dayman

lol yea...let's entertain this topic...lol

Quite correcting me

go eat some crayonz and quite trolling

I understand what Hayes was trying to say there...he did not do a very good job saying it but though.

Glad to see someone posted the other poll b/c that's the numbers I heard on the radio earlier today. Polls are retarded guys, get over them either way.

Other than randomly throwing CJ in here I completely approve of this post. Well said.

Let's be real about a few things: 1) 0-2 won't be enough under almost any circumstance. 2) There is a leash though, and it's not "season lost" length Obviously the length will depend on how V. Young looks. If things are going bad and coaches don't believe it will turn around w/ Fitz, they'll pull his ass for Young no question about it. No reason to wait until the season is lost to do that. Personally if he's struggling bad all the way to the bye and it looks like the rest of the team is capable of winning...I sit his ass. That said I don't think that happens. So long story short IMO week 8. Now if we're 0-5 and it's all his fault...that's a different story...but that won't happen.

Agreed. I mean the bottom line is even if we somehow have a more passive scheme (whatever that means in the context of pass blocking...I'm no expert) it may well work better. Obviously a guy like Bell would probably rather be more "unleashed" and play less passive in all respects...that doesn't mean it works better. Last I checked Mike Vick was running for his life...

FYI judge ruled...no go

lol i read that wall of text /sarcasm

...someone reddits....

LOL no need to get defensive and lash out. That's fine if you feel that way. It's a little surprising to me to hear you say that but that's just me. To each his own I guess.

Being serious? Best VP in 50 years?

You have no qualms with his role/accomplishments during his 8 years as VP? Just a question, not an attack btw. You share his foreign policy ideology?

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Hyperbole aside ... are you saying you support Cheney?

Bump for relevance to my new thread re: Cheney-Romney connection

Full disclosure since I know her show would not be popular with most posters here this was brought to my attention via the Rachel Maddow show. (In my defense my DVR records her show, Martin Bashir, Bill O'Rielly and Hannity every day (my "analysis" shows lol...equally bad in their own ways...except Hannity who is hilariously bad) I watch one or two of them depending on topics/guests a day). http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57438767-503544/cheney-to-host-fundraiser-for-romney/ What is funny to me is if the GOP has to stay away from Bush to this day why is it Romney says things like "Russia is our primary geo-political opponent" and: "Last weekend I was watching cspan and watching Vice President Dick Cheney and he was being asked a whole host of questions following 911...the affair in various areas of the world...and I listen to him speak and say whether you agree or disagree with him this is a man of wisdom and judgment and he could have been President of the United States and that's the kind of person I'd like to have a person of wisdom and judgment" - Mitt Romney (transcription from a clip of the show) I mean if there's a political figure who had a lower approval rating than Bush near the end it was Cheney was it not? This is the guy who...well...you know his politics lol and that's not what this topic is about... Anyway my question is just what is the Romney campaign/GOP stance on this? Bush still toxic but Cheney is fine? I don't get it...then you have General Colin Powell criticizing the foreign policy advisers Romney sees to forming around him saying they could be giving he terrible advice....literally saying "C'mon Mitt...think." -Powell What's up with the politics of presenting foreign policy for Romney now? The economy is huge and I get that it will be the focus (as it should) but this is important stuff...and I'm not understanding the logic...I don't see the foreign policy approach Mitt taking in the general to be moving in the right direction. Who is he playing to with this? EDIT: I mean we're talking about the guy who said on the house floor "go **** yourself" when asked about Halliburton and later proclaimed "deficits don't matter" ... and when asked about 2/3rds of America not approving of how things are going in Iraq he responds "so?" ... this is the one man further from the modern GOP than Bush himself...I don't understand this...

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/05/23/Breitbart-Obama-Tea-Party-Cropped.jpg lol Obama looks like such a pimp right there might as well be Denzel Washington beheading King George the 3rd.

Cannot really get into this tonight (will look over at lunch tomorrow) but can you produce a link Magox? I'm not trying to be a link monster but I kind of need one. One of my main problems is I really seem to be able to find whatever I want to find on google (in a bad way)...current journalism really letting us all down. Also on a side note just b/c I only took a few finance courses in undergrad years ago...I know we know Jim Cramer works for NBC and has been blasted from time to time re: analysis blunders...but do we know if he's a complete and utter idiot regarding his knowledge of Bain? (not trying to go nuts on this...this is just a very small question to determine if I should give minimal weight or no weight to what he says).

IMO it isn't completely out of reach but Obama will have to bring it in Florida. I think Florida could be the ugliest in terms of ad buys this year (really going out on a limb I know lol).

I'm convinced some "liberal" posters are just dummy accounts of idiot conservatives on here trying to be stupid and create trash

The collective IQ would be off the chart.

Well I get that he'll want to turn it into a discussion about private equity...and Obama will want to say that it's a discussion about if he was a job creator at Bain. Honestly I need some reliable neutral statistics on that and I haven't really seen them...I would love anybody here to find some (please if you can help me out here...don't quote something that's campaign material/blatant partisan nonsense from either side). The truth is that this is really important to Romney's pitch...b/c as we all know he lost manufacturing jobs as Governor (a position more analogous to President than running Bain) and Mass was the 47th state in job creation. As for why it gets some on the left so worked up it's b/c ... as you implied yourself ... it means that people hate capitalism if they think the president is the president for US citizens (as opposed to US citizens who are economic winners). It's not about about anti-capitalism or wealth redistribution. It's about policy that benefits the American people. And this is the debate we will have over the coming months. If Romney can truly convince me that he actually has the answers for the economy that will get us all moving again...No further questions asked. I hate his asinine budget w/ his defense spending and his antiquated foreign policy and truly believe that repealing the ACA is a step backwards...so he has to show me he has the answers and that he's the guy who can create wealth for the American people. He has every opportunity. For reasons stated above I disagree with that. But to each his own.

So then isn't Bain the issue too then? If Obama's issue is that he didn't do a good enough job w/ the recovery, and Mitt's counter is that he would have and he uses Bain as an example of having been a job creator...then how is this not relevant? Romney doesn't just get credit as having his strong point as the economy automatically ya know...he has to make an argument...being a rich republican contrary to popular belief is not an argument. B/c you see it's not JUST about Obama. It's an election. It's about Obama vs. Romney. I don't understand this whole "referendum" on Obama as idea. I mean I do get that if you think he's the devil you will vote Romney assuming Romney is anyone other than the Devil secretly in disguise. But otherwise...Romney WILL BE PRESIDENT IF HE WINS. This is a pretty important part of this election to me lol I was referring to the fact that Obama won't bring it up again there. I realize looking at it now it was ambiguous.