Johnny Coli

I admire your loyalty to Brady, HD, I really do, however misplaced. But the argument isn't that Mr. Mediocre threw 3 INTs in eleven games. He threw 3 endzone INTs in eleven games. And not in regular season games, playoff games. That is unbelievable. Three endzone INTs in eleven playoff games? That is a staggering statistic. It's amazing, really, that when Pats fans discuss Brady it's the team's fault when they lose, and it's Brady's miraculous play despite all odds when they win. It's almost as if he didn't have Belicheck. Or Charlie Weiss' system. Or a dominant defense. Or Vinatieri's clutch kicks. Or help from the zebras. How does he do it? The answer is, of course, that when you take even a few of those away he falls back to earth. As in 3-8 versus teams with winning records and stumbling into the playoffs because his team plays in the terrible AFCE, or missing the playoffs entirely.

I wouldn't say "led", HD. I'd say he's damn lucky he was on a good team. Let's say a running back fumbles the ball three times in eleven games. That running back would get the reputation of having poor hands. Let's say that running back fumbled the ball in the endzone three times in eleven games, not just at crucial times in playoff games, but in eleven regular season games. That running back would never be allowed to touch a football again. So, here we have the vastly overrated Tom Brady throwing three endzone picks in eleven playoff games. On two of those occasions his defense bails him out. Once is a mistake. Twice is bad luck. Three times is a pattern of incompetence. Back in the 2001 season, Brady threw a single TD in the playoffs. One. In 2002 the Pats didn't make the playoffs. So, he basically "led" them nowhere. In the 2003 playoffs, Mr. Overrated threw two TDs in the playoff games leading up to the Superbowl, with the majority of the Pats' points coming off of Vinatieri's foot, or the Defense. In the SB, he did everything he could to throw that game away (as per LA's post), and was bailed out by Vinatieri and the defense yet again. In the 2004 playoffs the defense completely shut down Manning in the snow, but Brady finally did have a better-than-average day at the office against a rookie-QB-led Steelers team the following week. Yes, he had two TDs against the Eagles in the SB, but, once again the game was won on the foot of Vinatieri. Last year Brady "led" them to 3-8 against teams with winning records, but got to play in the abyssmal AFCE, thus stumbling into the playoffs. There you go. He benefitted from playing on a team that was firing on all but one cylinder (him) for 18 months, and won in spite of Mr. Mediocrity.

Great article in the Boston Globe this morning, outlining why all the bluster and shouts of treason coming from this Administration regarding the NYT story are just that, a lot of bluster and faux-anger. Terrorist funds-tracking no secret The article mentions an Executive Order signed by Bush in September 2001, authorizing the Treasury Department to track international funds. Here it is. National Archives link to EOs for 2001 Executive Order 13224—Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism [pdf] One would think the terrorists would have figured this out anyway. From the Globe article: Hell of a week for this Administration and the GOP "leadership." Flag-burning amendment sham, a pay raise, denying a minimum wage increase, voting against a resolution on discussing an Iraq withdrawl timeline, repealing taxes for the uber-wealthy, falsly demonize the press. Quite a productive use of their time.

Bingo. Slightly better than average system QB with padded dink and dunk stats who was lucky enough to play on a team that was good for about 18 months. They played in the worst division in football last year, and beat only 4 teams with winning records. Brady also has a tendency (three times in eleven games) to throw endzone INTs at critical times in playoff games, most notably against Denver this past season when his INT in the endzone was the single-most crucial play of the entire game. An INT in the endzone is a spectacular blunder in a playoff game on the road, especially when the guy throwing it is erroneously considered a clutch player. No top 5 defense to bail him out and he's as mediocre as they get. No Vinetieri and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Excellent. Another substantive knee-slapping post from a GOPPP sycophant. Well done.

At Dubya's rate, he could change, nullify and/or ignore almost 300 more laws in his remaining two years. You don't care, but I do.

The "internets" is our friend. A wink, a nod, and a flick of the pen Pay no attention to the Dick behind the curtain. Bait and switch Let's use what's left of it to wrap a dead fish with It's a good thing we have Dubya upholding the Constitution. What would we do with out The Sentinel protecting our freedoms?

