Chilly

Yeah, but that was no garbage plate! (I'll see you in Houston this year if you're going)

One of these years I'll make it once damnit.

Yeah, just like Bentley, Hutchinson, Shaffer, Steussie, Ashworth, Fonoti, Flanagan, and Hartwig did last year. Thats this year's cap, not next year. Those numbers can fluctuate by a ton from year to year.

No, I mean a team-by-team analysis, since salaries increase each year and how a team looks against the cap changes big time from year to year.

The media loves these kinds of stories because its cheap to produce and it sells. Tis why the focus on the horse race and label everything "more negative". Its not really more negative then its been in the past. Some of the early American elections, like Andrew Jackson's election in the 1820s, are just as bad, if not worse. Andrew and his wife Rachel were labeled as bigamists and adulterers. There was all kinds of slander which took place, but the parties got away with it.

Hrm, you claim to understand Irony, yet you lack a grasp of anything to do with Sarcasm and Hyperbole.

Seeing as how there haven't been any 2007 cap space projections for the entire league that I know of, and there haven't been any rumblings about salary increase demands, its rather hard for it to be common sense at the moment.

I guess you've talked to the GMs around the league then?

Because all good players get resigned by their teams, right?

Depends on what polls you're looking at. If you are talking exclusively about exit polling, then yeah, they sucked in 04. The pollsters and news orgs blew up the previous exit polling infrastructure in place after the 2000 election. They then put in place a new one for 2004, which was not very well designed and had lots of issues. They are attempting to revert back to the original way it worked with some changes in place. Exit polling isn't a great science, and a lot of the problem involves the people doing the actual polling. They're given barely, if any, training and tend to influence the outcome of the polls to a pretty large amount. Of course, I also think it should be illegal to report exit polls on air until the election is over.

Not really, the Dems will put distance between him and themselves as he's running as an Independent, not as a Democrat.

I was looking at a breakdown of this a couple of weeks ago in the Times - in the battleground states, the Dems have out gained or kept pace with the Republicans for the first time in a long time as far as fund raising goes. The overall totals, though, are still heavily favoring the Republicans like you said. I think the Senate is headed for a 50-50 tie right now. This leaves the Republicans in power with Cheney casting the dividing vote. Breakdown of close races: 1.) New Jersey - Lots of recent polls have Menendez with a 5% or so lead. While its in the MoE, if you have multiple polls saying the same thing, its a good bet that it is indeed the case. Democrats take this one. 2.) Viginia - This thing is almost exactly tied, with half the polls showing a slight lead for Webb and the other have for Allen. With Allen being the incumbent and a Republican, I'll believe it when I see it. Republicans take it. 3.) Tennessee - Another close race, but Corker is still barely holding on. He's up most likely by 2-3% points right now, as multiple polls are confirming. Republicans take this one as well. 4.) Missouri - McCaskill's got a few polls confirming that she's up by a few percentage points over Talent. McCaskill picked up the all important Kansas City Star endorsement and she today picked up an endorsement from a large hunters club, a rarity for a Democrat. Democrats take this one. 5.) Montana - Ever since August, Tester's been out in the lead in this race by several percentage points in multiple polls. Unless something drastic happens, he takes Montana. Therefore, we have Republicans - 50, Democrats (incl IND) - 50. Cheney casts the tie breaking vote. House - 220 Dems, 215 GOP is how I think its looking right now.

Last minute != 2004.

The issue we were arguing about was whether intelligent adults are more likely than average to have intelligent children. You, apparently, weren't convinced that intelligent parents were any more likely to produce smart children than were any other type of parents. The formula demonstrates, with mathematical precision, that the confusion you've been trying to create about the word "heritability" is counterproductive. Intelligence is passed from one generation to the next. The formula is a mathematical description of regression toward the mean. Is regression toward the mean taking place? Assuming it is, successfully convincing smart people to have more children will result in a population that's smarter than it otherwise would have been. But suppose Weiss is right, and the appearance of regression toward the mean is due entirely to measurement error. In that case, the benefits of a eugenics program would be even greater. 822744[/snapback] I love lamp

Man, he gets me in two ways. I laugh at the whole schtik that Sascha Baron Cohen does with him, and I laugh at the idiots who he exposes. The combination of the two = one of the most hilarious things ever.

In Kazahstan, red pubis is more valuable then diamonds! God I can't freaking wait till Friday!

FYI he's on conan in a few minutes.

Whether or not the reporting is bad or not is not related to whether it is biased or not. Wait, you mean that the media has fked up badly in their coverage? Say it aint so! The truth is you can look at it from either side and claim that the media is biased toward that side. FAIR shows that's the case.

I bet he wouldn't like PIMPIN HITLER.

Electronic Voting Machines Suck

He also creates supernovas.

its more accurate then me being an engineer I think

Strong chance? A 50% tossup in either house is a strong chance?

Nope, but the financial departments do critique the reporting and have a ton of power over how the news is reported. Its the financial people who have control, as well as the owners. There used to be a sort of "brick wall" between the financial department of news organizations and the editors and reporters which prevented them from getting into the business of the news reporting (Watergate is a great example of something that would not be able to happen today - the financial departments prevent long-term, expensive investigative reporting). However, this broke down for two reasons in the latter part of last century: A.) As the media was bought up by several small companies and converged which led these companies to cater to shareholders and the bottom line. B.) With the discovery that the news could be presented as entertainment and make a fortune it increased the pressure on companies to increase profits in order to compete in the industry. This has placed a lot of the current power in the media into the financial departments rather then the editors and journalists. Here's the problem - the shows on CNN and MSNBC aren't as much reporters as they are entertainers. All they care about is getting partisan audiences to watch their shows for entertainment. Thats probably the worst place to look for reliable news. The news sources that are going to be better are the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, AP, Reuters, and other news sources which sell their stories to other news organizations, and therefore have to be more centrist as they are attempting to sell their stories to conservative, neutral, and liberal outlets.