birdog1960

is it just progressives that got nauseous watching jerry jones' son in law wipe his glasses for him or were conservatives sickened, too? i think that would be a good topic for your game.

the guy that you describe is most apt to be the one that cheats the most, plays best ball in the group with the best ringer, posts 20 under and drunkenly and with faux modesty accepts his trophy in the luncheon afterward. current or ex jocks that can really play like the "real athletes" you describe are those most likely to complain when the organized cheating gets out of hand and winning becomes meaningless. i suspect it's much the same on message boards.

not at all. charge more for the entry fee and have a real tourney without mulligans or throws. or even better, donate money without needing to incur the expense of a golf tournament and play golf with your friends on your own. but don't gloat over a trophy won when somebody in your group uses a "throw" as a 2 yard step towards the hole with a drop in for a net hole in 1 on a par 3. i think it's a symptom of the inherent dishonesty in our society. perhaps you find winning this way satisfying. i don't.

didn't hint at anything. i reported the results of a search. have you tried it? why would that occur? more to the point, it would never occur to me to post under multiple usernames and i'm not stating that you are. but if someone was doing that, what would be the point? that would be like cheating in a charity golf tournament (which i've witnessed many times - the ability to buy mulligans makes naming a winner almost as pointless as this showdown)). not only would it be stupid and unsatisfying but also embarrassing.

neither DC nor Tom have enough characters to search. interestingly, searching DCTom under members results in 1 match: 3rdning...

then lets prognosticate the prognosticators. too bad dc can't weigh in. regardless of the outcome of a clean cr, the effect on the 2014 elections will be small. still a repub controlled house as teabag seats aren't gonna be in play unless there's a default. if there's default, the teabags lose some house seats. the dems hold the senate, regardless. and barring some unrelated disaster, the dems win the prez again in 2016.

and that has exactly nothing to do with the recent record of right wing prognosticators . btw, rove was an analyst this week spreading wisdom and prognostication on fox news sunday this weekend. i found the transcript compelling...

don't confuse disappointment with embarrassment . karl rove was front and center and had wasted 100's of millions in pac contributions. think he felt that was likely before the big day or that he told hois benefactors that?

nope. i love debate, but that term implies well defined parameters. without those it's simple (often in every sense of the word) discourse which i'm happy to participate in. when a winner is to be chosen without rules in a game, it is simply pointless and stupid.

been occupied all day. taking a break to respond... so, is this the dumb and dumber school of "debate"? anecdotes and personal insults encouraged and an overtly partisan solitary judge and rule maker . brilliant !! for you, possibly. for everyone else it sucks. why would i or anyone else jump into a fight of trivial import knowing it was blatantly unfair? patriotism? honor? um, no. stupidity is the only reason imaginable. fun? i suppose for those that entered that's the justification but i like to win and don't like rigged games. i removed my post in the sacred game thread and will refrain from further posting there or here again unless provoked. hmmm, wonder how long that might take?

bs...finally got a chance to check and surprise, surprise, surprise...those threads aren't archived. but the titles are. some real fine ones from oc about how the conservative polls were correct and the mainstream wrong and why. and i truly can't recall d.c. arguing against oc's p[osition. as it so rarely happens that one of the chorus chooses the road not taken, that would have been memorable. but, regardless the point remains. conservative analysts have not been convincing in predictions of late. just watch or read a transcript of election night coverage on fox. those morons were absolutely shocked at the results that night.

because neither was ever a good option. they gambled and lost and were left without any other good options. this makes how many qb's in the last 15 years. and how many have found success elsewhere? yup, neither of these two will either.

hmmm...i'm told i have a good memory. on a very good day, i can still remember the krebs cycle from undergrad biochem. yet, i don't remember this at all. perhaps in a grudgingly hedging sort of way but i remember lots of "look, look's!" at fox and rasmussen polls, even from dc. and disparagement for mainstream polls and even betting sites that i linked to. revisionist history isn't the sole realm of the conservative but they dominate it here.

sorry not putting much stock in the right wing analysis this time. was there any of you that correctly predicted the last prez election? and it wasn't remotely close.

yup, and cruz and his merry men will be liabilities except in very conservative districts which will never be in play til redistcting is reversed. obama will be what he has been in most races: a non factor.

i looked at your link and the situations are in no way comparable. obama won't be running for anything after this. he's trying to maintain his legacy of improving health care access to 10's of millions of americans (btw, most of the remaining 31 million uninsured will be in states that refused the medicaid expansion and would then be eligible). he won't be campaigning for anyone in a couple years, same as bush 2. cruz is supposedly the face of the future for the repubs. their rising star. he'll be running for something next election cycle and he's probably guaranteed a senate spot in for a least two terms in the lovely state that gave us the bushes. and, as i said in an earlier post, many loyal party members think he's a joke. and they're right.

actually 2013's draft may be viewed as the best in over a decade because of alonso and woods and possibly manuel. the question of determination to win will come if they do progress to the top of their position and want top money. based on history they'll be going somewhere else (and honestly, even if the money is the same as offered elsewhere, who can blame them). the only hope is that the bills have a new owner and new bean counters in place by then.

no. they were all specialists and subspecialists. different personalities and political leanings gravitate towards different specialties. it was no where near a representative sample of doctors in general. i could have been in a room at a university meeting of generalists and there not have been a single conservative there.

was in a room full of about 30 doctors yesterday. we were discussing impending changes to heath care and someone stated that we all need to take back medicine from the gov't (i suspect i was the only liberal in the room). someone then said, "that's ok, ted cruz will do that for us" to which everyone laughed loudly. the guy's a joke and serious folks, even conservatives, know it.

agree completely but this will be branded as a "cheap" comment and rationalized away by the apologists. they could have done all you said and been under cap. just don't understand why after all this time and at this stage of life, winning isn't the highest priority. guess it was, is and always will be business first. i don't think the guy possesses an ounce of sentimentality.

now or never tuel.

wow. 2 horrible late throws.

one big play, please!!!

great game. early meeting but damn, i think were gonna still win it. damn weeknight games.

cmon guys it's a tie score.