Well, he's still wrong. Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index Reagan: 380 in eight years (avg 47.5/yr) Bush 1: 165 in four years (41/yr) Clinton: 363 in eight years (45/yr) Emporer: 206 in a little over 5 years (41/yr so far)

And they sat on the story for several months during negotiations with the administration, much like they did before breaking the warrantless wiretap story (which they sat on for a year). The story shouldn't be that the NYT let it be known that the US was monitoring international financial transactions (why is this even a surprise...in other news the sky is blue), it should be that the administration is doing it without any oversight.

Wrong. Number of signing statements for Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2. Bush #1: 232 in four years Clinton: 140 in eight years The Emporer: 750 in five years

Let's get him a pave stone.

One big peeve I have is the whole "It takes time" load of crap. In 1994 we had the Cup here in the states. You're not going to get a bigger recruiting tool than that. Twelve years later and we've got an even worse team. Eight and nine year old kids back in '94 are now 19 and 20 years old. The US team's goalie is freaking 37. You're telling me that we've still got guys on the 2006 team that were on the 1990 team!?!?!?! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that team sucked. So in 12 years we've managed to not get any better at all. In fact, a guy on the radio this morning said that in 270 (or so) minutes of World Cup play, they managed to fire off 4 shots on goal. Four shots?!?!?!? Hahahahahahahaha! Yeah, let's give them more time to develop. Hahahahahahaha!

I wouldn't quite say "nothing". The GOP voted to stick with the Bush/Cheney "Stay the course"© plan for Iraq, despite the fact that a majority of the american people see a tarpit up ahead and not a plan. They've dipped into the Rove vat of slime and reduced the Iraq war debate to focus-tested sloganeering instead of a reasonable discussion on when, if ever, we can leave. They managed to kill any and all investigations into the NSA wiretaps and the CIA leak. They managed to shoot down an increase in minimum wage while simultaneously handing a tax break to wealthy heirs and giving themselves a raise. They got their nut base fired up with self-serving gay marriage and flag-burning amendment votes. They've handed Bush even more power than he already took for himself, all the while pretending to be outraged. They've placed two right wing conservative judges on the Supreme Court. They confirmed one of the the architects of the NSA spying scandal for the highest intelligence post in the US. I'd say they've been pretty busy.

Back in the mid-90s, after they held the World Cup here, I was one of those people who would vigorously defend soccer to all the non-soccer people. Partly because I played it way back in the 70s when no one here in the US knew how to coach it and you could go off into the woods, get high, and then trot back out onto the field without getting hasseled by The Man. I also defended it vigorously in the mid-90s because I just don't like people and enjoy arguing with them just for the hell of it. But even I can't muster up the energy to argue over soccer anymore. I just don't care.

Yours was more succinct.

The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong. George W. Bush, October 7, 2004 Not sure what the point of your post was, Wacka. The original premise of Ed's "hot-off-the-presses" topic-starter was that Ricky "38% and falling" Santorum and Hoekstra found some kind of smoking gun...a smoking gun that even Our Leader says doesn't really amount to much. So your ability to trot out old quotes from Dems and Clinton administration officials accomlishes what, exactly? That you've been waiting to spring that "Gotcha!" on us?

Yes, I'm saying these roughly 500 pre-Kuwait invasion shells don't count. But if you won't take my word for it, because I'm obviously biased, you could get the same info from the Iraq Survey Group final report (pdf). Or, you could get it from Our Leader. Or the Defense Department (buried near the end of this AP story, because the only people who think this is news are Hoekstra, Santorum, Fox News, and you and Ed). Or the US military, the White House, and the CIA (WaPo).

Swing and a miss, Ed. Santorum is like that weird guy on the beach, walking around with a metal detector that eventually goes off. "I've found the treasure! I've found the treasure!" he exclaims. The skeptical beachgoers gather around the dancing fool, and watch as he frantically uncovers...an old piece of chewing gum foil. An equally absurd tidbit from this Fox News bombshell is that Rep. Hoekstra, the other clown running around waving this "smoking gun", is actually the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. EDIT: In almost certainly related news, Santorum's poll numbers have hit a four year low (it's a FOX News link, for you Edward). Rick is getting killed in the PA-Sen race that has him polling 34 to 52 to Casey. 38% approval is pretty bleak, but it's not nearly as bad as how Our Leader is doing in Penn. Nice to see Fox pimping 34% approval as a "bounce."

