leh-nerd skin-erd

I don't know anything about medical marijuana, but if you're telling me this is all hype, well buddy boy, I'm not buying it. It's pretty implausible to think someone would go to the trouble of making a documentary/movie about the dangers of marijuana and supposedly misrepresent the dangers of this quote-unquote harmless plant. next you'll tell me the documentary of the little old lady who spilled hot coffee on her secret garden somehow shared the blame with mcdonalds simply because of something as obviously non-threatening as balancing really really hot liquid on her bony legs in the passenger seat of an '87 K car in motion, or that the 3 hobos on the grassy knoll and tommy lee jones didn't actually shoot jfk. it says it right on the poster, so it must be true: Women cry for it. Men die for it.

the problem with it all coming down to one play and 'it should have been called' v. 'it should not have been called' is the same one you have as a team when you let it come down to one or two plays: the game is 60 minutes long and it's unreasoanble to look at one call-non-call without looking at the game as a whole. additionally, there are several elements all being looked at the same time---pushing off/holding/interference/catchable ball--and that's just on the players involved. how many calls were missed earlier in the game, a game where most acknowledge you can find a hold/penalty on every play in every game. how many of those missed calls might have tipped the game one way or the other? in the end, the niners lost in large part because they were cold early and got hot too late, and the hole that they dug required just about everything to go their way for the remainder of the game. complaining about the officiating in that case is understandable but shortsighted, especially in light of the fact that a call doesn't guarantee them the win anyway. and yes, if it's the bills of buffalo, i'm on the window ledge of a one story building if it goes against us, and typing exactly what i typed above if it goes for us.

wouldn't the mulligan come after he screwed the proverbial pooch? he's here, we'll know in a year. seems to be jumping the gun to chastise the guy at this point. also, in retrospect, wouldn't the wannstadt hiring have been something we'd agree with?

it's the football equivalent of second base (under sweater,maybe).

you're thinking of robitussin. silver spoons are used to kill vampires, from the old country, where people have names like....gulp....Count VAHV-rohv.

excellent word efficiency here. you painted a very colorful portrait in short order. one question though, in fairness to the guy, don't most high school kids live off their parents? i don't imagine he would have started a hedge fund by 11th grade (even in clarence).

Buddy Nx is correct. 100% correct answer from his perspective. Now whether or not he's the guys for the job we need done is another story.

i don't know, i may well deny that "mitt got smoked". certainly, he lost the election, but whether he got smoked or not remains to be seen. looking back over the past four years, a large number of american voters pretty clearly indicated that THEY got smoked by voting for romney. the end game for many supporters of obama has devolved into "he didn't have enough time..." and "it was way way way worse than he thought..." and "no one could have done a better job...". at this point, i'm in the camp that says we're all along for the ride, so like it or not, it all be what it will be. with luck, congress will hold the line on the key issues important to conservatives, and with luck, things get worked out. personally, i think the choices outlined by the president with respect to the looming crisis is the choice between going over the fiscal cliff, or sitting in the ford pinto looking over the edge while people are racing up behind you. it remains to be seen who got smoked, and the next few years will tell. as for the original poster, here's the only way to look at it. if your life is a perpetual cycle of "i got %$#@ed" offset by "wow i'm getting $#@^ed" interspersed with "*&^%ing rich guys always trying to &^%$ me", well, all you did was make romney's point clear. maybe someday your children will be lucky enough to break the cycle and marry a rich guy.

