DISQUS

CA REG advisory score released.

잘보고 갑니다 ^^ 홈페이지 속도가 빠르네요 저도 외국호스팅쓰는데 속도가 ㄷㄷㄷ

While we're not on the subject of Red Eye, I wanted to re-bring up how they treat you compared with other guests.


It seems like when I first started watching, late last year, u were on a lot and had great chemistry with Greg.



Fast-forward to now, it seems like Greg interupts you alot and is rude when he *actually* disagrees with you, not the fake disagreeing that often occurs on the show. Am I right? Or am more like a mother proud and defensive of her young?

This is my very first comment/visit to your blog. I am big fan of yours from Red Eye. No really, I'm 300 lbs (tat-tat, dink).


I like your vlogs, I just watched the 3, keep them coming.



*Exhales* OK I hope that wasn't too creepy...

[moderated] we were born to be in the wild... No matter what religion or science you believe in... His story is amazing and inspiring ... I think the only part is the whole going to the shelter thing that would suck.. but to live in the wild.. like build your own little shack.. Have a little garden with fruit and vegis and walk down the trail to the river to catch fish.. that would be pretty darn cool.. I have honestly thought about doing it but the only thing is I would be scared about wild animals.. Bears, snakes, ect.. I don't think I could handle that I'd have to build a fence haha

Here is a link to that Irish American Writers & Artists for Obama ad that Craig Hickman mentioned before. http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Lau...

Why don't we move from thoughts to action? I am thinking that we can begin to use this platform to: (1) organize a PAC that will allow us to put our money where our mouths are and support Obama as a bloc; (2) organize a letter writing campaign to MSM and blogs voicing our collective outrage; and (3) forming an online rapid response team to counter the crap load of lies and assaults that will soon be coming Obama's way.


I am an attorney and have a friend who started a Latina PAC a while ago. I'd be willing to put some time into researching the logistics of putting something like this together in a legitimate way. And I'd certainly be willing to donate some of my own money.



So, what do you all think? Are there any finance/ accounting/ business folks/ active retirees and supporters of JJ politics out there who are willing to throw down and make something happen?

Dear "Anonymous" who posted at Wed Mar 05, 10:40:00 AM 2008


It is due to our commitment to the sacrifices of our ancestors (of all races and genders) that we absolutely cannot support a candidate who relies on "race baiting" and fear mongering to get into office.



You are forgetting that she began this race with the support of the majority of people in the African-American community and very shrewdly decided that she would throw black voters under the bus in order to highlight her opponent's ethnicity and garner underground racist white support.



There are legions of people of all colors and genders who have been fighters in this country. But the crucial difference is that the ones we look up to have fought with honor and integrity--two characteristics that can not be attributed to Mrs. Clinton particularly after how she has carried herself in this race.



After squandering universal name recognition, a connection to a former president who had over %70 approval ratings, a meme of inevitability that was eaten up by the press, and a 150 million dollar financial lead, Mrs. Clinton has finally come down to making the none too subtle claim that she should win because Barack Obama is a lazy, shiftless, unqualified, “affirmative action" candidate, who cannot be trusted to make good decisions. That my friends (to use Sen. McCain's favorite characterization) is a kick in the teeth and a betrayal to all people of color who have worked their a**es off to make any real progress in a country riddled with unstated white privilege.



This race is no longer only about Barack Obama. I submit that if we sit down and take this, we will be throwing dirt on the memory of the many brave ancestors who fought honorably for our rights.

My entire family, close circle of friends and I have taken a pledge to NEVER vote for that woman. I will write Barack's name in first. Hell, I'd even vote for Bart Simpson before I'd vote for a person like Hillary Clinton who has no problem engaging in race baiting and religious vilification in order to debase a good man and stroke her own ego.




