MikeInRoch

...that so many people posting here know *SO* much more than TD does. Until you see this kid on the field, STFU.

Unfortunately, his blame seems to be mis-directed. He should be mad at the players, not at the owners.

You are "forced" to subsidize this because the government decided that you are. No one is *required* to have health care. If you do not have the skills/ambition required to get a job that would provide health care, why should the government have to bail you out?

I saw the interview as well, and I'll be honest - that was about the only answer he gave that I really liked. He didn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed to me...

I'm not arguing about what the law actually says - I'm arguing about what the law *should* be. The law should not obligate someone to take over responsibility for another.

I am opposed to a vendor having a *legal* obligation to cut someone off, and being legally responsible for their actions if they do not. Purhaps that person has a ride home? In which case why should they not have the right to drink as much as they please?

It is horrible that the law in New Jersey allowed this lawsuit. The attitude that anyone except an individual can be responsible for the actions of that individual is assinine. And just because you have voluntarily put yourself in a position to make bad decisions does not mean that anyone else is obligated to make a better decision for you. It's the great American way: A tragedy happened! Let's sue the guy with the biggest pockets!

My favorite quote is from John Madden: "Nobody picks his hole like Emmit Smith."

How does it take into account being the #1 receiver on a team (and therefore draing more double teams from the defense) vs. being the #2?

If someone I loved was killed by a drunk driver, jail would be the safest place for them.

You want to see what happens if they pull Bledsoe now? Exhibit A: New York Giants. How are they doing since they switched from Warner?

And that it wouldn't be Miami.

Your chances of winning are 28.5%. I won't say how to figure it out, so that no one's fun is spoiled.

I might need therapy after having to root for Miami this week.

The good news is that we only have to find *one* team that is that dumb...

Seattle just got screwed on that Keyshawn TD - he was definitely out.

Honestly, from the last camera angle, it looked just a bit short as well...

Game's not over yet...

Since we have not lost against the NFC (and probably will not), this means that all of our losses will have been against the AFC. Therefore, our conference record (which is a tie-breaker) is automatically as bad as possible among all teams that end up 10-6.

You are failing to consider also that the #22 is a YEAR earlier. How many draft picks is it worth to have a QB with an extra year experience?

The stupidest part of all was that the gun used in this crime WAS NOT BANNED by that law. But then, the anti-gun folks never really worry much about the facts.

It's posts like the last one that drive rational people away from this board. You have ZERO basis for determining that TD made a 'half-hearted' attempt to jump ahead of Pitt. And just how much of a sweet deal are you willing to give up for an unproven college player? I know - let's throw in Spikes and Moulds if we have to... I'm sure they'd go for that.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial professional, and therefore this post is really more in the form of a question for taterhill - am I missing something here? On comparing 401K vs. Roth IRA contributions... Let's make the following assumptions (numbers may not be realistic just to keep the math simple): You have $10,000 (pre-tax) to invest for 20 years, after which you will retire. Call 'a' your current tax rate, 'b' your expected tax rate when you retire, and 'c' the percentage return on your investment. If you put the money in a 401k, it's pre-tax, so you invest a full $10,000. After 20 years, that has grown to $10,000x(1+c)^20, and then you pay taxes on the way out, so the amount you get is $10,000x(1+c)^20x(1-b ). If you put the money in a Roth, it's post-tax, so you invest $10,000x(1-a). After 20 years, that has grown to $10,000x(1-a)x(1+c)^20, and you take it out tax free. Since multiplication is commutative, the only difference in the amount of money that you have at the end is because of the difference between 'a' and 'b'. If 'a' and 'b' are equal, it makes no difference which way you go (assuming there is no employer matching involved, of course). Is this correct? Or is there something I'm not taking into account?

I saw him three times in a 5 year span several years ago. The first time was great, the second time was ok, and I didn't like the third time at all. Most of the problem was that he really didn't seem to have any new material. His old material was outragously funny - but not after having seen it already.

3 times in New England territory, no points. Bad news.