Alaska Darin

I started watching it from the beginning, for two reasons: 1. The Premise sounded cool (an entire day in real time). 2. Keifer Sutherland is one cool fugger. Dude is a drinker, smoker, cusser, etc. Pretty much the anti-Hollywood regular guy. Now I just stick around to see how many twisted ways he kills people without predjudice. Excellence of execution, if you will. I don't think I'd start with season six. You have to start at the beginning to see the evolution and the fact that Jack Bauer has killed more people than smallpox.

Nah. The best one was when he killed the dude in the conference room, then cut his head off and put it in the duffle bag because he needed it for street cred. That was wicked.

That and the fact that the show is completely unbelievable. That said, I've never missed an episode. Mostly because I can't wait to see who Jack is going to kill next.

No Tony Garea and Rick Martel? No Samoans? No Moondogs? Midnight Express? Freebirds? Fuji/Saito? Ridiculous.

[/irony]

Who've they beaten? Really? Green Bay? Minnesota? Arizona? Detroit? The only even decent wins they have are versus the Jets and Giants, both of whom were exposed later. The Bears can definitely win the SB, but I wouldn't put a dime on them because it's just as likely they get absolutely rolled.

Or play a really weird instrument (besides your skin flute). Or drive a really gay car. Or give us gems like the Telephone Pole Thread. Or kill virtually every team you root for with your bad karma. Or get up in arms about Ieatcrayonz. Or get banned and have to post under a different username.

Facts are not word games. The cool part about that statement is it's so ludicrous that the word can't really describe it. For instance: I absolutely believe you're a moron. That's because your partisan politics get in the way of rational thought (if you're actually capable of that).

None of which is abnormal when you go back and study the draft and the impact that second dayers generally have. But Donahoe is the devil, so...

Reading comprehension isn't your strongpoint, is it? [/rhetorical] I said none of the above, nor did I imply it. Thanks for the typical strawman.

His/her Username reminds me of boobies. I like boobies.

That wasn't my point.

I don't doubt that he's pissed about the Sammy/Mike thing. There's also two sides to every story. Villianizing one side is generally BS, which was my point. I doubt Sammy/Mike is less to blame than Alex/Ed. Group dynamics are like that. Has nothing to do with "not believing TV". It has to do with celebrity feuds and how juvenile they are. I simply don't care too much. You mean because I was acting in the moderator capacity at the time? Why is it so hard for so many of you people to separate the two? Because I'm an unpaid guy who occasionally deletes a post or scolds a tard, I shouldn't ever say anything as controversial as: "I believe everything I read"? I guess on some pedantic level that would make sense.

Translation: I don't at all understand the subject but I'll defend my party blindly until the country implodes on itself. Military cuts were necessary. That isn't at all up for debate (US Defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world, for no good reason). What is up for debate is the cuts that were actually MADE. Consolidating and eliminating waste is a good thing. Gutting capability in favor of larger bureaucracy or keeping expensive programs around for political gain are a BAD THING. That's what Mr. Clinton's "administration" did.

Where would they get them? After Mr. Clinton gutted the operational capability of the military in favor of the bureaucracy, we don't have the troops for that and the countless other endeavors we're currently supporting.

Nope. I just don't believe much I see in the media. WTF do you care? Put me on ignore if my posts wad your panties so tightly. Trust me, it won't hurt my feelings. It's fairly well known? You mean because of the video of EVH talking about it has been broadcast around the world? Or because that's the speculation and it makes enough sense so it's now gospel?

Molson's opinion, brought to you by CNN and Salon.com.

Meaningless. The Saints lost that game more to the elements and the stadium than they did to the Bears. That luxury won't be available in Miami, though the grass field is in Chicago's favor. The Bears win against good/decent teams when they get a large number of turnovers. If the Colts don't turn the ball over in this game, it's an easy win. Chances are, if they win the turnover battle by any margin at all, it's an easy win. The only thing that changes that is if the Colts' Special Teams struggle huge in this game. That's more likely to lead to the Bears winning than anything. Why would they have to be great against the Bears? Chicago's offense may be good for one or two drives of length per game against decent competition. If you win or tie the field position game, they're a pretty average team.

Thanks for putting in all the effort. The answer to the question goes far beyond nation building, though I'm not surprised that's all you could come up with.

I believe everything I read in the media too.

A buncha JSP's at about triple their limit. Philly fans are the worst. By far.

I doubt it. He's probably reached his ceiling. His lack of football acumen and feel for the game isn't on the OLine. The great backs only need a crease. McGahee needs a truck sized hole.

What will be the long term ramifications of leaving Iraq in the next six months/year/18months without a stable government in place, oh regurgitator of retardia? PS. When I ask "long term", the period covers a minimum of a decade.