SDS

you have to admit, the line seems a bit skewed doesn't it?

if the line is 7, that means Vegas is begging people to take the Bills. Therefore they think Jags in romp.

Seriously?

Everyone has their anecdotal evidence, and I'm no different. Someone very close to my family had three of them. When asked why, she said because she didn't have birth control handy and as far as she was concerned it was just another method. The 4th time she got pregnant, she kept the child because this time "she actually cared for the father". Personally, I think this happens more often than most people think. As for Roe v. Wade. Overturning it does not make it illegal, it just pushes it back to the states. Maryland has already put it in their constitution that abortion will be forever legal. I'm sure most of the northeast would follow suit, if they haven't already. It isn't going to be made illegal across the US, regardless of the fear-mongering on the left. With that said, those on the right would be better served trying to change the hearts and minds of society, than seeking legal redress at this moment in time.

Dude... the guy is over 30 years old. We drafted him 10 freakin' years ago.

Actually, one of the top pollsters just came out with the fact that the "youth vote" intensity has dropped 20 points since April. 20 points. I wouldn't count on that energy being the same come a dark, November Tuesday.

I am? People take longer to burp than it takes me to make those picks....

You are way off base here. Her family has the right to enjoy this moment and share it with her. Their personal issues are just that - personal. It is none of (y)our business. And no - it doesn't work both ways. Gov. Palin has not done anything even remotely inappropriate with respect to her family. If she is benefiting in some small way from her family - so be it. LET IT GO. No one is going to vote for her because she has 5 kids. She is allowed to be proud of her family w/o a bunch of jackasses chiming in about "well, it is all fair game now...". Every person has that right. Obama, Clinton, Bush, Palin, you, me... it doesn't matter. Let them introduce their families and present them as they wish and let it go. It will be ok.

3 QB's on a 14 man roster? Might be excessive. I don't think Witten is going to give you value considering what you could have had. Where people chatting and saying WTF? Usually top tier TE's don't go until R4 or R5 at the earliest.

I think you got some bad advice here. I'm in a 14 team league and it SUCKS. Your team compared to a 10 or even a 12 team league is like comparing Rosie to Jessica Alba. There just aren't that many good players. My advice would be to take a 1 top RB, 1 top WR, and 1 top WR in your 1st 3 rounds. Go for home run hitters and then backfill with the scrubs you'll be left with. Also, because the talent is watered down - you are MUCH better off grabbing top TE's, K, and Defenses earlier than the normal throw away picks at the end of a draft. Grabbing a kicker on the highest scoring team will serve you better than drafting some schmuck as a reserve. The talent is too watered down w/ 14 teams not to maximize every position. Pray you don't get the injury bug.

True or not true, I'm pretty sure the Palin family can handle this issue amongst themselves.

I don't know if she "backtracked" or clarified her position. Only she knows. However, modern day debates are just lame vehicles for mindless "gotcha" politics.

Thanks for the link. What I have read about her comments have simply been, when it is brought up in class that it should not be a taboo topic. My paraphrasing... What you posted was an excerpt from a debate, which you know isn't the best place to get detailed policy positions, as there is no time to discuss such things in detail.

She has never advocated teaching creation in school, despite whatever soundbite you may have heard.

If that were the case, then there would be no need for campaigns. Candidates could fill out an issue card, post them on a website and the vote could commence shortly thereafter. If that were the case, the terms "Reagan-Democrats" and "undecided voters" would not exist. People who shoehorn this choice as being due to "Hillary voters" is taking a simpleton approach to their analysis. Two candidates here running on "change" due to the lack of popularity of the sitting president. One chose an old white established Washington man who has been in office almost since I was born (to pander to white men and to make up for his lack of accomplishments) and the other chose to re-enforce his "change" message by selecting a candidate who actually took on corruption in her own party. Whether or not she brings in "Hillary" voters or not is only one arm of the octopus. There are many forces at work here and to boil it down to "Hillary voters" misses the big picture.

I would expect most reasonable, undecided people would have to take the intellectually honest "I don't have enough information" line before they can make any rational judgments on her effect of their vote.

just look at the youtube video 2:40 into it. http://www.twobillsdrive.com/images/site/msnbc.png and no Fox News does not run headlines like that. I have never seen any news station do that. ever.

The skeletons in his closet should have drove people away en masse. The fact that it hasn't is frightening. He is a product of the most historically corrupt city in the nation. He did every Mayor Daley wanted him to. The people he chose to associate himself should speak more about his character than any glib speech. The fact that people just put a blind eye to who this guy really is because he can a teleprompter is amazing. Ross Perot gave good speeches too. Thankfully, we found out and accepted he was nuts before he got into office.

and figured she was just clueless (it lead her story), but now this is the headline over at ABC news on a story by George Stephanopoulus (probably written by the editors). WTF is wrong with these people? This is the stuff that shows up on Letterman.

I highly doubt, that under a banner titled "Breaking News" that Fox News did anything of the sort. If you don't appreciate the difference, then there really is no reason to continue the discussion.

I think it is fair to say the tax payers get shafted in these situations. I think resigning, or at least handing over temporary control to your 2nd in command if appropriate, would be a worthy debate.

there seems to be a debate on that link whether the comment was said in jest. I have no idea who Steve Doocy is, but one debatable comment by one person doesn't mean it has become a talking point if it was serious.

I've been watching all night and I didn't see that. Care to name the commentator and what they actually said?

It goes WAAAAAAAY beyond that. I mean way beyond that. These are news stations and while you can question the quality of their coverage or their point of view of the coverage - you aren't really supposed to have to decide what is "breaking news" and what is a partisan kick in the crotch. It is as unprofessional an act that I have ever heard a news station commit.

While Gov. Palin was giving her speech today, MSNBC ran a line under her picture under the "BREAKING NEWS" banner: "How many houses will Palin add to the McCain/Palin ticket?" Say what you want about Fox, if this isn't as bush league as it gets - I don't know what is. Cheap shots under a "BREAKING NEWS" headline? That wouldn't be acceptable on a party run station let alone a news station associated with NBC and the late Mr. Russert.