Taro T

RIP.

Well, it depends upon what your definition of 'their goal' is. They don't DESIRE the outcome of their policies to be screwing the economic pooch; unfortunately, the enactment of their policies have effectively screwed the economic pooch. So, if you are looking at results as 'their goal' then you are correct, they don't want to tank the economy (any worse than it already is). But if you are looking at the implementation of policies that they favor and the (apparently unintended) consequences of those polices, then we're getting to a point where there's some truth to what Herman is saying. Which of the 17 reasons given for going to war in Iraq were the false ones? (Sorry, it's hard to keep up sometimes.) Or were you referring to the military actions in Libya and Yemen or the one in sub-Sahara Africa we just joined? (Sorry, just kidding w/ that last Q. I know you didn't mean any of those. )

Well, they essentially replaced the Braves that had moved east to Atlanta previously. They even eventually moved to the NL to make the replacement complete.

So Somalia doesn't count?

Well, your mother's boyfriend's sister's best friend's boyfriend's cousin's girlfriend's sister might have seen Obama at 31 flavors looking pretty gross; but considering as tone deaf as our current President and his crew have been I wouldn't put much credibility on Romney being the Republican that they can most easily beat of the current frontrunners, even if they do believe that. I must admit a curiosity as to how you can claim to have inner circle knowledge of the Obama administration and also claim to not know anybody that thinks the country has moved massively to the left. Might you clarify that a bit?

Really? I've gone hardcore to using my credit cards for almost ALL purchases and paying off the balance every month. Considering the bank accounts net almost 0% interest and the CC's have either cash back or some other incentive, it works out reasonably well.

Like the time Howard Hesseman mooned a photo of Ronnie during his opening monologe when he hosted SNL?

But even though he is down he still needs to complete the catch. It's similar to when a receiver gets both feet down in bounds and falls to the turf out of bounds (in the same motion, without making a football move) and then has the ball pop out when he hits the ground. If the ball pops out when he hits the ground, then it wasn't a catch even though he's down as soon as he goes out of bounds. Because he'd been touched in the process of going to the turf (and while on it) during the process of making the catch, a fumble was never a possible outcome. It would either be a catch or incomplete. While I disagree with the back judge, he saw (or thought he saw) the ball touch the ground without Stevie having control of it. And unfortunately the crew chose his view of the play to be the one they ran with. Also, unfortunately, even though we can all reasonably surmise that Stevie did maintain control through the entire process we can't see the ball during the entire catch to prove that he did make the catch. Because the ref reviewing the play couldn't see the ball through the entire process (Stevie's body blocked it for a bit) he couldn't state definitively that the ball didn't touch the ground with Stevie losing control of it at that point. Had the call gone the other way, there wouldn't have been evidence to overturn a catch either, as the ref still wouldn't have been able to see what happened when Stevie's body blocked the ball from the camera.

You need examples to prove something that you indirectly admit to knowing about? Sorry, I expect that I am done responding to you in this thread. THAT was funny.

Again, if you honestly didn't hear anyone refer to Bush as Hitler you have led a very sheltered life on that boat.

I recall hearing of that at 1 Teaparty rally, but as I recall it was by anti-teaparty people trying to disrupt the rally. Wouldn't doubt if some boneheads (besides the 1 currently under discussion) did compare him to Hitler, but his predecessor was compared to Hitler FAR more often. Completely agree that the current occupant has been called a communist far more often than his predecessor. Of course, when your campaign posters are knockoffs of old Soviet era ones and you are the most left leaning occupant of the WH in at least 28 years, it's not a shocking comparison.

Sorry, not going to perform a google search for you, you seem to be capable of performing one on your own. If you honestly didn't hear anyone refer to Bush as Hitler you have led a very sheltered life on that boat.

I'd suggest that you are correct in that assessment. This is the 1st instance that I can think of ottomh where somebody compared the current President to Hitler. It was a far more frequent occurance with the previous occupant of the WH.

The Bills have a WR as one of their starting safeties. I don't see your point. And I like that the Jest are using Maybin. I'd like to see them use him as an everydown player. Heck, if they're playing an RB on D, maybe they can make Maybin a TRUE everydown player (in the Frank Gifford mold) and go w/ 10.5 players on O as well as D. THAT would be sweet.

Thus the capitalized 'IF.' There would have been little to no reason for them to challenge.