my bad--i took your response out of context and unrelated to the question you were replying to: The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems? i don't know what all blacks, latinos and women feel, and i assume you don't either. the danger in trying to figure out what "they" want lies in the fact that there is no "they". the balance is appealing to the broadest base possible without eroding your core values. i know that the numbers i saw earlier today indicate that 55% of women voted for obama, and 45% for romney. the original poster who claimed it was only old white men voting for him is clearly incorrect, and yes, i recognize he/she was trying to make a point. in response to this question, you stated, as fact, i assume, that republicans favor robber barren style government where all the dough stays with the guys at the top. i disagreed with that assessment. you went on to suggest that minorities view the republicans this way, thus republicans don't attract enough of them. i think that's too broad a brush to paint with. i do agree with you that democrats largely pay lip service to that particular voting block, and i suppose that if republicans would just tell 'em what they want to hear, they might be more successful. unfortunately, i also believe that a sizable portion of the obama 60m most definitely includes staunch democrats who will never change, as well as large clusters of entitlement-minded people, and i don't see a time where the republicans will reach them, or will want to. romney talked about them as the 47%, and regardless of the politics of spin, his point was accurate: some people wouldn't vote for hi if unemployment was 36%. i think the answer is inclusion, inviting more like-minded people to the republican table, and to continue outreach efforts outside normal media distribution outlets. i would agree the constant narrative, irregardless of the facts, is that republicans want to keep all the dough to themselves, consequently, it's an uphill climb. and, i'll submit that you are not alone in your thinking, nor am i alone in mine. so--to summarize, the economy continues to stall, obama continue to display incompetence as a leader and inability to bring the country together, unemployment continues at a very high level----does the next republican can get more votes from women et al? the first question would be...is he/she a candidate with broad appeal? All other things being equal, next time around-could a ticket including Rubio influence the latino vote? My goodness, an admittedly charismatic Obama certainly proved you don't need major political credentials to ascend to the presidency. as for those who favor a 'truly progressive system' of taxation, and the story of my friend, again, it was out of context to the question you were responding to. but to answer the question, i can't speak for everyone that believes in what you call a 'truly progressive system'. maybe there are a few Mother Theresa's in there. i do believe that most of the political leaders on the left are absolutely hypocritical on this issue, and i find the average Obama supporter on the street to be the same. Give them a chance to pass the bill along to the rich and then beat the tax man, they do.

what an arrogant point of view. it's not that conservatives 'don't like the answer', it's that we disagree with your premise. we understand fully your point of view, and we think you're wrong. we believe in compassion, we don't believe in being hoodwinked. i sat with a friend of mine not two weeks ago, his hot-button issues were catholics and their opposition to the health care mandate, along with the larger question of taxation. not 20 minutes later, he spoke of maneuvering/manipulating his income around to avoid taxation, as if the two discussions were unrelated. every time the president opened his mouth on the issue of taxation and panders to the middle class, i thought of the many tax strategies employed by people like him to beat the system. this president showed his stuff over the past 30-60 days or so. bitter, ugly, angry, petty. so be it, he won, and we have to live with it. if he can come toward the center, maybe he can salvage something reasonable from his second term that the other 57m Americans who wanted him out can look toward. unfortunately, i doubt that he can, and frankly doubt he really cares.

we're 1 and 175 against them since 1926. he's a non-factor.

Potentially very serious, right near the Fallopian tubes.

seriously? so they have to look at the end of the chain, not the stick? You place the end of the chain on the approximate spot of the ball? You'd think that wouold come up once or twice when they measured, no? i think it's to the end of the officials thumb, which in this case, was in his a** just moments before.

It's like Abe Lincoln said on the eve of the civil (or war between the states) war: "Some people just like Chick Fil-a." It always amuses me, the level intolerance displayed by people who preach tolerance.

it is what it is. no doubt in my mind that at full speed, the hits result in the same general uncomfortable-looking end for the qbs. i'd be extremely surprised to see a flag NOT thrown if brady was hit in a similar fashion as fitz. i think fitz would get the call if he was the recipient of a hit similar to the williams hit. i'm ok with the flag on williams, it looked ugly at full speed, regardless of his intent. still, i go back to last years game where we took a crazy penalty on an int where the flag was for something like 'blocking a player to the ground' when someone--florence maybe, blocked brady in the vicinity of the play. same game, fitz scrambles and steps out of bounds, edleman tags him two steps later and no flag tossed. the problem with judgement calls, when you see 'em over and over, and you feel like it's goign against youis it gets frustrating. where was the call when chandler got hit away from the play a couple seconds after the whistle blows the play dead? to assume that at full speed the officials somehow can tell that the hit on fitz was in the upper-backer-quad-area at full speed assumes they negotiated exceptionally good eye care in their new deal. at full speed, it's close to the knees and looks fugly.

