Dan

You do realize that this whole bank/mortage mess is because of less regulations and the banks went wild. Furthermore, if you get rid of all the "free trade" stuff and increase tariffs, how are you going to have a production and Export economy. Who would trade with us, if we don't trade with them?

When I was much less financially stable, I don't mind saying, I took several liberties with my tax returns for several years. Fortunately, I think you can only be audited for 5 or 7 years, and I'm in the clear on those now. Of course in recent years, I use Turbo Tax and they don't let you fudge much at all.

It's on now! Tickets are bought, reservations are made. Myself, wife, 2 sisters, and the folks are rollin' into town. Canton is in trouble. If you get something put together, by all means, post and let us all know. Not sure what I could do to help put it together, but we'll certainly be interested in any activities associated with alcohol consumption. For those still looking, we all got rooms at the Holiday Inn in South Cleveland, $93/night. My family is flying in on Friday; I may be driving up from Columbus (depends on work). We're still awaiting tickets to the game. Anyone have an idea when they go on sale?

Really? It sounds like more of the same old same old to me... tax cuts on capital gains, increased spending on defense, money to big oil for alternative energy research that never pans out. If that's the core of a stimulus package count me out. I'm not at all sold on the current mess of a bill, but at least it's different.

A most excellent post! The problem I have with the scenario is... I have a job, in fact I'm about to get a decent bonus, but no way am I spending it now. I was going to buy the wife a new car. But, with confidence things will be better anytime soon, I'm going to save that money for the time being. So fundamentally, the scenario is sound, but how do we get th 92% spending again if they think they're on the verge of joining the 8% not working?

I keep seeing people talk about tax cuts, more tax cuts. We need tax cuts to put more money in people's pockets so they'll start spending. Now a tax incentive to buy a new car. Here's my concerns, that I haven't really seen addressed: If I don't have a job, how's a tax cut or tax incentive going to get me spending money when I have none coming in? How can I buy a car when no one is giving me a loan to buy the car (or house)? Yes it seems a tax cut should or could be part of a stimulus plan, but it seems like it should be a smaller portion of the plan. It seems like job creation should be the focus; then once everyone has a job, we could worry about cutting their taxes. What am I missing?

If used to generate a DNA Fingerprint for the database, how is it any different than giving fingerprints when arrested?

I wouldn't go so far as to be crying for joy either. But, it is kinda nice having an elected official admit he made a mistake, apologize for it, and state he's going to try hard to improve. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that and I'm not sure how anyone could. I'd hope everyone could/would own up to their mistakes similarly. Because let's face it, it was a mistake to nominate a couple of those guys. I do agree, though, you don't want a President to continually be apologizing. But, that's mostly because it means he's continually making mistakes not because he looks like a wuss.

The Girls Gone Wild guy?

It's Kentucky. Who cares about Kentucky?

Britney Spears wishes she could fill an 80,000+ stadium. I agree, musically the last few decades haven't been stellar for them (although Steel Wheels was pretty good). However, that doesn't mean they're overrated or without talent. The comparison to the Spice Girls is a good one because that's exactly my point. You have scores upon scores of bands that come out, put out 1-3 albums, with a few "hits". But how many have the staying power of the Stones? If I'm not mistaken, they just had the highest grossing tour of all time, a year or 2 ago? The Spice Girls would generate more buzz, but only because the Stones have never left.

I like it. Or the Niagra "little blue" Pills! We play strong for 4 hours long!

I would say this thread may have become the most laughable one I've ever seen here. The Stones have been touring for over 50 years, have multiple rock anthems, set the standard for arena rock, have sold several hundred million records, with 20ish studio albums, have played for 100's of millions if not billions of people, have influenced more performers than any of us have even listened to, and yet they're over rated. The cynicism here is one thing you can always count on. Gotta love it. I can understand someone saying they don't care for their music but to call them over rated is an entirely incorrect assessment of the band's career.

It does suck having a President that admits to making mistakes and says he wants to do better. I hate that. It would be so much better to have a President hide from the Press and not admit to anything good or bad. I wish all our elected officials would just shut up and always assume they're right regardless of the outcome.

I did like that quote (obviously). If only we could get guys like that to post more, and a few select others to post less.