I will never cast a vote for McCain, b/c I cannot sanction voting to support the many wars that he will drag us into. I think that he had some integrity once, but has squandered all of that in search of the presidency. By the way, he is no boy scout. Please remember that this is the guy who has, as recently as 2007, stated that he "hated gooks" when speaking about Vietnamese people Now, I understand that he was a POW and had some strong feelings about the people who imprisoned him, however, after centuries of slavery and colonialism, one could argue that black folks also were POW's. Do you really think that a credible black candidate would be able to get away with that kind of racist statement about white folks? I don't think so. An Asian AMerican friend of mine has made me promise to vouch for her if he wins and reinstates Asian internment camps. LOL!



One final point:

There will be a lot of pressure on Barack to take the VP spot because the democrats may buy her nasty argument, but we must send emails to his campaign encouraging him not to do so.

Baratunde,


I think you should consider talking about the limited access to good health care for poor, working class and even middle class blacks in America. (Potential sub topics: (1) the long term impact of exposure to the toxic chemicals in the FEMA trailers in New Orleans; (2) the boy in D.C. who died a few weeks ago because his mother had been unable to find a dentist who accepted Medicare to address the abscess he had in one of his teeth; (3) overcoming the taboos in our communities with respect to getting treatment for mental health and sexually transmitted diseases.

Q: How low will they go?
A: Much lower than we ever thought. Bill Clinton reaction to Barack's win in S.C.: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice". I'm also going to post this to the racism tracker wiki.





I got this from Andrew Sullivan's blog:



Bill's Advance Spin

26 Jan 2008 08:44 pm



In a simple phrase: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice". Listen to it yourself. I'm not making that up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw



I don't think there can be any doubt about the Clintons' racial strategy now. The people of South Carolina just rejected that logic by voting for Obama - white and black, male and female - in a diverse coalition in the face of a deliberate attempt at racial polarization. They threw the Clintons' logic back in their faces. Kudos to Josh for noticing this. It's revealing, and depressing.





Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!



TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2224950/25509742



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Bill's Advance Spin'

Yes he has, but not in the same year as those other two competitions. Houllier win all five of those trophies in the same year (2001) and that was my point.


Sorry if I was a bit misleading there.

Before Rafa joined, you won a version of the treble under Gerard Houllier in 2001 (FA Cup, Carling Cup, UEFA Cup) as well as the UEFA Super Cup and Community Shield. Five trophies in one year, not too shabby.


Since then, it's been one Champions League and an FA Cup in all the time Rafa has been at Liverpool.

No statesidescouser, we were talking about money Rafa has spent on players since he's been at Liverpool and how outrageous the prices he's gotten these players for compared to their contributions has been.


Manchester United wasn't the point of this original discussion and for further reference, they're not my favorite team. They've spent a lot of money on Hargreaves, Tevez, Anderson, Nani, etc., but they've also gotten a lot more out of those players than Liverpool got for their money. United spent $34 million on Hargreaves, $34 million on Anderson, and $28 million on Nani. The difference is that Nani and Anderson are younger and have much more upside than anyone Liverpool bought with the exception of Torres, and as I said before, Hargreaves has proven his worth with the way he shut down Gerrard and does the same to other teams' attacking midfielders, like Lampard at Chelsea. Tevez and Rooney are the best striking duo in the Premiership and in Europe, while Torres has been a bit injury-prone and was hampered by Rafa's rotation policy for the first part of the season.



Look, I'm not getting into it with you comparing Manchester United to Liverpool, the evidence lies in the standings where United are ahead and went undefeated in the Champions League group stage. The point of Chris' article was how Rafa is no longer the right man for Liverpool, and he's correct in saying this. Mourinho may well be Liverpool's next manager come this summer, because if Rafa doesn't win the Champions League, he's on his way out.



All I'm asking you to do is to take off your Liverpool blinders and look at the club from a neutral perspective. They've spent a lot of money and not gotten the results; Manchester United and Chelsea spent money as well, but at least they've won with the players they've gotten for that money and United look good to win the double this season. Liverpool need a more competent Premiership manager; Rafa is top-quality in Europe but that shouldn't be the team's goal, they haven't won the league since '89-'90.

