RuntheDamnBall

CUT IT WITH THE CRUSADE. WE GET IT.

And on that note, what the hell happened to Roscoe Parrish?

Julian Peterson is playing pretty well right now. It takes about two seasons to come all the way back from some of these really devastating injuries, but it is happening with more regularity, and if there's one I wouldn't doubt, it's TKO. He just had a setback with the hammy earlier in the year. I trust he'll be back in full force in '08. Meanwhile, and this one's for VA, but Crowell was everywhere today. I think he is learning a lot from playing alongside Fletcher.

This is about all that needs to be said about the game. We hung with Indy, I wasn't expecting even that much to happen, and a couple plays could have changed the outcome entirely.

Corrected.

If JP were playing right tackle or committing false start penalties you might have something there.

Good call. And my vote: Bowie's "Life on Mars"

The mention of Gorilla Monsoon reminds me of a favorite Onion headline: "Wrestling Announcer Can't Believe What He's Seeing"

so much for character... arrgh.

No, of course it's not real. But it's really funny. Sorry for the re-post. But I mean: Too good.

Your point? If 90% of the population lives downstate then how is it a problem when far less than 90% of the resources go to that area? If you think WNY can survive without NYC start the secession movement. It's a complete fallacy that NYC is a drain on WNY. BTW, New York State senate is Republican-controlled.

No one's forgetting facts. Can you draw an analog to today's situation with these two points? France didn't invade the colonies and say "now go to it," and if you want to be so silly as to bring up the help of the natives, why not also bring up that the gracious revolutionaries and their descendents proceeded to almost entirely wipe out the native race? I'm not sure that's a precedent we'd like the Iraqis to follow.

There was this country that had great visions of democracy, that fought a war over eight years for its independence. Following this war, it took four years for those who emerged victorious to write and adopt a constitution. Two years after that, this fragile country elected its first president. About twenty years into its life, this nation was invaded by another. Over seventy years in, this nation still had slavery. It still didn't treat a good percentage of its population like human beings. It fought a perilous civil war. Women wouldn't have nationwide suffrage until 130 years into its existence. Basic freedoms for all were still up for debate long into its life. It's obvious what I'm talking about, but conceiving of this trajectory outside of the idea of "our nation" can really help us understand just how slow change is. We act like we just got here naturally and that it happened without much struggle at all. Fact is, big change occurs over time, with much struggle, even when the nation and the revolution that precedes it is homegrown as ours was. With Iraq, they don't even have the luxury of a case as precarious as ours was. Here, we imposed democracy on another nation. Forget that 'imposed democracy' is pretty damned close to the textbook definition of an oxymoron. We're there, now what? Well, the changes that we hope for will probably take a long, long time to happen. They will take much longer if we keep awarding contracts to companies that have no wherewithal to build an infrastructure in Iraq, if we allow the widespread corruption that has consumed that nation to continue, and if we continue to approach this issue with an impatient attitude. That's all I've got to say about that.

Nice!

Not sure if this was posted or not, funny stuff. Some profanity... Albright 'column'

I don't think Vilsack has the energy it will take to win in the '08 race. There are going to be a lot of potent candidates with a lot of star power involved and he just doesn't inspire. If his ideas are just superb and he has a great team behind him anything is possible, but he'll have a hell of a time just overcoming the fact that his name has the word "Sack" in it.

Now there's an idea. Right next to the old NiMo/NRG plant Mistake by the lake Part Deux.

I believe that's retard for "Corvette."

This is offensive to drunkards everywhere.

I'm not calling anybody a "winner" in the situation. But particularly in the case of rape or incest, there are no winners, except for the rapist in the world you advocate I'm looking for a situation in which people at least have the choice to direct their lives as they see fit. Obviously, our perception of where life begins is different and this is paramount. I think it's misguided to believe that God is directing an action of violence against a woman, and that she has no say in the matter. Again, your solution for all the unwanted, neglected, uncared for children in this world? Live in reality.

Bingo.

I just don't believe that. Your life was brought into being by the cooperation of two people. God doesn't fertilize an egg, God doesn't take women by force and FORCE a CHILD onto someone's life who is unwilling. How is it fair to FORCE a woman to have a child out of rape or incest, to force even more trauma on a woman and completely change the direction of their life by either making her give up a child (not as easy a decision as it's made out to be) or to raise it -- an investment of more than 20 years? I'm sorry. It's completely unethical. I'm not saying those are always the wrong options. But I believe in the choice. And I definitely don't believe it's the domain of men to decide this for women. Ask yourself, would you force any woman in your family to have a child that was forced upon them? Anyone you love? There are too many children right now who aren't being given the best life can offer them. I'm in no rush to put even more of them out there.

How about this: does a rapist or person who violates another via incest have any right to bring a life into the world? I don't think so.

Touche.