“While I reject everything that the WBC has to offer, I can't deny the courage of their convictions. Man, I don't think I could have stood up and done that. It makes me feel a little dirty to say it, but I was kind of impressed.
“I have to defend Belichick. There is an advantage to running up the score -- not for this game, but for all the rest of the season's games. A blowout puts a little worm of fear in your opponents' minds, because they come onto the field knowing what your offense can do. Head games are important.
Second, this is the NFL. The Colts weren't giving up, and who knows? Three TDs in 8 minutes would have been unlikely and amazing and almost unbelievable, but it's within the realm of possibility. like every other team, the Pats get paid to win, and as long as there's a chance they might not win, they should be playing.
Finally, as someone else said: Injuries in football? NO WAY.”
kurr on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:41:24
“3 TD's in 8 minutes? Are you kidding me???? That's like saying it's possible for Tebow to beat the Steelers in the playoffs in Overtime with an 80-Yard TD pass!!!!!”
Jeffbaseball on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:37:56
“How can you defend a cheater? Win at any cost Belichick. He's a big "Art of War" fan. Kill your enemy and rub him into the ground.
Tperl on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:37:08
“Actually the opposite is true. It makes teams angry that they Pats show no class. And keeping your best player in the game when up by 30..stupid.”
kidjudas on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:29:45
“Three TDs in 8 minutes? Really? Is there any Kool-Aid left or did you drink it ALL....”
“I assume you're referring to McChrystal. Apples and oranges.
McChrystal was removed for being wildly unprofessional by publicly questioning a commanding officer's orders -- in this case the Commander in Chief of the United States' Armed Forces. McChrystal disrespected the chain of command in a mind-bogglingly stupid way, and any superior officer put into the same position by a junior officer would have cracked the whip just as hard. If you don't have friends in the military who can explain this to you, you can read pretty much any Tom Clancy book and he'll back me up. Clear and Present Danger is my personal favorite.
Dempsey was asked his opinion regarding veterans using their status as veterans to advance a political stance against Obama. He said that veterans should not use their status as veterans to advance any political stance, period. This has nothing to with Dempsey breaking the chain of command, and everything to do with Dempsey being the target of crude insinuations by Hardin for expressing a completely nonpartisan opinion.”
“Political Science 101 lesson for you: When a general "answers only to the President," that's called a "dictatorship." Here in the United States, the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but in the end the general answers to the people. Because, y'know ... not a dictatorship.
Also, the general has a little thing called freedom of speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Hardin's insinuation that the general's opinion was somehow coerced by the President was demeaning and deserved being challenged.”
Robearbeach on Aug 24, 2012 at 12:31:42
“That's quite a convoluted spin of why a military officer who serves at the pleasure of the president would not diss the president, especially after the president has eliminated other high ranking officers who have done so.”
“If the guest isn't responding to questions or challenges, then it's not an interview, it's propaganda. The guest is just there to repeat the party line until people believe it. In which case, a decent journalist not only can but should cut the guest off and move on to real news, which is what Bashir did. Kudos to him. Cable news would suck less if this happened more often.”
“The general's point was that he didn't like to see military service used for political purposes. He was not saying that citizens can't express their opinions, but that it's tacky use the uniform as leverage while doing so. I don't fully agree with him, as I can imagine circumstances where military service would tend to favor a more informed opinion. Nevertheless, I can see Dempsey's point.”
“You're neglecting the fact that registered voters don't necesarily translate into actual voters. Right now, GOP voters are staying home in droves because their candidates are a bunch of tools. That's good for Obama and the Dems.
If you give them something to be ticked off about, then there will suddenly be strong voter turnout from conservatives. Naturally, this would not be good for the Dems. This is why Obama has avoided even saying the word 'abortion.' Bringing it up would just bring more anti-choice voters to the polls than pro-choice voters. Same with gay marriage.
I would rather have the Dems win and then get gay marriage passed than make it a platform issue and have it hurt them in the general election.
I think we both agree that morally right doesn't always mean politically smart. I think where we disagree is that I don't believe putting gay marriage on the ticket is politically smart.”
HCLiberal on Mar 15, 2012 at 19:03:55
“Let me see. It is the right thing to do and the majority of Americans support it, as shown in a link I posted in another comment. But Democrats still shouldn't embrace the issue because of your assumption/speculation of what the Republican turnout would be with or without it?
“Just FYI, the poster's name was prudencehall, which is why I used the word 'prudence.'
To answer your question, having an issue like gay marriage on the Dem platform will rile up GOP voters and bring them to the voting booth in November. I want them unenthusiastic and staying home.
In an ideal world, the Dems should put this on their platform, and they should be proud to stand for the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of their orientation. As a political reality, I think the better choice is to dodge the issue until after the elections, and then pass all kinds of legislation for gay civil rights once the Dems have their way. At least, I hope that'll be the case.”
HCLiberal on Mar 15, 2012 at 16:06:22
“I just posted a link to a national poll that majority of Americans support same sex marriage, which means independents are overwhelmingly for it.
As for upsetting Republicans, there is already plenty that upsets them. That's not how one should decide what to do.”
“Going for the "marriage=procreation" argument, are we? Good luck with that.”
olerealist on Mar 21, 2012 at 16:10:38
“QUOTE: "“Going for the "marriage=procreation" argument, are we? Good luck with that.”
Response: My brief comment on same sex "marriage" seems to have touched a nerve so I feel the need to elaborate a little.
I am a guy who has been married to an angel (of the opposite sex) for about 55 years. I have learned that the benefits of "marriage" go beyond the rites of the bed.
When she and I discuss any issue we each get the benefit of both a man's and a woman's viewpoint. When we just sit together on the front porch and hold hands we get sensations which I severely doubt are felt by same sex partners. Through her I am privileged to get acqainted with female organizations and causes and visa versa.
Real marriage is not just a piece of paper and a bundle of legal rights. It is a sacred and ancient institution. God knew what Adam was lacking and he knew it was not another man.
If two persons of the same sex are willing to go into a ceremony, civil or whatever, and pledge eternal fidelity and devotion. Fine, lets give these partners every
kind of civil and legal right that a married person might enjoy, financial, proprietary, etc. etc.
We give you our respect but not our praise. BUT please do not parade down the street proclaiming that you are married to one another and expect our applause.”
Cyberfox on Mar 15, 2012 at 13:39:43
“Ever see the stats on children from single-parent homes??? Those would scare you.”
“As much as I'm pro-gay marriage, I am a little worried that putting it on the Dem platform will finally galvanize GOP voters this cycle. Obama is (wisely) trying to avoid giving them anything at all to care about, which is why he's been doing backflips to avoid even saying the word "abortion."
The morally correct thing to do is to put gay marriage on the platform. The politically correct thing to do is pretend it doesn't exist until the election is over.
I'm honestly conflicted as to which is the better choice. I fear a GOP president.”