Yes, exorbitant sums of money.


Fernando Torres: $40.6 million

Ryan Babel: $23 million (hasn't been able to crack the starting XI consistently)

Yossi Benayoun: $8 million

Lucas Leiva: $16 million (he's played in four matches this year, FOUR)

Daniel Agger: $12 million (three seasons ago)

Javier Mascherano: close to $40 million if they're going to make that deal permanent, which they will.



In terms of value for money, Liverpool haven't gotten what they paid for. Manchester United spent a lot of money on Nani, Anderson, and Hargreaves but have gotten good returns on those players. If you'll notice, it was Anderson and Hargreaves who completely neutralized Gerrard and Torres on Sunday.



The CL is the luck of the draw!!! The group you get drawn into is simply luck, it comes out of a pot. There are things like country protection and seeding, but the other teams in the pot are drawn at random. Liverpool barely managed to get out of the easiest group in this year's Champions League. Who you play in the Round of 16 and Rounds of 8 and 4 is also just the luck of the draw. In the Round of 16, there's country protection and seeding, but teams have a possible 4 or 5 or 6 opponents, whatever the number is, and then your opponent is randomly selected. It's the same way in the Rounds of 8 and 4, your opponent is picked from a pot. It's just luck who you draw; you may get an easier graw, you may get a tougher draw, whatever, the point is it's all chance.



Yes, statesidescouser, I will keep up my good work actually. I couldn't care less if you insulted me, your opinion means nothing to me and I know that what I do is good, especially for my age. It shows how immature and childish you are when you resort to personal attacks like that. Keep responding with your arguments and I will continute to prove you wrong each and every time.

Most memorable goal: Steven Gerrard-Free kick to beat Villa (August 11, 2007)


Most memorable match: Tottenham-4, West Ham-3 (March 4, 2007)



Most improved club: Portsmouth



Biggest prediction: The 2008-2009 season will end with one of the "Big Four" finishing outside of the top 4, with one of Villa, Pompey, City, or Everton replacing that team.

Wow, it looks like the whole Scouser community has revealed themselves. They say that Arsenal's supporters follow Wenger religiously, but from the response to this post I'd say Liverpool's supporters worship at the feet of Rafa Benitez, who, despite exorbitant sums of money handed to him and spent on the players of his choosing, has still failed to win the Premiership.


I don't think there's any excuses left for Rafa. This is HIS team now; these are all HIS players and there's no holdovers from the Houllier era that he didn't want. He's spent a large amount of money to shape the roster in the way he wanted to, and you would think that they'd be able to compete for a Premiership title and not just the Champions League. As I've said before, the CL is just the luck of the draw and you just have to score more goals over two legs, not necessarily be the better team. The PL is a test of endurance and will and over 38 games, separates the wannabes from the true contenders. Under Rafa, Liverpool have not been able to make a run at the title.



I understand that injuries have set Liverpool back this year, but that's no excuse either. The injury bugs hits every club at some point or another during the year; Man U were without Rooney and Hargreaves for a while, Chelsea are without Drogba and Terry right now, Arsenal lost Fabregas, van Persie, and Hleb for a period of time. You cant blame poor performances to injury; Rafa has more than enough depth to cover for those injuries, the team just hasn't played well.

I would agree with most of your observations except for a few points: Liverpool didn't have "plenty" of chances, they had the ball cleared off the line by Anderson and then the follow-up header by Torres that went wide, and Babel's long-range effort in the second half that just missed the far post.


I can see your point to not count out Chelsea yet especially because of their home unbeaten record, but realistically it's a two-horse race. You can include Chelsea if you want because of their ability to grind out results, but without Drogba, Essien, John Obi Mikel, Kalou, and maybe John Terry if x-rays prove substantial injury, Chelsea aren't going to have a chance at the title. They'll be a factor because they may be able to take points from United and Arsenal in the second half of the season, but they won't be in a position to win the title themselves.



