, as the heat ratchets up on the DOJ, and with the approaching midterms just around the corner? Seems like a perfect time to save the country. Here's the deal. Trump called the media out, correctly so, and the media has all the time, funding and inclination to take him out. It's not unlike going against the mob, but while the Gambino's blast you in the face with a shotgun, the media employs the death by paper cuts approach. Thank God for Twitter.

The President nominates, silly boy, and former President Obama did just that. No outcry, no wailing at the Washington monument, and I agree with you 100% that the will of the people was served in that regard. I say that in spite of the fact that I was not a fan of then President Obama. It's unfortunate that in this case, the nomination was akin to winning the popular vote, which might provide some lasting sentimental memory, and may well go on the shelf next to the Best Smile-Right Fielder trophy from a winless little league season, but it means little in the grand scheme of things. But this boils down to understanding the rules for confirming a nominee, and it's vital for you to understand that's a crucial part of the process. I can't help you if you think nominee = confirmation. Read a book sometime. On the other hand I am ok with calling the Obama nominee "Special Nominated Honorary Justice Merrick Garland" if it would ease your pain.