JimBob2232

Look again...we have one more vs. denver

I wanna kishh you...

Crap its back. I knew it was too good to be true

Anyone else not get the announcers on their HDTV feed? Dont ge me wrong, im not complaining, in fact its great, but im not getting any audio, just the standard game sounds.

Nah, he just found out where mularkey is keeping the stash of cheesburgers.

I want to hate the patriots and everything they stand for...but how can you not like teddy bruschi...

I watched most of this game today. You think our o-line is bad? I am not sure there is a lineman on green bay who could start for us. They are horrible. That said, brett made a few bad tosses, but the lack of timing, lack of healty receivers and his usual RB, it doesnt suprise me. Also, dispite 5 interceptions, he almost led them back to tie the game at the end. Simply amazing that after 5 ints the game was that close

Wait, you just got done telling me that he is innocent until proven guilty, then you go out and say "do you think OJ is innocent, too"? Last I checked he was found not guilty and buying a house in buffalo. Maybe I need to look it up again. We are making a huge mistake if we start making our own decisions independant of what a jury decides, and even a bigger mistake if we are making these decisions based on what we think we know came out of secret grand jury testimony. He may very well be guilty of these crimes, and if he is, he should hang for it. But im taking a wait and see approach for now.

So I guess he is guilty until proven innocent then?

Woah woah woah.... I never said Libby wasnt lying. If he is in fact intentionally lying, he needs to be prosecuted. End of story. But this needs to be proven. And the word of some random attorney is not enough evidence for me to say that he is lying as alleged. I am just choosing to let the process run its course before I make any firm committment either way. It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed? If you are libby, you go into the grand jury with 2 options. 1) I can lie and hope to get out of here scott free, but if im caught lying I go to jail for a long time or 2) I can tell the truth, get charged with outing a CIA agent, then fight those charges on the basis that the agent was not covert. It seems to be option 2 is the better option. But yes, I would like to see alot more evidence than the press release of a prosecutor before I make these kinds of rash judgements.

I always start off discussions like this by saying I am a conservative, so everyone knows where I am coming from. I dont know that there is a difference between Clinton and Libby. But until we know more about the case, I cannot make that determination. Clinton should have been prosecuted for it, and if Libby also lied and intentionally misled the grand jury, he too should be proscecuted. That said however, there is a big difference between mispeaking or forgetting minute detailes of events that happened years ago, and intentionally misleading a grand jury. It remains to be seen what exactly happened. It appears from the outset that this is a witch hunt. It pains me to see our legal system ripped to shreads as it has been recently. This "we cant charge you with the crime, but we can charge you with covering it up" nonsense needs to go. I was stupid in the Martha Stewart case and, unless it can be proven Libby was lying to cover up a crime, its stupid in this case. It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited. She worked at the CIA. Her neighbors knew that. Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties. She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime). So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath. No doubt libby and rove knew (or at least felt) that there was no crime commited. That would have undoubtably been their defense had they been accused of outing a CIA agent. So, knowing that no crime was commited, why would Libby lie to the grand jury to try to cover up a crime that wasnt commited? It just doesnt wash. But, i'll let they legal corse play out and see where it goes from here.

2.21 in va beach - WAWA

If you read the text of Roe v. Wade, you will see that the decision was decided on the basis of "the right to privacy". This so called right is NOT in the constitution. And even though its not there, the majority used the so called "penumbra of the constitution" to try to read between the lines and derive a "right to privacy". What the constitution does however, is provide a means of ammending the constitution, which we have done many times. If we want a right to privacy, let congress put it in the constitution. We have a clear cut method of doing so. We do not have a living, breathing, constitution. If its not there, its not there. And if it should be, add it. The supreme court should not be derriving rights from the constitution. Keep in mind though, that even if roe v. wade was overturned, that would not make abortion illegal (which is how it should be). It would simply mean that states could make their own laws making abortion illegal. I would venture to say that half to 3/4 of the states would maintain current legality of abortion laws. So we have 2 options here... 1) Ammend the constitution to give americans the right to privacy, or 2) Faithfully follow the constitution and Overturn Roe v. Wade and give the issue back to the state level. All this said, i am much more worried about the recent Kelo vs. New London case which gives the government the right to seize private property for economic development.

I think you are making too much out of roe. I personally want roe overturned, not because i am against abortion, but because its bad law. I dont care if you get an abortion. I have my own personal views on the issue, but that shouldnt impact on the law of the land. What should impact the law is legal precedent and the constitution. And the kind of judge who interperets constitutional law they way I feel it should be interpereted is exactly the kind of judge who would overturn roe. I find it funny though how supposedly republicans have a litmus test that you must be pro life to be a SCOTUS Justice, yet it is okay for democrats to come out and vote against any judge who will vote in favor of overturning roe. Its absolutley insane.

