Shuke-D

There are certain posters here who are living up to Joan Jett's Manifesto on non-conformity. For my part, they are some of the most fun ones to read.

Actually, I haven't. Let me google them to see what this is all about. I'll try Vonn, skiing pole, and photo spread and see where that leads me

"Lindsey Vonn Stripped" I sometimes honestly wonder about the search terms you use in google.

Meh. I stand by my general assessment, and besides, I'll take any excuse to put on my jumpsuit, complete with sewn-in codpiece. Overall though, save for a couple posts that are nothing more than inflammatory grenade-lobs (which were ignored by both sides I should point out), I would call this a reasoned exchange of differences. No name calling between the principles who are disagreeing. The principal players here are confident enough in their own beliefs that they can disagree, heatedly, without resorting to demeaning each other to assuage their own lack of confidence. I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

You know, I really never wanted to find out the answer to how many times do you have to be kicked in the nuts before you go numb and get used to it.

See how much more fun this is than this

I was actually thinking that since several posters here have a, er, are really excited about Baine's potential as a dual threat QB that they could change their screen names to reflect that.

Which poster is "Boner" then?

Just a technicality, but is a converted attic above their detached garage really part of their house if I'm paying for my own DSL line instead of stealing the password for their secured wifi network? Ah, independence.

Inspired mispelling or clever shot questioning the sexuality of journalists? With all of the ambiguous homoerotic references going on around the boards, I'm beginning to think www.urbandictionary.com should be required reading.

Gagreed. And each one dilutes the foxlike brilliance of Tony Rommel, er, Romo.

You're right. If people ever start creating videos for every little sports thing using Hitler and the Nazis, it could get really annoying.

Stealth Recruiting [The ninja face was made for comments like that]

You're right. If people ever start comparing every little thing they disagree with to Hitler and the Nazis, it could get really annoying.

Rod Smart?

Some commercials are great not in what they did but in what they made possible:

I stand corrected. Betty White in anything = top ten consideration. But throw in Abe Vigoda, and Epic status is realized.

Thanks for clarifying!

Actually, I'm pretty sure Waters was way before Dickey's time. Recruited perhaps by Parker? Correct me if I'm wrong on this. That said, I thought you were down with the thugs to create, as I termed it, "the Wild Bunch." If we go that route, let's not do it half-a**ed but use our whole a** like Miami.

The game was actually a good one for the first 45 minutes. That said, it was, for me, a pretty tepid bunch of commercials this year. Any nominations for best SB commercial? I have to give it to the intensely absurd Doritos commercial at the end. "Tim loves Doritos." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Jiu9iV3PM

That kinda gets into the whole "it's just political theater, not policy discussion" aspect that we ended up at. And I'd go so far as to say that just because they are doctors does not give their opinions any particular relevance to the larger discussion. That's like saying because someone was a great NFL football player, they should be a head coach. Mike Singletary is an exception to this rule, but look at Steve Mariucci or Mike Tomlin. Never played in the NFL, and their college accolades came from non-FBS schools, but they were great head coaches. It's a different skill set that can think at the macro level.

Tell ya what. I've been splitting hairs with you the last couple posts, so I'll do what I can to find some small middle ground between us. I guess it's just a semantic difference between us over the meaning of 'shill.' I won't bother to contest 'drone' because I'm going to link to an article later that makes that case for you. I really don't like Fox and Friends, so I didn't get much out of that. I'm still pissed they cancelled The Beltway Boys. Mort and Fred were more substance-oriented and less wise-cracking fireworks. They still have Charles Krauthammer on though occasionally, so all is not lost. That said, I did chuckle when it pointed out all the doctors were wearing lab coats in a cheap political theater stunt. +.5 for that, because I don't like it when any politician trusses up something in a fancy spectacle instead of just getting to the point. No. Their medical degrees do. That's some pretty heinous hypocrisy there. +.5 for pointing that out. Actually, a whole bunch of reports say that all of the people present at the White House event were doctors, including one of the doctors invited to attend but declined because he was against health care reform. I'll link to that below. Good for them. No one should demean or belittle their opinions or credentials because of a disagreement. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. The question is how, and hyperbolic name-calling will not allow that to happen. I got pretty interested in the specific event after the second video you posted and began reading up on it a bit. I found this little blog entry that makes your point exactly without demonizing the opposition as inferior, just different. Dr. Eric Novak, who is quoted in the article, sums up your attempt to paint these doctors as 'drones' without resorting to belittling them. I know it's just a style-issue between us (it's been well established that I err on the shy and timid side in these matters; I'm cool with that), so I thought I'd link to it. Trying to be Fair and Balanced on the Boards Tonight Take all this for what it's worth. You got +.5 for making me laugh, and +.5 for pointing out some bad political theater, and although it wasn't directly related to the event under discussion, was close enough to get me to shut up about it. That's a net gain of +1. We may not agree, but I respect humor and relevent documentation of evidence. [inserting obligatory flower smiley to smooth things over]

Wish I had had performance anxiety issues at age thirteen.

Boyz in the Hood was a great movie. But I can never, ever, forgive John Singleton for Poetic Justice.

Finally got a chance to watch this. I agree (as most do) with your statement that the nature of the current desire for reform is a necessary thing to be discussed at the moment. Now, let me stress up front again that I am not criticizing the content involved here, but am asking a question about the approach. Concerning your foregrounding statement that the people in this video are 'hired drones': when I clicked to watch, I assumed that there would be some type of journalistic argument/proof that the people in the video had been monetarily compensated to state their opinions, and hence are not reliable witnesses. Or that they were not really doctors at all but simply actors paid to misrepresent themselves as MDs. It is just a video, and yes, put out by the Obama Administration, taken during a White House sponsored event. Is there some journalistic research you are aware of proving that these people are paid to speak, and hence makes this disingenuous at best, and at worst cynical? If so, I would honestly appreciate a link to that. As far as I can tell, these people are MDs, at a sponsored event, giving their opinions. There are also many MDs who have gone on record espousing against Health Care reform as it is currently being presented in legislation. Funny thing that: different people have different opinions about the same topic. If there's proof out there that this was a canned, paid, and therefore fake media event, then that would be worth knowing. But to say that their opinions are false, that they are hired drones, because you disagree with them, is exactly the point I am making about HOW the arguments on both sides are being presented. Now, that said, if you (or anyone else) can produce research/proof to show that these are individuals presenting their expertise/opinions in a false light, then I'm on board with you on this and will give ya a +1 for contributing relevant information to the debate. But if it's just that they have a different opinion than your own, and therefore must be idiots, dumb-a**es, or hired drones, then I just don't see how this is relevant to the debate. Seriously, I'm hoping you can prove me wrong, that I was duped into believing that they are doctors with opinions, and not shills. And you are correct, the government before has paid people to present an opinion as their own: No Commentator's Checkbook left behind However, what I just did is an example of the gotcha-politics that is souring the debate. Politicians are in perpetual campaign modes now, and always slant the discussion into one where the other side is somehow intellectually/morally deficient instead of just acknowledging the different perspectives. That is, again, the main point I am trying to make here.