Max Fischer

I wanted the Jets to win. Better to kill, quarter and bury the King as soon as possible.

Yeah, so? I just find it amusing that predicting a 10-6 Pats record was blasphemy and treasonous last week. Now the responses are "of course they are." What a difference a week makes. (in fact, the thread was closed due to flared tempers).

Max Fischer post Sep 7 2008, 08:27 PM Post #1 2 - That said. This is a team that nearly went 19-0 last year. 19 and frickin' zero. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised they will game plan and rally to a 10-6 or 11-5 record AND beat the Bills at home. Say what you want, but the Pats are a damn good team and Billy B is a great coach. Don't book your flight to a division championship just yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- == I brought this up last week. Granted Jets are not that good - but still - if the Pats (likely) beat Miami their 3-0. I think they beat Miami again and Jets at home - that's 5 wins. I say they win can win 5 of the remaining 11 for 10 wins (including Bills at home). Therefore I think Bills need 10 wins with tiebreaker or 11 wins to win outright. No matter how you look at Pats are an above .500 team.

Give some credit to a very good Jax D at home.

Dude, you sound like an ass. What next, Amos and Andy impressions?

RK looked terrible even on a commercial. I thought Heat was very good.

1. Taco Cabana - lived on TC in Austin. Still dream about it. 2. Chipotle - barbacoa is excellent 3. Baja Fresh. I won't even drive past a Taco Bell.

But of course Obama has never said such a thing. Let's stick to the facts and ask what is it about Obama's stance on the Russia/Georgia situation you agree and disagree?

Very doubtful NATO will invite Ukraine or Georgia into the club. Way too dangerous and Russia can exploit the alliance.

I'm for Obama but, come on, Mother-Frickin-Jones?

Agreed. I wonder if Fewell would play Whitner up near the line as a 4th linebacker to keep extra pressure on the O-line and spy Garrard. May be a modified version of the 46 defense.

Seriously? Anyway, do you see the point when you don't argue they're called socialists and unpatriotic?

"Currents" or bad luck/timing. Carter never would have been elected if Nixon wasn't a, well, criminal. I say Nixon was a decent president on the issues and leadership skills but he was paranoid and lacked a moral center. Ford never would have been president and Carter never would have won (ran on "reform"). Carter may have survived a second term but the country was racked by inflation, gas prices and of course the Iran hostage crisis. You can argue he lacked the skills to deal with it but he didn't cause those problems. Maybe Reagan would have eventually been president in 1976 or 1980 - but everything broke his way in 1980. GHWBush probably shouldn't have won in 1988 - Democrats basically imploded and nominated one of the worst candidates ever. I always thought Hart (if he kept his dick in his pants), Gore or Biden could have won in a landslide. Though after winning I don't think Bush was all bad - and much more respectable than his son. Bush was hampered by Republican fatigue and vacillated between doing what he thought was right (tax increases, reforms) and the Buchnan wing. In the end there was no there there. Plus, he was unlucky to run into a flawed Democrat who was also the best campaigner in history.

I don't know. I think it's more complex than that. I tend to think the electorate may be more polarizing than compromising. Marketing only works when there's a willingness to buy. How else can you explain that so many people believed John Kerry or Obama are unpatriotic socialist babykillers? (or Republicans are racists, or whatever the opposite example is). The electorate so easily grabs onto those simplistic and, I would say, hateful, labels. I mean, how to come to the table after someone accuses you of being a traitor to your country? This board is a great example of "gotcha." It's nearly impossible to admit a fault in your ideas or your candidate without being jumped on as an idiot for backing the position or candidate.

Actually, I don't have a problem with anyone voting for the candidate closest to their conscience. If that's what they believe and back it up then so be it. However, I do believe compromise is the essence (and a strength) of democracy. Most problems begin when a candidate, party, official will not compromise at all - despite the fact we will collectively get nowhere, despite the evidence against them and despite the will of the electorate. But what really stops progress is when people defend their positions by attacking the other side. I don't mean to say we should "compromise our principles" but many people don't see the difference and then set out to demonize their opponents and offer no compromise at all. For me, when someone says I'm a "traitor" and "terrorist-sympathizer" because I oppose invading Iraq, where do we go from there? When someone is accused of being a "racist/nazi" because they believe in police profiling then it's hard to blame them for not coming to the table to discuss. It's pretty dangerous and not healthy to stand on the sidelines, keep your mouth shut and pretend it all doesn't matter. But, hey, if they don't complain then so be it. But they are no worse than those who criticize but offer no alternatives and don't take a stand either way.

What you won't accept is you're as much to blame as the most partisan of Americans. Criticize, do nothing, repeat. It's worse than apathy. It's watching your house go up in flames and hurling insults at the fire. It's as empty, dangerous and, yes, "stupid" as those you rail against.

27,000+ posts and you've yet to offer anything but "you're stupid." Good Lord, man. Do something constructive. Offer a plan, stand up for something. What a coward.

Ah, a little fire in the belly? Ok: "YOU ARE A COWARD." Feel better? Maybe you're ready to stand up for something other than your own superiority? I don't care if you are a D, an R, a communist or a member of the anti-American Alaska Party. But a good start would to stand for something other than standing on the sidelines telling others how stupid they are. The Founding Fathers would be proud of you. Be for something, stand up for something, be something than a message board equivalent of the miserable, no-it-all old codger complaining about the world on his front porch. "Hey, you kids, stay off my lawn! Damn, good-for-nothin' kids . . ."

Because it's easier to criticize than to ever stand up for anything. Some call it political cowardice.

What's the matter big guy? Can't take it when you're exposed as a fool? When challenged, you cut and run. Face it, you're a one-hit wonder who can only reache into a small bag of grade school insults and simplistic political prejudices. We've yet to see post that you didn't copy from Ann Coulter's website. Sorry we undercut your internet message board fantasies of validation and superiority. If you ask, maybe we'll be easier on you.

When will you have an original thought?

I'm glad someone brought this up.

Didn't you hear? The Pats forfeit the season and the Jets suck.

Is there a bigger moron on this board?

Can Peters plan Center?