dayman

As lackluster as it's been it's far from the biggest of our problems. FAR. If we had some stuff going well...it would be a non-issue and we would hope he would play better in big games later on

Thing is Scott didn't help us in the passing game either...so you actually can balme Scott

Bump to the top, vote up lets see where the board is at.

Someone is just mad their fantasy team sucks

Pick wisely

I definitely read a few reviews after seeing it that more or less made me think certain things were more interesting...

Na I liked "The Master" I've decided. I just went in w/ high expectations. And Looper was more than "alright" allow me to correct right now Looper was good.

...and Looper was alright worth seeing

Did you get going on Season 2? I just cought up and wow...this show is getting nuts.

But I understand why you are weary of "government." And I don't want government to "stear the ship" that's just you putting on me what you view as the opposition to your view. We could absolutely compromise. I rambled off a list of some of the issues I'm more interested in and you said yourself you agreed with most of it. Then, as you said, it's a question of how. In other words, what will happen with no action, what could happen with action (good and bad) and what is the proper way to safely incetivize or spur certain things for the national good to move forward while avoiding the pit falls. It's really not as hard as you are making it out to be. And quite frankly, a lot of the liberal and conservative media make it seem like the reasonable people in either parties don't understand this when in fact they do...and it's the politics that don't mesh. I mean just look at what you are saying. I want government to run the ship? No, that's not true at all. You want to scale back government? You want to reform government so it's negative effects are less. When framed as "steer the ship" v. "scale back" it's oppsoite. When framed as "react and help in a smart way" v. "do no harm" it's not. And regardless of what anti-government propenents have told you...the later example is absolutely not opposite...not in any of the most successful examples in modern times looking to rise in the next century and not in our own history. Strong public-private partnetships with good leadership and smart strategy create prosperity. Anti-government philophy does not. Communism does not. This stuff is obvious.

Screen pass. Problem solved. Terrible analogy again. There is no way to come about it...there are ways to come to productive solutions. Perhaps not perfect for any one ideology...but good. And once again...the practical is the real world.

In any event...the art of governing necessitates cooperation and negoatiation with the goal of getting things done. You can't let your idea of perfect be the enemy of good. There is no ideology that works at all times...otherwise no serious party would differ on the subject. Building and economy is hard practical work, not a game for ideologes on either side. Most Americans believe that if the government ran everything it would fail. Most Americans also believe that there are functions the government has that do good. On and on...it's public private partnership that works in the most prosperous nations and will continue to for the next century. The debate is what and how. The interests driving either side on many of the individual subjects are usually not diametrically opposed. So long as one side isn't content on "defeating" the other side and convinced they are always right there is comrpomise on most issues that can do good. The idea that "i want to go 70 and you want to go 30 so I give in if it's 60" is not reality. It's nonsense.

Many times you bring up this attack on compromise. Read "getting to yes." Get back to me.

I have to say, through a slew of conversations Tom has done nothing short of prove..beyound a doubt...that he is in fact king of the asylum. Provided you understand what we're working towards here...you come to the conclusion he has won.

Bunch of words nothing more. My point is simply that while obviously more left than the GOP, there is an appreciation of compromise and moderation within the Democratic party. The internal centrist pull there, is not found in the current GOP. GOP backers can continue to lable Dems lefty nutballs who win support on nonsense, but until they take a look at their own party with the same honesty it's not going to get any better. There's some debate over the "problem" (assuming there has been one) with Mitt's campaign. To me the majority of the blame falls on party forces pushing and pulling him around. Long story short, I get it .... Repubs are conservative and proud of it. But the calculus is not so simple on the Dems side. It's a cooalition. To its detriment at certain points in history it's far less cohesive...hense the famous saying "I'm not apart of an organized political party, I'm a democrat." But with the GOP tilting as it has been the self correcting mechanism within the party has kept it closer to the center than the GOP and it's one of the reasons...imo....we're seeing what we're seeing. Long story even shorter: Actual Dems aren't exactly what passionate Repubs think they are

I'll check it out. I agree with the premise i try to give a quick scan of the following sites from time to time as well: http://www.spiegel.de/international/ http://www.ft.com/home/uk http://beta.indiatimes.com/ http://www.guardiannews.com/

I just want you all to know I care. About all of you posters/posts. 100%. Not just..half or something...

Are you living in America/trying to become a citizen?

That actual answer is that most Democrats don't gravitate towards the charicature of a "liberal" personality. Most Dems are certainly more liberal than conservatives but, at least on this board, many "conservatives" don't seem to understand where most Dems are at. The party is home to some very liberal factions, but it's not a "very liberal faction" overall. As is well documented, the very conservative faction is increasingly influential in the GOP...so in some ways it makes sense why certain talk-junkies don't get this.

Actually you just leak something to the press and then do a presser citing the article your leak produced.

North America's team baby. Why are you so interested in US poltiics anyway meazza? Being Canadian...

That's a picture of man in doubt of nothing. hehe

What's your point? I watch O'Reilly. Therefore I talk about O'Reilly. And he's hilarious about "the internet" has been forever. He talks about it as if it's a video game.

Ya! !@#$ school! I ain't sending my kid to no God damn academia where they teach him to be a god damn Muslim!