Myths Debunked: Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism I'm sure you can just as easily find a web page that says exactly the opposite, but it surely isn't as clear-cut as you presented it that Clinton was "less than spectacular" against terrorism. Bush has given the terrorists all the backing they've needed by instituting politics of fear. And terrorism can't magic away the Iraq war, which had nothing to do with terrorism. I would say Bush has been "less than spectacular" against terrorism. 9/11 was tragic. But it was the Bush administrations reaction to 9/11 that changed everything.
not to mention the abysmal track record of college coaches going pro Exactly. So you think maybe if you'd just gotten burned, you might be a little gunshy to go down that path again. But hey...if it hurts an NFC team and a random California team, I'm happy. I would be too. O:) Though I'd love to see Neuheisel stick it to Petey first. Hey now...your random California team isn't immune from my geographically based "hater" attitude. :twisted:
not to mention the abysmal track record of college coaches going pro Exactly. So you think maybe if you'd just gotten burned, you might be a little gunshy to go down that path again. But hey...if it hurts an NFC team and a random California team, I'm happy.
lawl... amazingly awesome and well supported logic. This explains why the O's would want to trade Brian Roberts. They don't need a leadoff hitter since the pitcher never bats.
While true, many would make the argument, and probably rightly so, that a name change like that would more likely be "The Adam Dunn Pipe Dream Message Board". Other candidates include, Brian Giles, JD Drew, Khalil Greene, Nomar, and Maddux.
So the sport that has hard checks into the boards, highsticking, and regularly has fighting is concerned that players might be injured because it's a little windy and snowy? These guys are getting paid plenty for injury risk. That's all part of the game. The horrible ice conditions that can come about as a result of outdoor playing, generally are not. Football players wouldn't be all that excited about playing a game a year on the beach. But they do play on bad field conditions...snow...mud. The hockey players are still playing on the same kind of surface...ice...it's just that outdoors isn't ideal, pristine ice. Just like fooball players don't always get to play on ideal pristine turf. The beach analogy would be more like hockey players playing on a completely different kind of surface. Hockey players are used to playing in controlled conditions. I'm sure it's more about the hesitancy to change to uncontrolled conditions than anything else.
So the sport that has hard checks into the boards, highsticking, and regularly has fighting is concerned that players might be injured because it's a little windy and snowy? These guys are getting paid plenty for injury risk.
As desperate as the NHL is for attention though, I don't think it would hurt to try it out. Maybe each team playing an outdoor game each year? Then it wouldn't be a big deal that the games "count" since everyone is having to deal with it. Yeah, it's gimmicky, but so is interleague play or playing the NFL in London, or the NBA in Mexico. The NHL needs to do whatever gets them attention.
Mike Greenberg said it best this morning...this was a 3 hour commercial for the NHL. It was so much fun to watch. How lucky were they that it was snowing? That just made the game. The unfortunate thing is that it's the only outdoor game of the year. It's not exactly showing the real NHL product to the casual fan. They need to play many more of these each year. Probably the most watched regular season NHL game in a long time...if not ever.
It's unfortunate that this was the best college football game all day yesterday. It's unfortunate that a hockey game was more interesting than this game.
You know you can turn the UAC off, right? If you take a while to go through and turn off some of Vista's annoyances, it's actually a nice OS (if your computer can handle it). I've been running it on my new system for a couple of weeks now and I actually really like it.
The factor that's missing from the original post is that Mark has a history with the Cubs. Obviously in some fashion, that hasn't been a good experience for him, whether we agree with how the Cubs treated him or not. Fukudome has zero history with American baseball in general. But Piniella is a familiar face to Japanese baseball fans. I think there's two very different decision making processes at work here, and I don't think they are comparable.