Delete This Account

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound. jw really. that's what's considered a response in these parts. good one? some might suggest that discussion is a lost art. yup. juw does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

i'll tell you this: what's mostly played on "country music" radio is generally not "country music." jw

somehow i think you miss the point of my post. i make no suggestion that they are the first. i instead posit that, and i quote, "the first political movement in the history of politics trying to convince everyone it has no intention of imposing its will, while still attempting to impose its will on the populace whether the populace likes it or not." somehow, i'm not sure how you miss the distinction. of course, i'm wrong. most reform movements have made the claim that they aren't attempting to impose their will on the populace while actually attempting to do the same. so you caught me there. as for your other question, there is no evidence beyond the Tea Party itself that suggests it is gaining in popularity. in fact, cases can be made that it has long past reached its peak of popularity as a pure movement and it may well be time to trim the the hard-headed ham for the sake of the conservative movement's future. though what some of the tea party stands for in regards to taxation and overspending very much has a firm place in the discussion, the inability for compromise is what's holding it back in a nation that's traditionally pointed a little right of center, and avoids extremes. it's the extremes in which the constitution was written to guard against, the fascists and imperialists and kings. to suggest that the tea party refuses to impose its well is to say inaction is not action. and that's physically impossible. but the tea party, by its platform, demands action in politicking against the policies it is against, and suggesting it knows better than those who support those policies. oddly enough, there are those who support universal health care -- nixon was one of them -- and unions and a level of protection for the unprotected. to do away with, as the tea party hardliners suggest, is an attempt to impose their will against those who believe in these common principles. some fail to see this distinction. some fail to have a conversation in which give and take and compromise comprise discussion. i certainly hope you're not that. if so, i'll say you're right, and shake my head. jw

i took the first step and missed the whole first rung. wouldn't have been the first one. but thank goodness that's a motto of mine you've picked up on. jw so you agree that you are a hypocrite? oddly, i've not mentioned my views here for or against obamacare. but since you ask, i don't think it goes far enough. so chew on that one. as for suggesting they are "my" dems, not sure where that comes from. i've expressed no support for the democrats. i've not called you a blowhard, but surely that's starting to come into the equation given this post. jw

my apologies to others here for being a little sensitive in regards to this topic. Jerry is a very good friend of mine, and my worries are raised regarding him and many other colleagues i know covering the games in Sochi. and that doesn't disclude those athletes and coaches who i have come to know. my concerns are raised because all of them are spending the next two weeks in not exactly the safest place in the world. it's so unsafe that numerous athletes and coaches -- including Ted Nolan -- heading to Sochi have elected against bringing along friends and family due to security concerns. poke fun all you want. i draw the line when it comes to wishing harm upon them, particularly when those fears are already evident. that's sick. jw

according to some here, the Tea Party pretends itself to be the first political movement in the history of politics trying to convince everyone it has no intention of imposing its will, while still attempting to impose its will on the populace whether the populace likes it or not. jw more delusional still is the belief that it's winning something.

and this is amusing because ... let's pretend to have an iota of civility here. what poor taste, even without the 5 exclamation marks. shameful. jw I mean, this post is so tasteless on so many levels that it's befuddling to think how someone lacks the cogent ability to not comprehend how wrong such a comment can be -- or consider it in any way "amusing."

best ad was for Oikos, featuring John Stamos being spoon fed by the babe, and then having a dollop drop in his lap before the cast of Full House walked in. hands down, funny, in what was otherwise a mostly lame series of entries. jw

don't pump me up as a writer, when you did a very good job explaining yourself here. well said. jw

... doing his job. jw

i'm pretty sure you're giving the Tea Party a little too much credit. yourself, too. jw

ha. keep digging. you are attempting to impose your own free will on me, by attempting to convince me of having your free will so long as it agree with your free will. aside from the fact that i've never suggested the tea party of being dead -- and lord knows, no one on the left would ever wish that to be so except for the fact it actually is adding to the paralysis of this country -- you conviently avoid the gaping hole of hypocrisy you open by suggesting you have no intention of imposing anything on anyone while arguing that you would certainly make sure to derail what you perceive to be unfair. is that not an imposition? you make the case that the tea party knows better than the electorate and the democracy is stagnant and should be fixed to something that was written more than 200 years ago. odd, that you're imposing that will when others might disagree. some would call that tyrannical. and then to suggest with absolute authority that you are right and i am wrong makes you not the delusional one? really? are you that delusional? jw

uhh, thanks for proving my point. you couldn't have stated my case any clearer. jw odd that the tyranny you're running away from is simply to install a tyranny to call your own. i fully understand what hypocrisy means. and the fact that you attempt to insert your own definition here is quite hypocritical of you. you won't get the irony in that. i'll say this. i certainly don't pretend to take myself as seriously as you do yourself. to be clear: that's not a compliment. and, if i might add, the world is in fact flawed. oh, by the way, i was kidding about palin.

