Crap Throwing Monkey

Then don't criticize Mickey for being hypocritical either. One could (and many do) make the same "wag the dog" arguments about Bush's use of military power. You want Mickey to consistently paint people with the same brush...do it yourself.

The flip-side to that argument is that interviewing minority candidates, while it doesn't guarantee them jobs, guarantees them exposure in the head coach market. And that exposure counts for something; owners and GMs certainly talk amongst themselves, so a guy who has a "good interview" - who apparently has and presents all the skills necessary for a head coach - but is not hired for some reason (Bill Parcells suddenly becomes available) still has exposure in the market that he may otherwise not have achieved, which makes him more likely to be a candidate for other positions in the future. Is it a perfect solution? No. It is not, however, without benefits: it's an implicit admission that racism isn't a problem in the NFL (as it's a tacit admission that candidates will be judged on their merits and not their race, if given a chance) so much as conservatism and hesitancy of team ownership and management, and it's far better than any quota-based affirmative action type system they could have put in place.

Of course, he could get away with it, since judging by the video he's gayer than the Peter Pan guy...

They're worth a hell of a lot more than regular season losses.

No, I'm pretty sure it means the Bills are doomed to a 12-44 record over the next four years, followed by a franchise move to Little Rock, Arkansas. Because the the fate of the entire team rests upon the nine minute descrepancy in the time the article was published! People are !@#$ing lunatics...

I thought he made sense once. Turned out I was just drunk.

Actually, I was just making a very droll and sarcastic observation that I found mildly humorous. So, as it was my comparison, I can say with authority that it really had little point to it. Which, of course, did not stop Mickey from...well, from being Mickey.

Yes, it does.

I'll give that study props for being long-term and consistent, so that historical comparisons actually mean something. And then I'll roundly criticize it for asking a question like "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?" "Or what?" What the hell kind of a stupid !@#$ing question is that? I want to know how many wise-asses like me answered "I usually think of myself as an eggplant." "Or what." Morons. The REALLY interesting thing about that survey, though, is the "apolitical" people in '04: of 1197 people, it looks like virtually NONE were apolitical (I'd like to see the raw data, to see if "virtually none" is actually precisely none). That in itself is a pretty significant indication of polarization, when your usual "I don't give a sh--" crowd suddenly gives a sh--. BTW, I poked around that site some. There's better graphs that actually illustrate your point very well: for example.

Probably not. After all, I didn't see a poll asking if he should announce a 4pm press conference to announce his new avatar...

Don't forget to mention that one's a propaganda outlet for its political party, and no one takes the other seriously. Or is that too ambiguous?

This statement is giving me hairballs. Not that I disagree with it...but what? Yes, the candidates were extremely polarizing. Yes, they were polarizing in the "lesser of two evils" sense. But...how do two candidates that are polarizing give the appearance of polarizing the public without the public actually being polarized? Or, in other words, can polarization of the electorate only be an appearance with no "substance". If the electorate appears polarized...then aren't they therefore polarized? Yeah, that's just semantics...but they're pretty !@#$ing important semantics if we're going to discuss whether or not the public is "polarized".

Johnny, if you want attention, go pay for a hooker. Savvy?

That's because only the extremists give a sh-- about the primaries, it seems. That would also explain why lunatics like Pat Robertson and Lyndon Larouche can get a credible percentage of the vote in certain primaries. But...judging by both the turnout and closeness of the last presidential election...I'd say the public's pretty fairly polarized, relative to their usual apathy and distraction...oooh, American Idol!

Yeah, we have avatars. But none of us post a weekly "How does everyone like my avatar?" poll.

Extreme left. If only because, frankly, the current political atmosphere is so polarized I doubt there is a "middle of the road". Even so, I can think of worse candidates than Daschle. Like Bush. Or Kerry. Or Clinton. Or Clinton. Or Gore. Or Bush (no, not that one, the other one). Or Cheney...

Belichick is proof that sometimes our little failures help us grow into big successes. Of course, sometimes our little failures preface us growing into even bigger failures as well. Who knows how Jauron would turn out.

Uhhhh...no, not really.

How come Cybercast News Service is "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party", but the New York Times isn't "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Democratic Party"?

Why? He thinks with his tongue? Or does he think with his flagpole? Either way, it would explain a lot...

Dyslexics have more fnu.

I don't know...but if he is responsible for getting TD and MM fired, I'd like to buy him a beer...

Not to appropriate someone else's work, but your bull sh-- really does beg the question: are you missing a chromosome as well?

You know, if we traded McGahee for Favre, we could package Favre and Moulds for Houston's first pick and get Reggie Bush. Plus, I bet the Niners would trade their pick for Holcomb and Gandy and Evans...THEN we could get Leinart too. Then we'd be unstoppable!

He's not? What if it's Miami?