Campy

Amen brother.

That "WTF" look he's getting from that lady is priceless!

No, he wants to be on TV. Sorry for being so cynical, but the guy's a joke IMO.

Hmm..... mulled wine. That's good stuff!

And I look up from posting and on Headline News I see Jesse Jackson there! What a media whore that guy is.

I thought it went like this: -Bulemia. -Mainlining Insulin. -Heart Attack. -Brain Damage. -PVS. I don't know where the abuse stuff came from.

So a New England Catholic who ignores the church's teachings to the point where they vote for pro-abortion Dems will suddenly "get religious" and take off to Florida to "save Teri?" Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm not claiming that the IRA (or the Orange for that matter) are on the same level as al-Quaida, but it's not entirely accurate that the IRA haven't commited terrorist acts outside of Ireland.

If by "Republicans" you meant conservatives (which I think you did), there's this little hospice in Florida...

It'd be a surpise alright!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought TV knew it was coming sooner or later and has said that however he can help the team is fine as long as he can be on the field and contribute.

My first response was but after thinking about it for a minute, I realized that if he comes in with the same attitude that got him benched that could actually be a positive. If you recall, that was a turning point of sorts for him, and he played like a monster the rest of the season. Hell, I hope he does show up with that attitude!

Beat me to it Mark. But I'm still trying to figure out how people can claim that a person who is as highly respected in his industry as TD is in his could possibly be so self-absorbed that he would put his own selfish interests ahead of what he feels will yield the best results- in this case, wins. Simply makes no sense to me.

I think you just might over analyze things, but you're right - kinda' like when people say "needless to say..." and go right ahead and say it anyway. What's up with that?

Before free agency I'd disagree with that. But since free agency, and I'm not faulting the players, but they have no loyalty to anyone but themselves. So my loyalty isn't with the player, it's with the team. If you're a Bill, I care. If you're no longer a Bill, good luck to you and yours, but I could really care less.

I think it will be frustrating at times watching him learn on the job. I'd like to see a performance comparable to Bledsoe's last year- after Willis was named starter. By that I mean he'll make his fair share of bad decisions and mistakes. By virtue of being a rookie it's likely that he'll make more bad decisions than Bledesoe. But I'm thinking that JP's mobility will be enough to help the team sustain drives and overcome his growing pains. So while his stats may or may not be similar to Bledsoe's, IMO the QB position's contribution to the team, positive and/or negative, will be relatively unchanged.

It didn't cost me anything, the attorney owed me three grand for some coke I fronted him. Just kidding... But I swear on my mother's grave this part is true - my attorney's name was Woody Crook. His partner's last name was Chase, they were Crook and Chase, Attorneys at Law. Maybe it's just me, but I still laugh when I think about that name!

Damn, you should get some kind award for beating AD to that!

I think I found our difference of opinion here. You seem to be under the misguided notion that I "bitched" about Pakistan buying the fighters. Not only did I not "B word" about it, I even posted that I don't believe it was wrong to do. I also never claimed that India was getting "shafted." I only made reference to their reaction - which is somewhat understandable because we are selling arms to their adversary. Should it stop us from selling fighters to Pakistan? I don't believe it should, but at the same time, I understand what the source of India's objections might be.

Oh, I don't know. Why do you think that, despite our declaration of neutrality during the first years of WWI, Britain and France were PO'd at the US for selling arms, munitions, and supplies to Germany, who in turn was PO'd at the US for selling arms, munitions and supplies to Britain and France? When you arm a nation's adversaries, that tends to PO that nation. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?

Those zany altruistic politicians...

Thanks Smoker2Buffalo- I really appreciate it! You and others here on TBD (you all know who you are) have exceeded my wildest expectations!

Why insist on assigning blame when there really isn't any. All I'm saying is that regardless of whether India can buy them or not, our decision to arm their adversary isn't very popular with them. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that Nation X can sell DPRK 24 ICBMs and the US has no reason to be upset because Nation X offered to sell 24 ICBMs to the US 3 years ago.

Arrested, yes. Convicted, nope! After a 16-hour day at work about 8 years ago, I fell asleep at the wheel about a 1/4 mile from home and drove into a ditch (back then I had an hour commute each way) . Anyway, my roommate's family owned a Ford dealership, so I had them send their wrecker out to get the car the following morning and arranged a for rental. The body shop had a another car brought in that morning, and one of their mechanics found weed in it. He reported it to his boss, who called the cops. The boss misunderstood which car it was found in, and I was charged with possession. I knew it was BS, so I hired an attorney and went to trial. It was through my attorney questioning the cop and the mechanic that it came out that -OOPS- the reefer came form the other car brought in that morning. The charges were dropped by the judge immediately.

And once again, JSP brings so much to the discussion...