OGTEleven

How many times before 2004 have you seen this ridiculous question in a presidential debate? If he gave any answer, what would the follow question have been? Are the moderators in the business of supplying Kerry with campaign material? The net of this is that Bush did not fall in to an undisguised trap. Every person on the planet makes mistakes every day. Why do we need confirmation of this? Where does the buck stop? Where do the stupid questions stop?

You're having a good time...... You're not thinking about the Bills........ Some dude in a #96 jersey walks in and reminds you of a wasted 1st round pick, and the current state of affairs................. Voila................spoiled.

In the linked article: Link there was a comment that caught my attention: How "objective" should ABC or any news organization be? What do you think?

I have this weird feeling based on the last few AQ tapes, past statements and currently public information. These are tapes from Al Zawahiri (sp?), the supposed ABC tape and some previous statements from OBL. What are the odds that OBL tries to personally pull off a major suicide attack on US soil? For him to do this, I would have to believe it would involve act/acts larger than 9/11. To me it seems to piece together that this would be attempted. Is it possible? Ridiculous?

I think we should criticize everything Drudge reports. He has proven unreliable. A while back he seemed to imply that the illustrious Dan Rather had used forged documents in a 60 minutes II story. The nerve. First to break such an unfounded "scoop", but on top of it to question such a stalwart member of the press, a person with such high standards. How could he do this? Now he comes out and quotes the CIA and ABCNews as stating ABCNews has a tape. If he thinks ABCNews has a tape, shouldn't he go to a more reliable source than ABCNews to find out? He could have gone to Rather, but he's burned that bridge. Maybe he should call Katie Couric to find out if ABCNews has a tape. She might know.

To me that says a candidate must pay for their advertisements and not have them paid for by a corporation. Viacom (owner of VH1, MTV, etc.) charges for air time. This must mean the Kerry campaign has paid for the "video" advertisement by the group "Vote for Change" that they keep running. It's neat. They made it look just like a video with the credits at the beginning and end, etc. All sorts of cool people like REM, Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks and Daryl Hannah's favorite assailant are in it. To think that this has been legally paid for by Kerry. How clever. (Smiley used at the request of BiB)

Is the waiver wire based on last year's standings? If so, that's stupid. After 3-4 weeks it s/b the current year.

What does McCain Feingold prevent in this election cycle that was allowed last time around? I'm just curious if anyone can give me a quick summary. I don't want to read 46 pages about it. I'll appreciate any serious responses. Thanks.

Edit function here I come.

How did you not get it that I was joking? Did you think I actually thought you were reading editorials by Lenin or Lennon? Wait. I'll go back and edit them.

Can you also send me $10 for every time you've taken a joke in a good natured manner? That envelope would be worth 37 cents until the post mark hit it.

Don't get so touchy. My point was that even something you see as cut and dried can be interpreted in another way. That is the problem with reaching a conclusion first and using the "facts" to meet your conclusion. Just about every word ever written can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. FWIW, from my point of view it has seemed that Kerry has continuosly tried to imply support from various republicans (mostly McCain). I wondered why Bush didn't simply reply "well that's nice that you and John are buddies, but he has endorsed me" during the debate(s). From the Lugar article alone you can't reach the "implication conclusion" but if you've watched Kerry, you certainly can. It would be a tough standard to meet if one needed every person in his party to agree with every single stance he held on every single issue. (This is true even with both parties in such ridiculous step.) For Kerry to pick out a few points where prominent R's disagree with Bush, might not be lying, but what would be the point if it did not infer a deeper division between Bush and McCain/Lugar, et al? Who's Chaney? And why are you making fun of someone with a heart condition? I thought you guys were more sensitive.

If DB were capabe of hitting quickly run patterns, the Bills would be 4-2. Game planning to an opponents's weakness is god. Unfortuanately, you also have to take your own weaknesses into account.

R Cow's list: Michael Moore Dan Rather George Soros Kitty Kelly Lenin Lennon Susan Sarandon NPR

His comments could very well have been pointed at GWB, but if the situation were reversed, I have a feeling that your analysis of this quote might be: Luger obviously meant the adminstering of the funds, not the presidential administration. Although the (insert prez name here) team did an admirable job in allocating the monies, the actual handling of them has been made too complex by the rules set down by (insert "escape goat" name here). They have not allowed (prez) to act. This is yet another example of the right taking a quote out of context and using it for political gain. I wish everyone could be more logical like Michael Moore.

How many times in Ravens franchise history have they had 4 picks in one game?

Didn't the defense score in that game?

I'll give you two reasons: 1. If you score a TD (ha ha) you can go for 2. 6+2+3=11 2. Our choices on 4th and 3 were: a) FG, b ) interception in end zone, c) sack. I think the coaches chose wisely.

I've thought about stealing the Bush sign from my neighbor's yard and the Kerry sign from the guy down the street. Phase 2 of my plan of genius would be to switch them so the Bush guy has a Kerry sign and the Kerry guy has a Bush sign. Brilliance in action. It would be great if they both complained to the community paper.

If Tags makes it and Wilson does not, it will render the entire HOF meaningless to this football fan. What an absolute joke.

1. I owned a baseball team ( fantasy team, but still) 2. I think one of the mutual funds in my 401k owns some oil stock 3. My dad was president of our little league 4. I hate Connecticut because it is too hard to spell, so I don't care about this one.

My son goes by his middle name. His first name matches mine(and my dad and his dad and.....). He's only 4 so it's no big deal yet, but we're a bit worried about that stuff. I think it will work out ok. He already understands the whole concept so it won't lead to any confusion on his part.

Newsflash: By the time your daughter gets to school your choice of bands will be viewed as if they were Bobby Vinton. Not one kid will have any idea who that band is.

I agree with those who say in the long run t won't matter, but in the short term it will. It think PMS is about the worst set of initials for a teenage girl. She is sure to get blasted unless nobody knows her middle name. Here are a few options: 1. Change your last name. Sarama looks like a random assortment of letters anyway. You could go with something common like Jones or Brown, or pick out something cool like Paup. I'd suggest just reversing it and going with Amaras. PMA won't get your daughter in trouble. 2. Reverse the first and middle names. 3. Go with "Doctor" for a middle name. Everyone can go around saying Paige Dr. Sarama. Sure, people might think there is always an emergency going on, but your daughter will think medicine is her destiny. Cushy retirement here you come. 4. stevestojan can the middle name and get a new one. We have two boys (one is Andrew, BTW) so we didn't get to use our girl names. One was Paige. Another was Helena (pronounced (hel-AY-na)). Go ahead and take advantage of our naming accumen if you wish with Paige Helena.

We have also confirmed that stevestojan can't spell worth a stevestojan.