SDS

and while I'm at it - let me make the converse argument: What would all the enlightened in this thread do if the father heard noises coming from her daughter's room, assumed she was with a boyfriend and the next morning she was laying dead in her bed. What would any of you say about that man if he said to police, "I just thought my 15 year old daughter was having sex and I didn't want to embarrass them."? Would he be a redneck in that case too? Is that the alternative that people would want to see?

I'm not going to get baited into a decision tree argument. Especially if you are going to continue to assert that male intruders don't pose a greater risk to you and your family than female intruders. I mean seriously - i can't believe you made me type that out. as for what was in progress - wtf do you know what he saw exactly and his interpretation of it at 4:00am? Did I miss a YouTube video somewhere? Personally, I don't care what he saw and I don't really care what he did. He defended his family and I'm not going to stand in judgment of his split second decisions at 4:00am. Shame on you if you think you have that right. He sneaked into the house at a grossly inappropriate hour. No one is doing anything good for you or your family at 4:00am. Whatever happened to him is between him and owner of the house. He's lucky the father didn't grab a gun, open the door, see him naked and shoot him right there. THAT is how foolish that kid's action was. And one more point - did you ever stop to think the kid was a total asswipe and that is why she hid him from her father? Nope - gotta be a redneck.

and just to be clear on my 1st point: This is NOT about a man who found out his daughter was having sex with another boy, went and picked up a pipe, walked over to his house and started hitting him. Most of the posts in this thread insinuate that this was the equivalent scenario. It was NOT that scenario in any way shape or form. I'm not saying the father did the right thing or the wrong thing. But I'll be damned if I judge another man for making the decision to protect his family from an intruder who broke into his home in the middle of the night. Booty call, rape, theft - I don't give a crap. Right or wrong - the kid was lucky that was the worst thing that happened to him and I'm not going to sit here and take pot shots at someone else because they didn't handle a 4:00 am intruder in the "correct manner".

This isn't a story about teenagers having sex. It is a story about an intruder being in a child's room at 4:00am. That is the set of facts the father was working with before the door was opened. It is NOT REASONABLE to expect your 15 year old to have company at 4:00am. It isn't. Just accept that in most normal households - it is neither acceptable nor EXPECTED to have someone you have never met in your child's bedroom at that hour of the morning. Now, as for your utterly asinine argument above... [someone please kill me for wasting my time addressing it] The sex of the intruder was unknown when the father instinctually and rightfully came to the defense of his child. Do I have to actually write something about gender and rape or are you cool with the fact that 99.9999999% of rape is performed by men?

I'm not sure if any of you bothered to actually read the short article (the one linked by GBID), but this was at 4:00am. Again - 4:00am. He also called 911 - I assume that was an indication that he thought his house was invaded by an intruder. To him it was. The kid is lucky he didn't take a bullet between the eyes. Sneaking into another man's home in the middle of the night/early morning hours and found in your CHILD'S bedroom is asking for a hell of a lot more trouble than he got. If you have the balls to do that - then you better have the balls to accept the consequences. I assume all the "open-minded" parents posting in this thread often wake up in the middle of the night to find strangers in their daughter's bedrooms. I also assume when you hear those noises you just say to yourself - "that's just my daughter losing her cherry at 4:00 am. Kids will be kids...". What freakin' planet do you people live on?

It's been awhile since I cracked it open, but something like: Box Score Scoring Plays Stats Key moments - - - - - Quotes - - - - - Links -AP recap -Photos -Game log -Game Day thread I can probably just set up a form where every item is just inserted into form fields and all the formatting is done automatically.

If you could put that in bullet form...

doesn't bb.com post the audio and select transcripts? We aren't looking for full post game interviews, just select quotes that capture the essence of the game. It doesn't need to be instantaneous after the game, but sometime during on Monday would be good for posting.

TBD is looking for someone to do post-game wrap ups. It will probably consist of: 5-6 bullet points of the games pivitol moments game stats (this will be easy) 4-5 player quotes links to AP recap, NFL, and BB.com post game features (photos, game-book) and what ever else makes sense. It would be a tremendous benefit to our readers to have a decent archive of this stuff as the season progresses. Any takers?

likely? really? Just curious what nuclear weapon we detonated when 3 planes were hijacked and crashed (or attempted) into our buildings?

because it went 11 yards...

3 defensive backs lead the team? yikes...

thankfully, I passed on them at the last minute in the survivor pool and chose the Cards. Hopefully, that turns out well.

Let me know if you want me to close this before it gets ugly.

The best part about the win is.... The win.

but you know how the game is played. Reporters and bloggers are not interested in respecting their different views. It would be made into something much broader and used in campaign commercials, etc...

WTF are you talking about? Someone asks her a hypothetical question and now she "wants to perpetuate a war or start a cold war"??? Again - get a grip. She was answering a hypothetical and your words are just a rearrangement of hers. You said as a "unless there are no other options". In other words, "perhaps". She said "perhaps" as the question specifically referenced the NATO treaty. She was speaking TO THAT TREATY. The question wasn't: Gibson: "What should we do about Russia?" Palin: "Perhaps we go to war with them..." BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not really sure how this should be played out. McCain's policies are the ones that are important and his VP pick is there to support HIS campaign. She is not there to contradict him. When they may differ on such issues, I'm not really sure how that should be handled by either the VP or the interviewer.

Actually, you have already shown that nothing she has done or said in the past or what she will do or say in the future is good enough for you. Whatever her answer, your "expectations" would have certainly changed to match your politics. Regardless, I said she could have done better and she might have frozen for a moment. Big deal. Afterall, she hasn't been doing this for 2 years and she is drinking from a firehose right now. The question wasn't - "Define the Bush Doctorine". It had to do with serious issues that can NEVER be answered in an interview. Those who can answer that question in a couple of sentences are just feeding well crafted lines that have no bearing on the actual decisions that would be made if events forced them to react.

I'm killing myself for even engaging you in any type of dialog, but why don't you just read the 1st friggin' paragraph of your own link making note of some of the multi-syllable words and phrases like "various", "initially", "later it came to include additional elements", and "some of these policies were codified"... and then tell me you could define exactly what it is off the top of your head. Please.

who would have thought you would have came back and made an ass of yourself? Shocking! Just Shocking! j/k

Thanks... now comes the freefall into 40. God help me. At least I got an iphone out of the deal!

In a campaign, she should have just blown it off and give the standard "it depends", "I would need to know know far more details than can be outlined in an interview". She would have been nailed for dodging the question, but that may have been better tahn to have people twist and contort what she said to fit their agenda.

The Bush Doctrine means many things to many people. If you think you could define it - you give yourself far too much credit. However, was it the best she could have done? Certainly not. Does it really mean anything? Not really.

am I missing something here or did we move to a dictatorship? I'm pretty sure the decisions involved in any kind of conflict with Russia would be more involved than the answer given to a hypothetical question posed by an ABC newsman. Get a grip.