Crap Throwing Monkey

There's optimism, blind optimism, psychotic optimism...and then there's finknottle.

I beg to differ. In the Mularkey offense, those are not only obvious passing downs, but require a shotgun formation.

That's because JP's mobile. You see, a mobile QB makes the line better, so if the line's not better with a mobile QB, it must be the line's fault for not understanding they're supposed to be better with a mobile QB. Mobile QB = line's fault, immobile QB = QB's fault. Geez, do I have to explain everything?

There is some truth to that...his best pass all day was a short, quick strike to Moulds (I believe) that didn't give the pass rush time to get near him. On the other hand...regardless of pressure, he's shown quite the propensity for throwing long passes well beyond his receivers. I'm not sure that a good OL would be fixing that...some of the problems are, in fact, other than the line.

Now VA...if there's one thing we learned over the past three years, it's that sacks are never the line's fault when Bledsoe's under center.

You weren't around for the Kay Stephenson/Bruce Mathison/Vince Ferragamo days then, were you? But then again...the offense at its current pace (48 points in 4 games) is all set to beat Stephenson's '84 team's mark of abject futility of 200 points in a season.

Stupidest. Thread. Ever.

Ecstatic. Seeing it early in the first quarter lets me sit back and enjoy the rest of the game without the sense of dread and horror that comes from anticipating it... ...and then they invented all sorts of new dreads and horrors for me to suffer through.

It's very simple: 1) Play-action pass 2) ????? 3) Profit.

Rob Ray, a goon? Most of my memories of Rob Ray as an enforcer are watching him skate away from fights. Ray's no more a goon than I am. He just skates better.

I've been pretty consistent in calling the White House a bunch of candy-ass pandering wimps (actually, I've called them "politicians", which is pretty much the same damned thing). The correct response should have been "Bennet, as a private citizen, not only has a right to any opinion he sees fit to believe but a right to express it under the First Amendment. He does not, however, represent the White House, and the White House does not represent him."

Nice response. I've got two bones to pick with it: 1) Like it or not, there IS a link between crime and race: blacks in this country are more likely to be impoverished, and impoverished people are more likely to commit crimes (particularly "violent" crimes or crimes against a person or property). 2) "[F]undamental" link? Nowhere do I see anything implied that is "fundamental". He implies a link. I think anyone not living in a Skinnerian Box would have a hard time arguing that there is not a link. But "fundamental"? Show me where that's even implicit in his statements.

Different topic. What Bennett said is one thing. The First Amendment is more an issue to be discussed in the context of idiots like Pelosi who are calling for the White House to shut Bennett up.

Good times, good times... "The solution to the drug problem is aborting all black babies."

There's a difference?

In other words, there is a connection between poverty and race...and ergo, a non-causal connection between crime and race. I wholeheartedly agree. Which does not explain why you conveniently discard it in this case.

Particularly the way he did; his phrasing was, to put it mildly, awkward. However, that makes him boorish, and maybe even stupid. Last I checked, shoving one's foot in one's mouth does not make someone a racist.

I'd buy that reasoning if you weren't conveniently tossing aside the obvious and long-standing connection between poverty and race.

It took me all of three minutes to find that out. Two of those minutes were spent realizing that every single "independent" press outlet was running the exact same story, and no one ever bothered to look up any transcripts to find out what was actually said. "Spin" doesn't enter into it. It's laziness and irresponsibility on the part of the media...and greed, as taking his statement (which was badly phrased, even for the point he was making) out of context makes for a far jucier story and better ratings than the truth.

He was in the government 15 years ago, and now has a syndicated radio show. For all the clamor over this BS, you'd think he was Attorney General or something.

Appointed by Janet Reno, who was...a Democrat? The whole Kenneth Starr-Whitewater investigation should be declared off-limits for any rational conversation, as far as I'm concerned, as rationality didn't even remotely enter into it. So I guess it's perfect for this board.

Actually, he doesn't believe that. Which is clear from the context of his statement: he had a caller call in and suggest that Social Security would not be an issue if it wasn't for the legalization of abortion, as all the aborted fetuses would now be in the workforce and paying into SS. Bennet pointed out that that was a faintly silly idea, as abortion and SS are at best only remotely connected, and was as silly as saying that aborting all blacks would reduce the crime rate. His context was not crime prevention, it was the stupidity of assuming apparent causal connections where there are none. But of course, without the context, it looks like he's saying that the secret to crime prevention is genocide. That's probably why the context wasn't reported: in context, it's a non-issue. Out of context, it's a really juicy story.

That in itself is a sure sign of mental illness.

What happened to "Let's try and keep the average age UNDER 40, shall we?"

Ignore him. He's a blowhard.