Dr. Tyler; Captain America

I'm not talking about feasibility. If you want to argue that Iraq was the most "feasible" country to invade, I'd argue that feasibility is a poor reason to invade a country. The problem with arguing that we need to eliminate Saddam NOW@!~@$%#@@ is that then, you have to get into why in the hell it was Saddam and not, say, the Saudi Royal family or Castro or whichever other dictators there are out there. The fact that you simply repeat "BUT WHY WOULDN'T WE GET RID OF SADDAM!?!" after I make that argument doesn't change the fact that, quite obviously, it wasn't urgent that we rush into Iraq just so we can get rid of a HORRIBLE DIRCATRO when there's quite a few other ones that we tolerate.

Madden is terrible though.

He shouldn't have. However, we're also not even really pushing for any of these other dictators to be invaded, etc. Example: The Saudi Royal Family.

Ya'll need to stop overestimating the rookie factor.

Ambien is a good sleeping pill.

Yeah dude, shit would be the hotness.

And this is where I'd type out my preformatted response that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LIBERALS WOULD DO or something like that, and then cut a promo about late term abortions.

The defendant speaks... In this article (via Kos, admittedly), Williams refuses to give names. But he's apparently not the only one.

Why does this get a reaction and not this?

Touche, salesman.

No, they don't. Really. There's like three guys who are so afraid of Dean getting the chairmanship that they're willing to renominate Terry McAwful. Trust me, he won't win.

You're right, of course, that Perot would typically take more away from Dole than from Clinton. However, he had an uncanny ability to frame himself as an "outsider", which drew a lot of the center. Either way, he had a large effect on the outcome.

Probably, but I'm not sure what to change my name to. And he was still stronger in 1996 than Nader was in 2004. Nader had NO effect on the election; the sum of all third part candidates -- and all of them of note were drawing from Kerry's base -- was 1% of the vote. That's NOTHING. Perot, I believe, still took 6% (don't quote me on that)

Perot was much stronger of a third party candidate than Nader ever was, and if Bush II had been running in 1996, he wouldn't have gotten 50% in a win, either. That 50% argument as a testement to Bush's strength is disingenouous, because quite frankly, there was no third party in 2004. 50% isn't a sign of a strength, it's a sign of a weak third party atmosphere.

That is such a disingenuous argument.

Pretty much to be expected. They're probably arguing that all the votes in that heavily democratic county -- which were thrown out during the election but then counted in the hand recount -- are invalid. Nothing's gonna come out of it, so whatever. It's about as futile as Democrats arguing about Ohio.

Yes? I dunno.

Note: I don't know if that actually happened, but it probably did. He was scared.

Ty Law got knocked the fuck out by Hines Ward last time.

DON'T WORRY PATS FANS, COREY DILLON WILL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1111!!!oneone

34-20

I've actually been here the whole time, Jane. I predicted about a 5-11 season, but hey, keep reaching and calling OTHER people shut ins, FrigidSoul!

Pittsburgh's injured folk will have had over 3 weeks to rest their injuries. They'll all be fine. Bettis' ankle injury is a joke, and Staley should be 100% by the divisional round. Nice try, though.

Heil Palestein!

Long story...