I thought that interesting as well. So I did some googling. You'd think that'd be an easy thing to find, but not so much. I found one site, a fan site, so not really trustworthy; that says over 30million sold. Then found another Bio on Rockphiles that claims 35 million sold. So, I'm going to put the estimate at closer to 30 million than 12 million - it just makes more sense. I knew she was trained in opera and actually has a very good voice. Did not know about the 4 consecutive grammys for female rocker chick of the year. Either way, Katy Perry has quite a bit of ground to make up, IMO.

That's how you'd describe the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time? Unbelievable. The Stones tour to this day, and still draw more people than any "relevant" act you could list. Not to mention, you (and others) don't want aging rock bands, but you're fine with AC/DC. How does that figure? And as if that weren't enough, you'd be happy with a 40 year old Mo-town band? Unbelievable. The Super Bowl is the single biggest event year in and year out and in the world of music there are perhaps no 2 bigger acts than the Stones and the Boss. Old or not, either one sells out any sized arena any place they play on the planet. Maybe next year we can get Justin Timberlake and everyone can be happy. Honestly, I'm certain people here complain just for the sake of complaining because there's no way you're gonna say dump the Stones in favor of a mo-town band and actually mean it.

I think FO staff even get them. Also, I recall a story where Polian gave one to Edge when the Colts won. Despite Edge going to Arizona, Polian said he was instrumental in the team that won the SB.

Come on, now. Really?

I agree. Lynch definitely got his yards on his own. No doubt. I know it's unpopular, but IMO, the run game improved because Preston replaced Fowler. I'm not saying Preston should be our starter next season. I'm just suggesting that he seemed to be better than Fowler. Funny, but since Jauron got his stay of execution, I care much less about any of it. I have zero confidence that any player via the draft or FA will change a single thing. We'll still see a marginally competitive team that folds like a cheap suit in the tough games. Maybe I'm wrong, but until this teams proves otherwise, next season is something I'll watch but have no hopes for.

I think that's a good point, and we'll never know the reality. But, I could easily see the Obama team calling them up and giving them the option to withdraw with dignity or be removed in disgrace. Allowing someone to save a little face is quite common. Either way the person is out and probably for the best. I would agree, it does speak to the transparency of the process. Regardless of how these problems are coming out, the point is they're coming out now rather than 3 years from now. Congress can debate them and in some instances look past them, in others, not.

The problem is not the size of the line, but how the game plan is designed around that line. Our brilliant staff have put together one of the largest offensive lines in football, yet they insist on running an offense designed for a small, quick group of linemen. So, the question is... will we get new linemen, will we change our offense to a power run/ball control offense, or will we continue to fuddle around reading football for dummies?

Pretty much how life works. Same as.... if your a big shot bank or auto maker you get billions, while the small fish get tossed aside and go bankrupt.

No idea. These guys say so many things so many different ways, I wouldn't begin to remember. Although I would agree, paying taxes is pretty easy or should be. I assumed it was $140k due to all the late fees/penalties. But, who knows. As I alluded to in my post, somewhat in jest, if you have a career politician who's only problem is a $100k or so in tax evasion; I say take him. That's relatively minor compared to all the other illegal activities our wonderful congressmen get away with on a daily basis. The single biggest change anyone could bring to DC would be terms limits for congressmen. Period. Until they do that, nothing will truly change.

No the offense and defense doesn't have an equal chance to score, I agree with you there. However, when you consider that the defense can score or they can stop the offense and get the ball for their team, it becomes much closer to equal. Hence, you see stats along the lines of what I posted - 43.4% of teams that lost the coin toss win the game. So, how unfair or uneven is it when you have a 43.4% chance of winning? Yeah, it's a bit of a disadvantage. I agree and the historical numbers agree. However, do those odds necessitate changing the rules? I'd say no. The biggest problem I have here is this gets wrapped up into the whole notion that everything in our life has to be fair or even. Life isn't fair. You had a chance to win in regulation. You have a chance to win in OT. Is it always fair/even - no. Home teams, teams have better players, some teams cheat, some teams pay off refs, some teams have better coaches - there's all sorts of advantages for teams during a game. It's never even.