Magox

He is a former track guy (in other words he's fast) and all time record holder for receptions at USC. Had over 100 receptions the year before last. Some say he is a first rounder. So probably 1st or 2nd.

You may or may not be right, but production matters. The word "talent" encompasses more than just being a phenomenal open field runner.

Unreal. How we forget so quickly. Barney Frank, Schumer and Maxine Waters shouldn't have any credibility in anything of importance for the rest of their lives.

That is a concern. Having said that, for his size, he looks as if he has great speed and vision. Plus his ability to plant and cut is pretty phenomenal.

So he gets the blame if we draft a dud, but he shouldn't be there to see who we draft?

That is pretty damning. While we're at it, remember this golden oldie? "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Or the infamous "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the office in comptroller of currency or office of the thrift supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." Ah, the good ol days.

I think that pretty much nails it.

There are a lot of places to pin the blame, but undoubtedly the government was one of the main culprits in this whole disaster.

I'd sure like to have him as our second round pick. However, I just don't think he'll be there.

I didn't say I was for or against. What I said was that we need to do extensive studies, done by honest brokers who can determine the impacts good and bad. You scoffed at that suggestion, which makes you an ideologue.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/obama-helping-rich-only-that-binds-gop-together-157542.html?hp=f2

If there is anything that I wouldn't want to be, it would be a Crayonz deciple.

That is why it doesn't make sense to sign Landry. We have too many priorities to take care of and not enough funds to take care of it with.

This post reminds me of this Bob and Danny, guess which one is you

Obama's shame strategy: Demagoguery at it's finest. Sorry, but when it comes down to this, you aren't left with too many options, as I said, you either take it up the ass or fight back.

Unfortunately, when you don't have a dance partner, the options are limited, and he's decided to not take that approach. So you can either take it up the ass or you hammer him back. That's what it has come down to.

The president is applying the strategy of attempting to press the R's through the public court of opinion by doing these campaign style events. If I were him, that would be the strategy I would implement as well, considering he has no ability to negotiate with the opposing party. So if the R's were smart, or for that matter the conservative Super Pacs and groups, they should do tv and radio ad's hammering the president for the sequester. As Bob Woodward states, it was Obama's idea, and the fact that he is trying to lay blame for the sequester on the R's is incredibly hypocritical. This should be easy to pin the president on. The president doesn't have that much leverage on this issue, never mind the fact that it indeed was HIS idea, but the economy is certain to dip and he is the president which means he will shoulder most of the blame.

You can't even do a parody right.

That's pretty much it. The concepts of "fairness" and "morality" should not play any role in economic policy. What it does is take away all logic and substitutes it with one entities perception of fairness. That's simply illogical. That's why I say if there are extensive studies done from honest brokers, and the conclusion is that all in all there are more economic benefits for the economy, then I could be all in for that. Probably the best solution is to have one set of rules for certain types of corporations and another set of rules for small business. Of course I realize that people will circumvent the system, but I would say this general concept should be considered.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. He infringed on the patent, so therefore he will lose. Having said that, Monsanto is a punching bag that liberals love to pound on, so the fact that the good doctor is a super duper lefty who happened to bring this up to our attention, doesn't surprise me one iota.

Yes, it's a false argument to make as one particular poster suggested that the hourly wage should be raised to support working families.

Yeah I think it's gonna go through as well, I mean I hope it doesn't but it appears that there is no real core of support for this to happen. Sure you have the Neo cons that support anything that has to do with the military and there are some reasonable Democrats that realize that this isn't the best way to approach the cuts. But on the flip side, you will always have those Libs that are eager to cut anything related to the military and now you have a new breed of Conservatives that want to cut anything, even spending that R's typically support. So what will happen? Well, if it goes through, the economy will slow down, how much? We'll see. But also it will make us more vulnerable on the foreign front. That is something that isn't being discussed all that much.

What makes this even more sad is that if he were to run for re election, his constituents would still vote him in.