speaking of needing sarcasm meters. this whole "finger-wagging" you accuse the nanny state of having is pretty common among the tea party folk, attempting to tell everyone else of what's best for them. and i swear, you folks have no sense of humor. why is that? you're all deep thinkers and navel-gazers failing to see the amusement of the lint. the irony is that the Tea Party folks see the hypocrisy in others and yet can't see the hypocrisy in themselves. from an outsider's point of you you seem to suffer from that which you accuse of others time and time again. but what do i know. i'm sure you'll set me straight as you have before. jw and see, i knew i'd draw you into a discussion. i'm pretty much irresistible. also, i failed to see this the first time because you provided far too openings in your response is: what is this whipping you're referring to? isn't this about making the country better not simply the tea party? that said, does the country win if the tea party is weaker? some might say yes, but i'm sure you'd disagree, which means you'd actually have to agree with me. and wouldn't that throw you into a conniption, but i'm sure you'll provide a response in which you'll question my liberal slant and thus avoid the point of the conversation altogether. because, come to think of it, if the tea party gains as much power as you might claim obama has, wouldn't that make it a tyrannical force subject to being unseated?

the trouble is how this would affect EJ, who is seemingly under the impression that he is irreplaceable, otherwise why would he be asking others for his opinion. perhaps, a competition might be best? jw

here's the problem. the Bills did this with Trent Edwards and that didn't entirely pan out, and instead set the franchise back. the smart play would be to either pick a QB in the first round or not at all unless it's a replacement to Tuel. that said, they need to upgrade the backup position. jw

and yet, i like DC Tom because he pisses people off on both sides of the spectrum by keeping you and me in check. there's something to that, not that you'll ever acknowledge being a blowhard as i do. jw yes. of course not.

see better question is: what about reducing the size of the tea party? how will we benefit from that? jw odd, in regards to this actually, we all thought sarah palin was the "strongman" leading this, which is absolutely fine with those people on the left. jw love this thread. it's got a carwreck quality to it.

good question, but open to interpretation and attack on this board. it'll never be a winner. better question, would be how many anarchists did it take to screw in a light bulb? no one has an answer to that. jw

EJ? jw

the problem with EJ is that he's mostly conducted interviews in group sessions making it near impossible to get any keen insight in one-on-one private sessions. and it's usually during these one-on-one sessions in which relationships are built and insight is provided. it's curious that other QBs here have been far more approachable than EJ. jw and, let me say this, woah: PPP hasn't at all changed.

i have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, but i'll ... uhh ... agree? cause, after all you're "the smartest man in the room." jw speaking of which, i should add a line in which i'm the smartassiest man in the room, but i've got no room, but my ass is big. ADD: i really do think you need to turn on your sarcasm meter.

too soon. too soon. oh, wait, tea party, too late? jw great start. dismissive before anyone even has a chance to form an opinion, thus setting up the classic "see, i told you they'd be against this." and "we can never get a break from those damn liberals." thumbsup. jw great. the kneejerk response with antagonism to the kneejerk response that was already anticipated by the initial post. nice. nonsensical response, but that was expected. what, it took this long for victimhood? my goodness. i think the express is starting to lose its steam. yay, another county heard from. DEBATE! obamacare reference! bolded stuff. and links. tell me more. ahhh, i'm bored. i know how this thing predictably ends with someone trying to hijack the thread and then being called out for being a liberal, thus setting up yet another thread to wind up in obscurity about nothing much at all in which the country's trouble deepen because the president isn't bipartisan, just like the last one wasn't. and clinton should'a been impeached and ronald reagan was a commie. time to head back to the EJ vs Tim debate! jw

oh, i see you added to your initial post, to which i'll respond: because we in the media have gotten so much insight from EJ already? you're at the wrong end of the night, and i shouldn't take it out on you. my apologies. appreciate the restraint. jw and given the topic of conversation, you had a far better answer for this than EJ did to Tim, i think. Add: probably time to see what's adoing on PPP.

some would accuse you of being a troll for even suggesting such sacrilege. jw i wouldn't be one, but some might ...