I dont care. You lost one game. Your right to complain about your future is over. If you lose out on a tie-breaker or BCS rank or whatever I dont care. You lost. The reason you are not in is because YOU lost. Its YOUR fault. I can live with that, and we can tweak the method of selecting teams who make it all day long, it doesnt matter, the problem is solved. The way i look at this is this: You win all your games, you get a chance to play for the national championship. You lose, even one game, you lose that right. If you are lucky, you get a second chance, but maybe not. If florida beats miami, but loses to virginia, too bad. Now you need help to make the playoffs. Its really that easy.

This will get interesting no doubt...Does bush try again to satisfy democrats, or does he try to sure up his base and attempt to salvage his presidency? The two ARE mutually exclusive. Say what you want to about Ann Coulter (i probably agree) but her column today made a very valid point. She basically said conservatives have never really been behind bush on many issues such as government spending, border protection, restrictions on free speech and lack of vetos. But they trusted him on 2 BIG issues. 1) War on Terror and 2) the supreme court. While many conservatives are still with the president on the War on Terror, giving in on the supreme court is not sitting well, and bush is losing the people who will stand up for him; The people that voted for him. Roe v. Wade is not, in and of itself, a republican litmus test. What republicans (okay, excuse me) conservatives want is a Justice who interperets the constitution and puts personal preferences and opinions behind them. I wonder privatly how many people have actually read the roe v. wade decision. I wonder how many people can even state the constitutional reasoning the majority stated in their decision. I dare say that if you cannot answer those questions, you should have no opinion on roe v. wade. Reasonable people will disagree on issues. Medical experts will disagree on when life is formed. To quote Justice Harry Blackmun, "One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion. [The Supreme Courts] task...is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. " This is what the conservatives want in a Justice. Someone who takes all personal beliefs out of the equation and "resolve(s) the issue by constitutional measurement" only. Thats it. And a good conservative justice SHOULD be the same as a good liberal justice. The problem with Miers is that we did have any proof she could hold up her end of the deal. I am of the opinion however that she was the presidents nominee and therefore should have had a chance to be at the hearings and heard. For those who think Roe v. wade is the only issue, tell me, what is John Roberts position on abortion? Dont know? Good. Its irrelavant, and should be irrelavant. He has proven himself to be an outstanding constitutional scholar, and will be an asset to the court, and faithfully interperet the constitution. So does Bush now nominate a Justice with a clear cut record and outstanding credentials? Or does he reach back into the pot and pulls out someone he can push through? Why is it democrats can nominate a very VERY liberal judge (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ACLU member) and get her confirmed 96-3, and everyone is saying its a bad thing if bush nominates a very VERY conservative judge? Its because there is a clear cut double standard. Neither is right, there should be ONE standard. John Roberts met it with flying colors. Lets hope the next nominee does as well.

And chuck lester looks like he should be dating lafawnduh

they were only doing sure bets. SF, Houston and miami were about the only other teams "out". I was suprised to see him pick buffalo since we ARE only 1/2 game out. The way we are playing we are in trouble, but still, we are only 1/2 game out.

The difference is that nobody right now is claiming Ohio State, Penn State of Florida State should have a chance at the national championship. In fact, they already lost a game, Someone always gets left out. Even in the NFL or MLB there is always a team on teh cusp that doesnt make it. Doesnt mean the system is bad, just means they werent good enough to be a surefire team in the playoffs. If penn state wants to be in the playoffs and have a shot at the championship, they need to beat michigan. They didnt, they lost, now they need some help to get in, and if they finish on the bubble, thats their own fault, and thats acceptable. What is NOT acceptable is if virginia tech finishes undefeated but doesnt get a chance to play for the championship because texas and usc are also undefeated. This scenrio will not play out with a playoff system as proposed on this thread.

Here is my plan. Have 6 auto bids to the tournament. Give one to each of the following confeneces: Big 10, SEC, Big East, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10. Let each conference decide who to send to the tournament (i.e. regular season winner or tournament champion). Then have 2 at large bids. These auto bids would allow for any team not given an auto bid. Use a BCS-like formula to determine these 2 bids. Then rank 1-8 and play 1vs 8, 2vs7, 3vs6 and 4vs 5. Then have 2 remaining weeks to determine a champion. If money is an issue, it wont be when they see how much revenue a playoff system would generate.

I hope VA Tech goes undefeated and doesnt get a chance at the championship game. VA tech fans drive me crazy, and perhaps FINALLY, we would get a playoff system...at least VA Tech fans might stop arguing with me about it

On a side note, Im looking to go to the jets/bills game on/around new years. How are jets fans? I am going to be taking my younger brother (17) to the game as well. If we show up in full bills clothing will there be problems? We wont be antagonizing anyone, just watching the game. Anyone have any meadowlands experiences?

I dont know..the vikings without Randy Moss are greatly improved this year...might the same kind of sucess happen to oakland without him?

Drop Gonzalez and Henry, add in D. Jackson and Javon Walker and you have my disaster of a team.... Luckilly I have C. Palmer / C. Johnson to pull me out some weeks.

I also dont have a problem with it. If you are going to take that approach, then what is the point of even having divisions? Just take the top 6 teams in each conference and send them to the playoffs. Its something you have to deal with. You cant change the rules during the season.