RCow

You see AD, you are coward. Plain and simple. You play the coward's game of criticizing everyone and everything (yes, both sides) yet in 10,000 posts have done nothing, absolutely nothing to explain or offer an alternative. You whine about how the country is going into the crapper yet you commit the greatest sin in American politics -- complain and do nothing. You can go on and on about everyone being a part of the problem but one thing is for sure, you are definately not part of the solution. Post after post, nothing but ramblings of a coward; and all we can expect is you'll continue to B word and offer nothing constructive. Fact is, you're afraid because by offering a solution or even a candidate to back that puts you on a level playing field and your whole M.O. is out the window.

Gee, nothing like a straw man to fight, eh BiB? That was pretty easy considering it was nothing, zero, nada to do with what I said. You can go ahead and pretend in your head that I meant or said or implied anything you wrote but it's either a lie or a hallucination. If you really think Kerry didn't care about the POWs then there is nothing to discuss.

Homefield: It's more fair if it switches back and forth. You can make a very legitimate case that the Red Sox were a better team and played a tougher schedule. Even interleague doesn't count because it's very few games and against only one division. In other words, it's an impossible assessment. I'm sure you'd think it was fair if it was the other way around. Strike Zone: A losing fan gripe. Was not a issue at all with the players, coaches or announcers. To say Red Sox got fair treatment is seeing the game through a rabid fan's eyes.

The absurdity of your post is overwhelming. My candidate can win, while your candidate, well, who IS your candidate? Just vote for Bush and get it over with, you've lost all credibility anyway.

Didn't think so.

What we need is to have someone stand up and give us an alternative! Are ya with me?!?! Who should we back? Hello? Anyone there?

Ironically, the same Carlton Sherwood who as a reporter smeared Vietnam Veterans and those who were erecting the memorial -- later found out he made most of it up, was sued, fired and his station was forced to apologize. For years he could only find work with (surprise!) the Washington Times - and wrote a book praising its owner - Sun Yun Moon. Yeah, that's a credibile "documentary." Imagine that, finding a handful of POWs who would do anything to help GWB.

I suppose Sinclair doesn't have an affiliate. They forced all the other affiliates to air that load of crap. Liberal media? Yeah right.

Did they bring the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

At the risk of sounding partisan -- If he actually said all that crap, how is he "set up?" If it's true, he has a real problem -- with his wife, family and self-righteous fans. You don't get "set up" for that behavior, you walk right into it. It obvious all of it is on tape -- he has to settle because it will only get worse if the tapes get aired (though there is a risk it'll still wind up on the internet).

Thanks, I'm glad you wasted your time, and not me.

The incumbent president has only 43.3% of the vote in a Democratic state. More than likely Kerry will get at least 60% of the 15% undecided.

Pro-bowl selection is only one of many criteria. If it carried a lot of weight the HOF would be a joke and Ruben Brown would be a sure thing. Many of the great players are not properly recognized until after their careers and most players would agree that a Pro Bowl is never a hallmark of one's career. At the time Hull was overlooked because of Kelly, Thurman and Reed - the line made it look so easy (under Hull's direction) it didn't look like they had to work very hard. Besides there were quite a few outstanding centers (and much more popular and well known) and for some reason I can't recall a single name (I'll have to jog my memory).

Ah, right. Can Bruce speed up his eligibility since he all but retired 4 years ago? Oh, I almost forgot Lonnie.

Anyone know when Reed and Thurman are eligible? Anyone else I'm forgetting?

This year: Hull Ever: Tasker (but not before Guy - which may be ever) and Wilson (though I fear he won't be around to enjoy it). Others: never

I think Hull is the only one with a realistic shot. Should but won't: Tasker - If Ray Guy isn't in, neither is Steve. Wilson - A great injustice. I'd be appalled even if I wasn't a Bills fan. Talley - Very good, but not HOF caliber. Smerlas - Ditto (if not a character he'd be unknown elsewhere) Speilman - Excellent LB but not enough dominant years (or games). Knox - Very good, but not great.

Whoa, slow down Francis -- see above.

I give Ken an enormous amount of credit but, of course, I wasn't talking about him.

Yeah, like stand up and offer an alternative. God knows you won't see that kind of courage around here.

Well, if you voted in 2000 for Bush to remove Saddam you got everything you wanted out of this President. Can't argue with you there, he certainly did that, if that means giving him credit for accomplishing that goal, you got it. You've seemly checked off the only prerequist to get George's vote. Anything else I should give him credit for doing? I also give him credit for losing jobs, fostering terrorism instead of destroying it, making it possible to lower standards of clean and water; I give him credit for rolling back the Constitution, I give him credit for not following the world and not leading it either, I give him credit for creating a healthcare monstrosity that Republicans are too embarrassed to claim as their own, a new Education program that's not funded and I give him credit for staying the course and not succumbing to reason.

You're right, the apocolypse is scheduled for November 2 at approximately 11:07PM.

Yeah, I guess if you were looking for the Dummies guide to assess a running back that would work as well. If MM was so worried about egos and money he wouldn't have benched Sam Adams.

I didn't see clips of last Sunday's game until last night. Granted, they were clips but McGahee seemed to contribute on nearly every play. His mere presence on the field gives the Defense hesitation. Don't get me wrong I like Henry, but I increasingly see him as a punishing but one demensional back (a la Antiwon Smith). When Henry's in the game the defense can pretty much guess a run or a linebacker can salivate on the pass rush. When WMG is on the field the defense appears to have a critical moment of indecision - "what will WMG do?" Pass catcher: When he swings out to the flat the linebackers noticably move his way and the lineman almost seem to pull up waiting for screen. Defense believes WMG will catch anything, but more important, he can destroy you in the open field. Travis is not nearly that threat, neither to catch the ball nor outrun a lone linebacker. Blocker: Triple threat. For a rookie he's a very good blocker with excellent instincts for pressure. I can almost see Bledsoe relax with Willis back there, more confident he has a sure blocker to give him an extra second or two. Defense has to account for Willis and he's no pushover, but more important, he has the fluid motion to slip out of block for a screen or shovel pass -- in other words, the defenders not only have to take him on during the pass rush they have to keep an eye him -- thus slowing their defense. Runner: Willis still is not 100% but you get the feeling linebackers and D-backs don't commit to the box on a run, they are a bit concerned Willis will break through the box and he'll be gone, thus they hold the second and third line of defense a bit further back to ensure Willis can't get behind them. It's perhaps an unfair oversimplification but defenses don't seem to worry about Travis outrunning them if he gets through the box, thus they can take the chance of constant overload. Last, and again I didn't see the whole game, as the game went on the Dolphins felt more respect for Willis thus allowing the offense to become more productive.

Not sure you want to debate the Republican shenanigans in the Philly race. They were shameful at best. If by partisan I mean you don't want Kerry to win, then you're partisan. If you don't vote for Kerry you're voting for Bush.