StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 08:02 AM) I doubt he broke the rules, but it clearly looks like he went with the tackling method most likely to injure rather than most likely to tackle the QB. Luckily for him, he's so immensely talented that he pretty much always gets you down no matter how he goes after you. Also, Jay Cutler is easily the toughest son of a b**** we've had behind center since I've started watching the Bears. I do recall a delirious Chris Chandler trying to take snaps at one point, though Bruised ribs are a b****, Jay's going to be hurting today. When I bruised my ribs (and broke one) playing flag football ( ) two years ago, I didn't even really feel it until the next day. Took about a month to get back to normal.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 07:52 AM) I know most people here are Bears fans, but the calls of the Suh play being dirty is hilarious. It wasn't a dirty play, but he is a dirty player.

I appreciate that the Obama campaign has its own lulz crew: http://cavalrymenforromney.com/

well he could have started with basic geography of the region: Iran's potential impact on the Strait of Hormuz, where a good chunk of the world's oil supply floats through, is a serious concern for any policy towards Iran.

Woody Harrelson and Martin Sheen are going to be in a 9/11 truther movie. Sad. http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/10/22.../september-mor/

Tillman with another ball punch

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 09:38 PM) @BlG_SEAN: Mitt Romneys five point plan 1. To the left 2. Take it back now y'all 3. Right foot let's stomp 4. Left foot let's stomp 5. Cha Cha now yall I have my own. Step 1: cut a hole in the box

I'm usually strongly against rooting for injuries but if anyone wants to blow out suh's knee with a chop block....

I did read about the horses and bayonet line! Good, Romney's battleship line was so incredibly stupid.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) This guy played with a sprained MCL and a broken thumb. He's a tough motherf***er. I always thought the "cutler is a p****" talk was incredibly dumb, but I'm surprised he only missed a play. He looked like he was in some serious pain there and then one play later was back in.

and cutler was up without a problem a minute later. weird.

context? I'm not watching this one

well this doesn't look good at all

If you want change, start local.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) keep us updated.

I'll be voting early, probably this Saturday.

This is why "fact-checkers" can be terrible: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-...hofstra-debate/ Ok! So it looks like it took Obama less than a day to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. Pretty clear-cut, right?? So, even though Obama literally said "act of terror" three times in less than 48 hours, Romney's charge that it took him 14 days to say "act of terror" isn't "entirely wrong" somehow. Let's see why that may be... So on September 18th he again said it was terrorists, but somehow Romney's statement is still not entirely wrong! So on the 19th and 21st, the WH again explicitly called it terrorism. I'm still not sure how Romney's statement that it took 14 days for them to call it an act of terror isn't unequivocally wrong, but... Well, after days of calling it terrorism, including the two days after the attack, Obama is maybe slightly non-committal on The View but did say it wasn't just a mob action and that they were still gathering information. In what world is Romney's charge that it took them 14 days to call it an act of terror "not entirely wrong?" Taking a couple of weeks to come up with the definitive answer on exactly what happened doesn't make Romney's statement any closer to the truth. Saying that the video and the protests in response were maybe part of it doesn't make it not terrorism and doesn't make Romney's statement any closer to the truth. "Democrats said act of terror, Republicans disagree. We rate this claim as partially true! Both sides."

I'm already up by 40 points in my second league with Cutler, Marshall and Megatron left to play. Leading one league and dead-last in another.

Because the districts themselves conflate Chicago and Chicago metro? There are 8 districts that cover the city of Chicago, but every one of those districts reaches out into the suburbs. They're all pretty narrow and finger-shaped. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/IL (make sure to switch over to the 2012 map)

Average size was just under 650k in 2000, so it'll be a little higher now: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/boun...Apport.html#two Chicago metro area is over 9.8M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 20, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Do you think the Dems from Chicago would approve of a new system? There are how many Dems from Illinois in Congress? 7 IIRC. That is asinine. CHicagO has a population of just under 3 million and they have 7 reps. By my count that is three too many. The redistributing should be limited to no more than a few miles from the previous boundaries. This nonsense with districts running fron Wrigley Field all the way out to Hinsdale and Burr Ridge is just silly. I am now represented by Lipinski, which isn't so bad really because he is probably the only Dem I would vote for in the Illinois delegation. But Rush and Jackson should be running against each other and the city should lose that seat. How can anyone justify The number of seats Chicago has in the US Congress? Who in Illinois do you think is underrepresented and should get those extra four reps you want to eliminate? What's the population density of the Chicago districts vs. non-Chicago districts? The average House district size is about 650k, so Chicago+suburbs (like you mentioned, some go from Wrigley out into the western suburbs) getting 7 reps seems about right. Cook County has over 5 million people alone, which means if anything, Chicago-area citizens are under-represented on a per-person basis.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 21, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) lol ramirez does a good job of leaving out the sept 12th rose garden speech in there

I thought he actually did pretty decently in 2010? http://www.pacificnorthwestcoastbias.com/g...on-predictions/

As long as Cutler doesn't get -6 or worse, I'll finally have a win!

If you want to watch the day-by-day polls, it's hard to pass up Nate Silver's 538 website. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ His models had Obama at over 85% to win before his disastrous first debate and subsequent polling collapse. He's rebounded a bit and is around 68% to win. So, it's definitely tighter than it was a few weeks ago, but "virtual tie" is a bit of a stretch.