Crap Throwing Monkey

My God, TD just made me read this WHOLE thread again. Just to confirm that TD is still, in fact, holding Superhero at an undisclosed location and keeping him from posting since April 30th.

Reminds me of what Albert Speer said of Hitler: "One seldom recognizes the Devil when he is putting his hand on your shoulder."

Sounds like they did "advise". Now we're getting into the "consent" part of the process.

Kind of the point I was trying to get at. I'm sure such a system where someone has to ask for proof of insurance THEN check a database to see if you're eligible for care, that requires employers to report who refuses to sign up for health insurance to a central data store, will work PERFECTLY with no problems of timeliness, accuracy, latency...or just simple human stupidity. And I'm sure the additional layer of bureaucracy will be cost-effective and reduce health care costs overall, too.

That would be Janet Reno...i.e. the Democrats.

Because that was the intent of the Constitution's framers, that the president should get whoever he wants and the Senate has no say in the matter.

A busted flea flicker, no less.

No, but I can hit the urinal from 14 feet away... No, wait, that wasn't me who said that...that was some other bullshitter.

And many others...

So everyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer goes on the list, and if they have insurance through another source they hope no one checks the list and denies them care? Good plan.

I don't know that I'm completely in agreement with that statement (that she's wholly unqualified). I think it's more accurate to say that she's wholly inexperienced, enough so that it's impossible to get a comfortable impression of her qualifications - though I'd argue that her experience in constitutional issues isn't as weak as it is perceived, involved as she was in the legal issues surrounding the 2000 Presidential Election. The second-biggest strike against her, in my opinion, is her experience in front of the bench as a litigator and commensurate lack behind it; I'd like to know that a Supreme Court nominee has some experience non-partisanly representing the law rather than partisanly representing the client. The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court?

My employer offers insurance. I refused it. But I'm on my wife's. So do I go into your database or not?

That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism. There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most. There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too. Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so. Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process. Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice. Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience?

Because nothing says "I can suck-start a LOX siphon" like acrylic !@#$-me pumps.

In the best possible way.

Plus, if we didn't reverse the sterilization in blacks we'd lower the crime rate...

I think it's odd. A clear case of cronyism, albiet in its "best" sense (in that Bush chose the best lawyer he was familiar with), but based on her merits...well, she doesn't have a lot, does she? Active in the Texas bar at least, which is probably the best positive I can see about her. The biggest problem with the nomination that I have is that she has no track record to judge, which means that when it comes down to the Inquisition, she'll be judged exclusively on personal and partisan grounds...which makes me wonder if this isn't meant to instigate some sort of partisan reaction to prompt some sort of "Up yours!" to the Senate Democrats, as I certainly don't see a lot of judicial sense in it. As for Miers' suitability for a Supreme Court seat...I wish I could judge her on her own merits instead of Bush's lack thereof...but I can't see where she has anything to suggest her, good OR bad. Like I said, odd...why nominate someone that no one can judge?

You've never heard of the term "play-action pass", have you?

That includes JP?

I blame Doug Flutie and that stupid-ass 5-wide empty backfield spread formation that everyone said was "using the pass to set up the run". Ever since then, the pass is supposed to come first... (And I still haven't figured out how that formation was "setting up the run" with an empty backfield. )

And it's the only push Adams generated all day.

It happens. Top-heavy, weight off-balance, catches a wave wrong...the boat goes over. There's not even remotely enough information to tell what happened in this case...but it does happen. But THAT is criminal. Literally, I think...aren't boats like that required to have life vests/PFDs for all passengers?

Right.

Tell that to Marv Levy and Bill Parcells.

SF didn't quite "scoop it up" for a TD. They rather bumbled their way into recovering it for the TD. Frankly, neither of these teams looked any good on that play...which may be the ugliest play I've seen yet this season.