Chilly

21 - he gets the rest of the season to prove he should have a chance to be our quarterback for next year.

I dunno if I buy into that whole college experience being equivalent to being in the pros argument. There are just way too many differences for that to be the case. I'd like to submit exhibit A - all of the stats of Manning's first year. If he really had all that time to study an NFL offense, he would have been better. I also dunno if I buy into the lineage factor - I'd think a player is much more influenced by his time with the team then his family. His dad's biggest role was getting him to a college successfully. Once he was there, he's the coaches' boy now. I'd like to submit exhibit B - Chris Simms as evidence.

Talking about stereotypes here, not what actually happens.

5 points = within Margin of Error = statistical tie.

A.) Who did the polls? B.) What were the methodologies involved? I'd like to know more before I believe it.

lol @ you getting all defensive over a joke

They play Rutgers for the alternate reality championship

The hell is wrong with you?

I definitely take it as a result of the American publics apathy toward politics and evidence of memory-based attitude formation. The newer things are, when you are forced to make a decision on something that you don't really know/care about, you remember those first, giving them priority. Disengagement places emphasis on current events. The public needs to become involved again. Politics used to be a common place discussion at pubs or saloons. Thats not the case anymore. People view discussing politics as creating problems and ruining good times instead of discussion. The media tends to prefer sound bites and talking heads rather then discussion as its more "entertaining" and sells better. A guy ranting, raving, and yelling about politics (Rush, O'Reilly, Olberman, etc) is, unfortunately, what people find entertaining. The "real" TV news programs, like the network nightly news, has such limited time that they almost have to be reduced to sound bites (in addition to lower costs, better ratings, etc). Newspapers definitely offer more space and resources to discuss events, but they fail to engage most people. Its not as convenient or entertaining as TV news, where you get motion, sound, and other resources not available in a newspaper. Basically, in my opinion, the problem is that society teaches to not discuss politics, and the media teaches to not discuss politics. There no one there advocating that discussing politics, thinking about, and caring about the issues is a necessary and good thing for both your personal lives and the country as a whole.

Political candidates have been further left and right along the spectrum. As the political candidates go, so do the labels. Since the candidates for the Democrats have been liberals lately, the whole party has been branded as liberal. Its an easy attack that lets people avoid admitting that they are wrong. Its also largely along political lines that this happens. Most Democrats won't give you a hard time for questioning the management, but a lot of the Republican talking heads would. Its a way to deflect criticism and fire up their supporting base. Its the conservative ties to big business. The notion of big business as evil has been around since unions started to form, and are thus looked upon as not caring for individual interests. Since people associate big business with a lack of regard for individual people (thus "evil"), and they associate big business with conservatives, conservatives are then "evil" as they also do not look out for the little guy. The media has realized that they can sell the news and politics as entertainment rather then just being a public service, and turn a damn good profit doing it. This has lead to an emphasis on sound bytes and talking heads, rather then actually making candidates give opinions and back them up. As the media realized that politicians played them, and that the best way to introduce entertainment was not through the candidates themselves, they shortened the sound bytes and clips. For every minute that a talking head spends on air, only 6 seconds of actual footage or opinion from politicians themselves are shown. Politicians have realized this, and thus are prone to give the media what they want, sound bytes, in order to obtain publicity. We are very much a television society and this has played the largest part into breaking down actual debate on issues. I'm sure you're not the only one. I only don't feel that way because I know what I'm getting into all the time, and I'm more or less studying it.

- I think the Republicans have definitely showed their strength with their much, much better strategies close to the election. National polls have showed an increase in favorable Republican opinion over the past day or so. - Its 48-48 in the Senate with four tossups: *Tennessee - This has been back and forth all campaign season, and has just shifted to be Corker by about 4-5%. This is part of the Republican firewall, so I think that the Republican push at the end will end up giving the Republicans this one. *Virginia - This has been the most surprising one, and also one of the most watched contests across the country. Government corruption has been one of the top issues cited in polls, and thats not usually a good sign for the incumbent. Its a tossup, but because of the issues, I'm going to say that Webb squeaks this one out. Democrats win. *Missouri - This is the closest race in the whole election. Its been at a 49-48 tie in 6 consecutive polls by Rasmussen. 92% of Democrats are backing McCaskill, with 91% of Republicans backing Talent. More people in the US identify themselves as Democrats then Republicans, but historically have high defection rates and poor turnout numbers. Given the state of politics, I think McCaskill has a very slightly better shot at this one. Democrats win. This leaves the balance of power coming down to one state: *Montana - Tester used to be up by a bunch, but now is in a dead heat with Burns. Thats really bad news for Tester, as losing strength right at the end usually dooms you. Bush still has around a 50% approval rating in Montana, and he's bee reminding Montana's voters of the dangers of a Democratic controlled congress. This is very bad news for Tester, especially in an environment where the voters want to throw Burns, who is viewed as corrupt, out of office. Ironically, the Republican weakness this year is Burns' strong point. Looks like Conrad Burns takes this one. This means that its a 50-50 tie, in which Republicans still have control via the VP. - The Democrats should pick up the House by a decent margin of seats. I'm thinking it'll be 211 GOP, 224 Democrats or a 13 seat margin. - Democrats should have control over many of the Governorships. - The state governments are pretty important this year, as it determines incumbency for the last election cycles before the next census and redistricting. - I'm in political science for the entertainment of it all, and this next week should prove to be just that.

Hey Stupid, Manning also didn't have 3 years to study NFL offenses.

I didn't realize that the team which has the most yards wins.

"If you don't agree with me, either your opinion doesn't matter or you are an idiot". At least the other people on this forum only imply that.

"same exact thing" as other countries supporting the people that are against us

No, what I'm saying is just blowing up two countries because they are supplying terrorists against the United States will lead to other countries doing the same exact thing.

It depends on the episode. He always has at least one Ali G skit, and one either Borat or Bruno. Sometimes he has both. All of his skits are freaking hilarious. You'll love it.

Which would lead to other countries supporting the people that are against us.

Mainly because I don't think that they'd beat Arkansas or Cal, and it'd be close vs Wisconsin, after watching the game last week.

lol, all I've seen is that he can call plays at the line. So can every other NFL QB, its called audibles. Not one quote actually says he calls his own plays outside of that. Peyton just has more leeway then most QBs, he's not the "be your own offensive coordinator" QB that you are saying

Slapping head = destroys brain cells. This lowers their number of brain cells, and based on statistics, since the parent has less brain cells their kids would too. Therefore, head slappers should be forbidden to reproduce

link pls

So you're accusing the government of wasting money, but in the example you give, you admit you didn't waste the government money?

link pls