True. But it wasn't a question of whether he fumbled the ball, it was a question of whether he caught it - if the receiver doesn't maintain control of the ball and it touches the ground while he doesn't have control then it is an incompletion. If he maintains control of it, it can touch the ground and still be a catch. The back judge who came in late saw or (more likely) imagined he saw the ball moving in his hand and it touching the ground. The other ref probably deferred to him due to how emphatic he was that he'd seen what he (thought he) saw. The head ref didn't agree with the call after review, he didn't see what happened when Stevie's body obstructed the view of the ball during the review and couldn't overturn the call. If it was moving then and touched the ground (2 VERY big ifs IMHO) at that point, the back judge would have been correct. Common sense says that most likely the ball was under control throughout the entire act of the catch and that it was a good catch. Unfortunately, the replay rule isn't written to give the referee discretion when overruling his crew (or his own call for that matter, when his call is under review) in the replay booth. Unless there is clear evidence to support overturning the call, the call stands. Unfortunately, there didn't appear to be a camera angle that showed what happened when the ball was out of view in the 1st camera. I agree that the call was blown, but if the initial ruling had been the 1 agreed to on the field (IF the Bungles had challenged) the play would have stood because there would have been no clear evidence that the ball wasn't caught.

I saw it listed on this week's NHLN schedule on NHL.com. Hadn't looked closely at the time, but you are correct that it is showing at 4PM Eastern on NHLN. (Basically right after it ends.) So I checked my DTV, and the game is showing at 1PM Eastern on MSG (638, 638-1). It is also showing at 1PM Eastern on 776, 776-1, 777, and 777-1. So it looks like both Anaheim and Buffalo feeds will be on CI. The LA game is also showing up on both MSG (638, 638-1)and CI channels (showing as upcoming, not set to a particular channel yet). So sorry to make you nervous there Buftex. It looks like you should still be in luck.

The Anaheim game is on NHLN, so it won't be CI. I'd expect the same for the LA game.

Has there been 1 person here who said the game WAS well officiated? Though the game was poorly officiated, the Bills had plenty of opportunities to win the game. Hold them on D, or put a drive together when they still were tied, and win the game or at least get it to OT.

About the same as those of having a Bungles' fan agree with you on all 10 calls?

While I agree that the call of incomplete was incorrect, there wasn't enough video evidence to overturn the call. The ball disappears under Stevie and you don't KNOW what happened while the ball was hidden. We all have a very reasonable assumption that the catch was completed at that point, but there isn't PROOF that it was. Thus there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. Had the correct (IMHO) call of completed catch been made, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to overturn that either.

Yesterday, I would suggest that whatever was the reason his finger was taped up was a significant portion of it.

My guess is that the producers feel that the format has been the same for so long, that the teams have gone to (or likely will be on) autopilot or worse the viewers will think they know exactly what's coming up next and start tuning out. (Were the ratings down some for last year's race?) They're only 2 weeks in and have already added several twists - non-elimation 1st leg, double elimination next leg, the sign on the table. Also, when they were in Taipei and had to look for the 'clue' in the baloons on the video screen, I hadn't seen that before. I'd only seen where they either find them in clue boxes or are given them (sometimes without realizing they'd received all of them - the snapple bottle caps come to mind); I don't recall them having to look for a clue in a random location with no particular indication of where or what the clue might be (other than 'look up'). That seems to be more of the way they work the challenges. I don't watch the show as religiously as some here do, so I may be off base on the baloon video screen, but the other twists were definitely new. And turning in the money was what they had to do prior to proceeding on to the pit stop. Similar to how some teams have been told they must walk to the next pit stop, took a cab, and had to go back and do it the right way. Though having instructions broken into 2 separate pieces was a new twist. And was anybody else surprised that the teams apparently don't talk to each other at pit stops? Phil had told ma & pa about the double elimination leg and nobody else was aware of it until they read their clue. Don't they see each other at the pit stop, did they just get in so late everyone else had already gone to bed, or was that team hid from the rest of the teams to add a bit of anxiety while hanging at the airport?

So, not only was it a given the Bills would have picked up another 15-20 yards, it was a given that Lindell would bury it? Why not just say 27-13 and be done with it outright?

That wasn't even the 'worst game changing obvious bad call' in Bills history, much less ever. (Not saying it wasn't a horrible call. Just sayin' the Bills have been party to worse.)