Chilly

You mean players play better when everyone around them is more talented? WHAT A REVELATION! For every great player, there are great players supporting him.

Whats that I hear? Defense wins championships? !@#$ yeah!

The guy who gave up at most 30 yards to a receiver all year = bad performance on the field?

Damn that Dick Jauron for taking the best player available!

McKelvin is one of the best suited CBs to starting in years, and given that the Bills' defensive scheme isn't that complicated for CBs, he has a real chance to start this year.

I'm thrilled with the Ellis pick, great choice. He's going to be a good rotational guy.

B+ Sweed over Hardy would have made it an A.

Best? lol. RJ > Him. I've always found Lange somewhat boring myself.

Look at the source (one of the backbone providers of the internet). They're trying to get more money from the gubmint. If you believe this quote, I have a bridge to sell you:

A 16 on the only properly administered test he took.

E.) Whatever is on at the tavern.

I'm cool with a CB, but if NFL.com's analysis of McKelvin is accurate, I hope the Bills don't take him. They compare him to RW McQuarters

Pretty much how I feel about it too.

You think Hillary wouldn't do the same thing?

Nigga stole my bike.

#1 all the way. Really, is there any alternative?

The idea that he would "lose worse than he did" is amusing. He would still lose, which is why his campaign didn't want to do it. He knew they would be disregarded if he didn't agree to it, so why should he/

Indeed, I've read it. He still didn't vote on it. The idea that is scary to the Paulites is giving the DHS the rope to define it themselves, especially since they have done such an incredible job of not abusing their powers. Of course, doing an overly-broad study will also waste a ton of money. When there are enough definitions to not be stretched to people past what the original intention was (not to mention that the three definitions you talked about are fairly broad). These definitions in the study will also present a standard of a sort in order to base a solution on. It is extremely important to make sure that they get the definitions right, so any subsequent recommended solution is targeting the correct people, and not an overly broad base. This is personally my biggest complaint about the way the bill is written. Its not just the Paulites who oppose it. Ex: http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2007/11/here...ght-police.html http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/20/5920/ (originally published in Minnesota newspaper - a bit over the top for my view on the law, but nonetheless I'll link it)

Ron Paul hit a nerve with you, eh? Paul didn't vote on this bill. The concern that Paulites have with the bill is simple: it doesn't define what an "extremist belief system" is, and thus it is up to the government to define what that is. A valid concern, in my view. Paul himself noted that it is not a large concern at this point, not that it was an impossibility.

lol @ above

Nope, comes from my political parties class. If you look at the past couple presidential elections exit polls, however, they both are around that number.

Well, he already has economic advisers on his campaign staff, and we still get this from him.

Democrats historically have a high defection rate, averaging around 11% (compared to around 5% or so for the Republicans). I'd venture to guess most of the group that defects are typically part of that 11% anyway.

Both parties cover way more people than they should, because of the incentives of the system. Without another party successfully grabbing a huge chunk of the Democratic base, they aren't going to dissolve or anything else. Despite what people claim, (that they won't vote for the other candidate in the general election), they likely will. The only ones I could see not doing so would be some Obama supporters who normally wouldn't vote anyway. It is easy to perceive a candidates success in the primary system as a shift of the whole party to the left. Research shows that, while the candidates themselves are becoming further to one side, the actual electorate is becoming more centered. I don't think much, if any, happens to the Dems if they lose.

The link on the actual Wikipedia page points to a story that points to a place where Pieser posted himself.