Dan

She's was watching you type that. Right?

Is it wrong for my first response to be.. !@#$ you. ??

Reading the Declaration of Independence? Really?

<br /><br /><br /><br />That's what i was thinking... why get into all the Egypt stuff and politics on Super Bowl Sunday? If you're getting an interview for the pre game show.. keep it light and fun. I'm sure they taped more serious stuff that they can air tomorrow, but today isn't really the time for it. And why all the snide jabs... just seemed overly dickish to me on a day that's about football. No need to desecrate the holiest day of the year with stuff like that.

In all honesty, if you're not a Steelers or Packers fan, isn't it fairly common to not really care who wins? I know I don't.

Just turned on NFL Network and they had celebrity picks... I didn't recognize any of the celebrities (well maybe 2 of the 20 they asked). Am I old or just out of touch?

Not watching yet. I'm assuming they need to get all their Favre love out of the way before they actually talk about today's game. So, I'll be flipping it on later

Apparently Reed was the 2nd longest discussion http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/02/05/HOF.insider/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin My question is why are idiot sportswriters voting on the HOF inductions? I've never understood that logic. Also, the guy states next year could be tougher because Of the list of 1st year eligibles.. but I don't see any of them as HOF material.

Andre's biggest problem is that he's not been a media suckup like Irving.

To see Irvin sitting there and Reed continually overlooked is just a shame. Just sucks.

No friggin doubt. How got in so quickly is a complete testament to how political the inductions are.

I think you're supposed to just write, in bad grammar, any random thought that pops into your head... especially the ones you'd never actually speak out loud if someone were in the room with you. Then you sit back and wonder why everyone's hatin' on you.

Of the 3 WRs, Reed is by far and away the more deserving of a HOF induction. Carter and Brown, IMO, are alot like Monk... good, solid WRs, but not special in any real way. So, yeah, Monk made it, but those guys should have to wait quite a bit before they're seriously considered. Faulk is head and shoulders above Bettis and Martin. Quite honestly, I'm not even sure why Martin is this far along in the consideration. He was a sold back for a number of years, but HOF... really? Same with Bettis, although he did come through in some big games. But, I'm still not sure how he's a HOF back. Richard Dent, Chris Doleman, Charles Haley and Cortez Kennedy... really? I'm not sure I'd consider any of them HOF material. I might could be sold on Dent, but that's about it. I guess we just have to consider anyone who played for a while and put up decent sack numbers. Same goes for Dermontti Dawson and Willie Roaf. I just don't get it. Sharpe and Sanders IMO, helped to redefine their positions in the modern game and should be in hands down. So for me, I'd say Reed, Faulk, Sharpe, Sanders and Sabol (although I'm not completely sold on Sabol; his son I'd say has actually done more. But I don't know all of Ed's contributions either.)

In most states, not entirely sure about NYS, there are many areas within a County that aren't incorporated - that is, they're not in any town. Hence, they fall under County governance. In the smaller, more densely populated New England States, RI, CT, maybe MA, I think there's little to no area that's not an incorporated town. Hence, the County government is not needed. They still have county structures; they just don't need to perform all the civil services that you usually associate with a gov. structure. But, the County government and City Governments essentially do the same thing. Typically, I think, City services trump County services. So, you'd call the City police not the County Sheriff, for example. But, there are all sorts of complications and/or overlaps regarding jurisdiction of services that are usually worked out with intergovernmental memorandum's of understanding between the Cities and Counties. That's it in an acorn-sized nutshell.

As a senior in HS, I had half day classes. I rushed home that afternoon just to watch the Shuttle launch. I was sitting in my house, alone, in my dad's chair.... in complete shock.

True points. But, IMO, the ghosts of Super Bowls past were just too much for the Bills in this last one. The Bills were outplaying Dallas and in great shape to win the game... even after Thurman's fumble. But, you could just see the look in their eyes after that play. They looked defeated.. .they had the "here we go again" look in their eyes. While, Dallas just seized the momentum and never let if go. At 13-6, Dallas scoring didn't mean we lose the game, but the players sure acted as though the game was over at that point.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Nope. There's nothing any politician can do to "reform" health care/insurance that's not going to in some way increase premiums. Because, that's what businesses do - they raise their prices at every opportunity. So, if we completely repeal the Health Care Act and replace it with new laws as proposed; they'll have similar a similar affect. The can of worms has been opened. The health care industry (primarily the costs) in this country are obscene. Either we get the costs down so that you can afford to get sick without insurance or you find a way for everyone to get insurance. Personally, I prefer the former. But, looks like we're going to focus on the later. So what can either party do to bring health insurance coverage to all individuals without the insurance companies trying to raise their premiums? I guess we could take the tact that not everyone needs health care, but then that's perhaps a different argument all together. Either way, insurance premiums haven't skyrocketed (at least mine haven't) and at least some businesses are using it as an excuse for the time being.

