I'm not sure what it is, but ALL GA/SC games play out this way...SC always has a good defense and they seem to step it up for GA.

I don't think that will cause them to drop..hope not anyway..

They are beating an unranked team by 7 points, when the other top 10 teams are scoring huge double digit wins.

Missouri beat Nevada 62-17.

When you're ranked 2nd in the country, you blow teams out.

If they don't pull away they will drop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8082302200.html

Biden's Son, Brother Named in Two Suits

Hunter Biden was made president with an annual salary of $1.2 million, despite his inexperience in the hedge fund industry, the lawsuit said. Before that, he had been part of the Washington law firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, which earned $1.76 million in lobbying revenue in the first half of 2006, according to Congressional Quarterly's CQ MoneyLine.

Hunter was a lobbyist... until yesterday. I applaud his decision to step away from his lucrative career as a lobbyist... especially as the Obama/Biden ticket has criticized McCain for involvement in lobbyists.

Today's "Political Word of the Day" is dedicated to the Obama/Biden campaign... the word? HYPOCRITICAL.

I'm Brian and I approve this message.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...turns-revealed/

I was wondering why he did this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/27/...in4388540.shtml

Obama, Biden's Son Linked By Earmarks

Washington Post: Candidate Got Funding For Nursing Program Represented By VP Pick's Son, A Lobbyist

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.

I wonder if Charlie Gibson can arrange another sitdown with Barry to discuss this... Perhaps these are things he should have dug into months ago, then he could have asked him about THIS rather than about how Barry's family feels about his breaking the glass ceiling...

Georgia pulled it out, but I just hope they stay at No.2.

If USC loses........

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...13/1393986.aspx

Wheels come off Straight Talk Express?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...;refer=politics

Are they now lying about the crowd size?!

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...843A61B46DCD096

Politico Article.

You're welcome to take that gamble and vote for an inexperienced leader.

K thanks I'll do that. Better Obama then the guy who wouldnt be able to complete one term or the Shrilla from Wasilla.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH...MzmuvQD9362OS01

Greenspan: No McCain tax cuts without reduction

Damn!

And BTW........Greenspan endorsed him back in April of this year.

Edited September 13, 200817 yr by Roman

Obama in 2004: I Wouldn’t Have Enough Experience to Run in 2008

"You know, I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people." -- Barack Obama

So, at what point did he become one of those people?

"I just don't think he's got yet the proven substance or experience to be president." --Jimmy Carter

So, at what point did Carter suddenly change his mind?

http://patriotroom.com/?p=426

I love the hypocrisy. Maybe Hunter Biden was paid to lobby Barry... to convince him to run and save the country.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/A...ory/685455.html

Palin energized McCain campaign, but bloom could be off rose soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html

Making America Stupid

That is what debate is about! What you guys need to realize is that we disagree for the most part. I am probably never going to be "pleased" with your response. Debating is essentially finding fault with your opponents arguments..If you guys want me to agree, be "pleased", or "happy" every time you respond..then this thread is probably not for you..

If anyone singles me out in the future...I will just ignore it...I am tired of justifying myself..leave me alone! If you want to refute a comment I have made fine, but stop talking about the way in which I debate. That is totally irrevalent! I'm sorry if my tone has changed. But it seems the further along we go the worse everyone's behavior is becoming...

NO, of course you don't have to agree with "us," or even be "pleased" with our answers.

But when you make a statement and someone replies, you can at least acknowledge the statement and/or acquiesce. You could have responded with, "Hmmm...Jess. That's interesting. I wasn't aware there were so many VPs with more experience than the lead candidate. For me, it's also about the kinds of experience that they hold. For instance..."

OF course, someone on here is bound to jump on you for that too, I'm sure.

P.S. This thread is far from a thoughtful debate about issues. It's more a long string of posts linking to random liberal and conservative pundits and various snippets from us about those links, IF we even bother to follow the links. Mostly I choose not to. There's so much noise it's hard to hear anything.

Keep scrolling by...

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

I suppose 51% of the electorate are just making it all up... http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904 That was an interesting article.

The first source was based on a study of over 6000 articles using a scientific algorithm.

The source you are using is based on the American voter's thinking.

Which one would you think is more reliable?

That being said...since perception is most people's reality, I'm going to have to say that the second one means a lot more, even if the first one is "true."

But I believe that Obama has rallied people together for a better cause and brought people together as a community. This is the first time since 1992 that I have felt so passionate about my candidate.

Co-sign, Amen, Tishy is love, and all that jazz.

The first source was based on a study of over 6000 articles using a scientific algorithm.

The source you are using is based on the American voter's thinking.

Which one would you think is more reliable?

That being said...since perception is most people's reality, I'm going to have to say that the second one means a lot more, even if the first one is "true."

Hi cct...

Excellent points well taken.