dayman

"throw out the studies...I saw one today you would raise taxes" hehe LOL this first segment has been brutal on both candidates IMO..."new format" is a failure so far..."new format" basically seems to be "have no moderator" from what I can tell

This is just awkward so far...I'm embarrassed for both of them.

You forgot that the tax policy centers take on Mitts stated policy. That will probably come up 3 times OMG did you see that handshake! Debate over!

It would be a good thing for that to happen for both candidates...thing is you would need a amazing moderator respected by all who is smart etc....so it's not possible.

I saw a story that said they've met personally 3 times...all briefly...as in a minute or two max. Handshake and how do you do and move on.

Blah blah. No **** the debates are pivot exercises and boilerplate stump repackaging. But they do provide some interesting responses regarding policy also. And in any event, if you are "the sort of person" who is interested in seeing a significant event in the Presidential race, you would be interested to watch tonight. In any event, I'm not here to defend the debates as some great thing. But tonight could be interesting.

Any reason anyone can think of? We're not great out of the division either but it's not that bad. Would you say perhaps we are not very talented and if a team knows us then we're dead in the water? Perhaps we're out coached? Perhaps we don't "get" the urgency of division games? Is our division just good? This is killing us. We're the punching bag of our own division.

Well...most of what you said is true. That said, for someone who spends time on PPP I would think it would be worth watching anyway.

What are you all expecting, and hoping for?

Bring back Merriman, sign Bob Sanders, sign TO, sign Ocho. Superbowl

I'll be happy if we just look like an NFL team for 4 quarters.

!@#$ it. Bring back Merriman.

Meh...I'll buy it for acceptance speeches. But lectures and other speeches can go as long as 2 hours (including Q&A) if they are truly captivating.

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.