I'd assume they're more forward thinking that I am. But, really don't know what motivates them. I'm fairly certain 1/1/14 is when it would become mandatory for everyone to have health insurance; hence, when employers have to provide it... or not.

Thanks. yeah, I wasn't so much interested in all the good and bad prognostications of the past. So, I didn't really search. But, that's kinda how I see it. Companies used the federal monies, whether it be stimulus or whatever to clean out their books, get new business, generate more profit and then sat on it. But, then I don't get why we're upset at the politicians because these people are sitting on their profits that are largely due to my tax dollars helping them. I'm not sure I buy the whole health care act has created all this uncertainty; therefore, I can't hire anyone. I think it's a cop out. Like most people, I haven't read the entire bill and like most people I'm not a lawyer; hence, I don't quite understand the intricacies of all I have read. However, my understanding (as a person running a business) is that for the time being it has almost no affect on my business. In a couple of years, I'll be forced to give our employees health care or pay into the larger system. But, 2 things: we already give all our employee healthcare, and most importantly, that mandate doesn't kick in until 2014. So, even if I don't give my employees health benefits why wouldn't I grow my business and hire people if needed until then? I can always fire them later if they demand health care. So I keep coming back to people saying that the billions and trillions were wasted; but it seems the economy by and large was saved just prior to a full collapse, the largest corporations are doing as well as they ever have because of it; yet people aren't being hired - largely because businesses are becoming more efficient and just banking the profit. I can't really blame any of the politicians for that. I can't help but think that most people expect the world to go back to 2007 when homes were grossly over valued, and as jboys said, companies were overstaffed with too many employees that they've since discovered they didn't really need. It's a mess no doubt. I'm just trying to understand it all better. Agreed about the promise to not exceed 8% unemployment. However, I would suggest that no reasonable person would expect any one, especially a politician, to be able to completely and accurately foresee the future. So, I can give a little ground there. But, I do see your point. As to your last paragraph... exactly my point just stated in a different tone. Please don't interpret my comments to mean I expect companies to bring their profits into the market just because people need to be hired. I'm suggesting that you can't blame any politician because companies aren't.

OK... here's my simple dilemma... I'm hearing on the tube that Obama's massive stimulus spending and trillion $ bail out didn't work because we still have 9.4% unemployment. Also that it's not up to the government to create jobs; it's up to private business. right? Here's what I don't get... the stock market is at 12,000pts, the banks are stable, the car companies are doing as good as ever. OK. so why aren't these people hiring yet? And why does everyone say the President and the Congress have to do something to get America working? It seems all the stimulus money did it's job as it was spent to save wall street and corporations too big to fail; it did that. Now those corporations aren't holding up their end and hiring again. What am I missing? Why don't we conclude the stimulus trillions did their job and bailed out all these mega corporations? Why do we want less government that doesn't try to create jobs, but then criticize politicians when the unemployment rate is high? Educate me...

That's what I was saying earlier today... I hate the Jets, but if they go on the road and beat Manning, Brady, and then Rapelesburger... crap that says something. Those are probably the 3 best QBs in the game over the last 5 years. I might have had to pull for them in the Super Bowl. Fortunately, they lost in spectacular fashion!

Hanie era begins!

Yeah, I brain froze on my word choice there - hence, the quotes. I'm sure Wanny (and Gailey) wants to give Edwards opinions, ideas, etc. on the gameplan and use of players. And Wanny wants those suggestions to, in the least, be given serious consideration by Edwards and not just be brushed off. Hence, the whole meeting to "make sure everyone would get along". If either one, Edwards or Wanny, let's their ego get in the way and doesn't listen to one another and work together; you've got the potential for a serious headache. But, if they're able to sit down all week and develop the best use of the players and the best gameplan, which Wanny will have (and probably wants to have) plenty of input on, then we're in better shape.

Didn't really want to start a new thread.. but FWIW: Polian, the God of all GMs, has signed just four, yes, 4 free agents since 2004. They were talking about it in the context of Manning's new contract and making him the highest paid player ever. They did that in 2004 with a 7 year, $98mill contract. Since that time, they've signed 4 FAs. And now Polian is promising to the bring in more FAs to help get them win And how many Super Bowls have they been in? So, the Colts are clearly trying to do it all through the draft, albeit because a couple of high contracts are forcing them to. And how far have they gotten with the leagues best QB? How good has Polian's drafting been? Interesting to say the least. Makes you wonder if Manning will take a pay cut, to help the team pay for other players to help him win more?