The UAW in Detroit is standing with the undocumented workers who were fired from an auto supplier. UAW says supplier's action is anti-union That's a pretty interesting position, I think. Here you have an undocumented labor force, who many would say present a direct threat to a unionized labor force. Yet the union is standing behind the laborer, regardless of documented status. That brings up another thought-provoking scenario, if a company has a mix of documented and undocumented workers, and it becomes a "union shop," would the so-called "cheap labor force" that they hired now qualify for union scale wages. According to the settlement in this case in Minneapolis in 2000, undocumented workers who want to unionize fall under the same anti-descrimination laws as workers with documented status. The unions in Colorado are actually recruiting foreign workers, regardless of immigration status (Unions step up efforts to recruit immigrant construction workers ). The AFL-CIO actually called for Legal Rights for All Immigrant Workers in 2001. In fact, the Day without Immigrants rally this past May 1 was organized by unions. That's a pretty significant stance for unionized labor in the US to take, I think. They don't see undocumented workers as a threat...they see them as a way to swell their ranks.

I don't see many out there calling for uncontrolled immigration. They are calling for immigration reform.

I think calling it an "invasion" at all is misleading.

Once again, this is not an adequate way to frame the issue. Many undocumented workers arrived in this country by "legal" (in the strict sense of the word) means, ie work visas, education visas, US employer sponsorships, asylum seekers, who intended to remain here legally, but whose time ran out. Others are here to follow family that is here legally. If you want me to say, "Yes, Ken, they aren't here legally," I'll give you that. You win. However, in my opinion, they are here, most aren't causing any problems, and those that have integrated well into society should be allowed to stay. Clearly, that is where we are going to disagree.

No, I'm pointing out that this isn't a black and white issue with respect to origin of country. Almost every single post on this subject refers to illegals from Mexico, which is not completely a true representation of who these undocumented workers are. Several of the links I posted refer back to, or mention programs from this (Boston) area that helped legalize many of the undocumented Irish in the 80s and 90s, most of whom remain here as vital, productive, integrated citizens of the Commonwealth. Those programs worked, and Boston is a city that embraces it's Irish heritage. No, I wouldn't consider a little over half of the undocumented workers coming from Mexico (as per your link below) as the definition of a strictly "mexican invasion". If, as a scientist, I saw a jar of colored marbles, and 54% of them were red, I would not describe it as a jar of "red marbles."

Not really. It costs a person from South America a considerably larger amount of money (in the way of bribes, transportation, "guides", etc) in proportion to their native income to illegally enter the US from the south than it does for an Irish immigrant to fly into Logan airport and dissappear into Dorchester. The Irishman hops on a plane, and is here in a few hours. The latino has to "hoof it" through the desert and contend with a criminal underground of corrupt guides and border officials on his/her sometimes weeks-long journey into this country. I'm willing to bet the risk, both physically and monetarily, is far greater for those coming from the south.

Lost on many of you who are so vocal on this topic is the fact that not all of the undocumented workers are "mexican". Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform Here's a transcript from an interview with an Irish immigration counselor in Boston from 2001. Some 40 Million Americans Claim Irish Heritage Many of these undocumented workers have become law-abiding, productive members of society, a fact that is not lost on the Irish living in and around Boston. The Boston Irish Reporter: Time to Stand Up And Be Counted Here's more from IrishAbroad.com, covering the immigration rally in NYC. They zero in on one of the "anchor babies" I see villified in this forum every time this comes up. More from an Irish blog (Irish Voices). Scrolling down to another entry from the same blog should hit particularly close to some of you from Buffalo: The attempt by many to describe this as a "mexican invasion" couldn't be further from the truth. There are undocumented, productive, law-abiding workers from almost every country in the world here. I'd love to see the reaction in this country, and this forum for that matter, if all of a sudden 50,000 undocumented Irish workers and their "anchor babies" were rounded up, handcuffed, and deported.