i don't understand the reason for your response. if you don't want to complain about the refs, why visit this particular thread, where some people clearly want to complain? if you want to take the people are 'just human" angle, that same explanation can be applied to everything that happened on Sunday. 'we got steamrolled"--well, that happens. "we didn't adjust"--well, coaches don't always adjust. "fitz is inaccurate"---well, sometimes humans are imperfect. part of the fan experience is complaining about the **** that bugs you. players, coaches, owners, refs whatever. when i'm sitting in the stands and think a call went against us....chandler getting popped after the whistle was blown early in the game, i'm pissed because they don't call it. am i right? well, obviously not, since they didn't call it. refs are humans. chandler's human. the d back who hit him is human---and it's human to whine. cut us all some slack. btw-it's ok for you to point out there errors of everyone else's way, because you're just human. dumb monkey. (no offense, i'm projecting my anger at the bills performance on sunday)

was his knee down? I was at the game and on the scoreboard it appeared to be down. or he levitated. i'm just wondering what it looked like in high def?

I saw this on the internet: Tom Brady's HoF Quarterback Camp RALPH WILSON STADIUM September 30, 2012 Come Watch Tom throw early and often!

Hogwash, an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Employer are charged with maki g decisions for the good of the enterprise, while employees are charged with making decisions that make sense for them. Some decisions are painful, others less so. Compensation issues have ramifications decades into the future. If you believe the refs are in he right, fine. If you think the deal the officials are looking for is fair, great. But to portray it in terms of it's all about corporate greed (any more than personal 'greed" on the part of officials anyway) is unfair. Let's face it--- the officials could make less money as well. And if you want to take this to it's natural conclusion, why on earth are the players moving forward with the season when there's not an agreement with he officials. Where's the solidarity there? That's the real story here

you can only spend so much time worrying about the opposition. what makes this year different is that the plan is in place to defend all things patriot. you have to hope our guys are good enough, stout enough, tough enough to work the plan installed by the dc. i like the fact that they are trying to mould a specific type of defense. i literally could not spend another year of watching brady stand back there and pick us apart for 60 minutes. could our system fail, yup, but they did some major work and let's hope it plays out.

look, i'll leave it to the x and o guys to tell you specifically what happened, but to me it seems pretty simple. a player (good/bad/other) on a good defense probably has a better chance of making plays than a player (good/bad/other) on a bad defense. maybin plays for the jets now, i wish the guy no ill will, and if he had a great season with the jets and watched the bills win the SB from his living room couch, no hard feelings.

i can't think of any rational reason why you shouldn't make all those assumptions at this particular time. you're an anonymous poster on a message board with other anonymous posters, with no real knowledge of anything at all. if not here, where?

chemistry, luck, good fortune----all of which the pats have had to a great degree the past decade, all have to shine on your team to have a good run. i think our coaching staff is solid, we've got good football guys at the helm and they'll more often than not make good football decisions. you have to like the decisions the good football guys made this offseason, and upon reflection of what they've said in seasons past, it would appear this year is part on an ongoing plan to bring the wins back to wny. you still need chemistry, luck and good fortune----but watching tom brady set up/scan the fied and have 4 seconds plus to throw for, well, a decade was clearly not a formula for success. let's be fair, too, that we're in year 3 of a rebuilding plan, and expectations for success should be high. at the same time, bb and brady are not sitting around thinking how ugly it might be, they're game-planning to beat us as well. i like our chances.

why work any harder to dislike the pats than you have to? an unwritten rule simply means there is no rule at all. as much as i despise bb, i'd scoff too.

the ultimate hedge, when 28% of the 32 teams in the league squeeze into the top 5. i honestly don't get this, if it's an opinion-based piece, why not just rank them and be done with it.