Liverpool have just as good of a chance as Chelsea at winning the title--and that's a slim one--because they're not losing anyone to the African Cup of Nations and they're getting healthier and healthier. I think they'll finish just ahead of Chelsea this season, with United winning the league, then Arsenal, then Liverpool, and then Chelsea.

Anonymous at 2 PM, that's because the Bruins haven't been any good in recent years and even though Boston College has had some success under Al Skinner, college basketball jerseys don't sell very well, no matter what school it is.


Part of this is because you can't get college merchandise with the player's name on the back; it's illegal under NCAA rules.



I will guarantee you that college basketball is more popular than soccer in this country, I don't care what league or country you're talking about, that's just a fact.



Since you're in Boston, let me ask you this. I would wager that you see far more people wearing Red Sox hats, jerseys, hoodies (any merchandise) and Patriots gear than you see wearing anything from Man United or Real Madrid, is that right?

The "senior executive" is none other than the president of ESPN, George Bodenheimer.

Again, I beg to differ with you about Chelsea. Other than that anomalous 6-0 victory over City, they've played the same dour style that people were criticizing when Mourinho was in charge. The way they play puts you to sleep, and although it's effective, my point is that if all things are equal, I'd rather have Mourinho as my manager if I'm going to play 2-1 and 1-0 games under both him and Avram Grant


Under Grant, Chelsea have played a total of 15 games in all competitions. In two of those games, the final score was 0-0. In two more, the score was 1-0 to Chelsea. In a whopping 5 of those games, the score was 2-0 to Chelsea or a 2-0 Chelsea loss. There was also a 1-1 draw mixed in there as well. The only time Chelsea scored more than twice in a game (aside from the City game) was either in the Carling Cup against lower-league opposition or in the Champions League (4-0 at Rosenborg).



Take this as an example: Chelsea beat Derby recently 2-0 in a snoozefest and beat Bolton 1-0, whereas Liverpool beat Derby 6-0, Arsenal beat Derby 5-0, West Ham beat Derby 5-0, and Spurs beat Derby 4-0. Portsmouth beat Bolton 3-1, Liverpool beat them 4-0, and Arsenal beat them 2-0.



I understand that scores don't necessarily mean much, but the one common element of all those teams (aside from Chelsea, Derby, and Bolton) is that they score a lot of goals and play an attacking style. Chelsea are playing the same exact way under Grant that they did under Mourinho and anyone who knows soccer would rather have Mourinho than Grant if you're going to play that same style.



The reason Mourinho left is not because of how the team was performing, it's because of friction between him and upper management. All I'm trying to say is that using Mourinho, and to a lesser extent, Martin Jol, as an example in which to compare Sam Allardyce isn't the most sound reasoning because both of those guys have been more succesful than Allardyce, and to say Chelsea and Spurs were wise to get rid of them while saying Newcastle should keep Allardyce based on his "proving himself" isn't accurate.

Just one more thing.


You said that "while other clubs were wise to sack their managers (Wigan, Spurs, Bolton, and Chelsea), Big Sam has proven himself as a manager while at Bolton. I'll agree with you about Bolton and Wigan; neither Chris Hutchings nor Sammy Lee were qualified to manage a Premiership team.



How can you say, however, that Chelsea were wise to force Mourinho out the door?? If I'm not mistaken, and I know I'm not, Mourinho led the Blues to back-to-back Premiership titles, two Carling Cups and an FA Cup, and a Champions League, back-to-back Portuguese titles, and a UEFA Cup with Porto, yet somehow Big Sam proved himself with a few top-8 finishes in the league??? Please.



Martin Jol was nowhere near as successful at Tottenham as Mourinho was in West London, but he did win a Dutch Cup with Roda JC, consecutive 5th place finishes with Tottenham (meaning they were the best team outside the "Big Four" for two years running), and would've finished 4th in 2005-2006 if nearly half the team didn't come down ill from food poisoning right before the last game of the season. Again, how Big Sam is a better manager than Martin Jol is beyond me.



Not sure how you can say that Chelsea and Spurs were wise to their more succesful managers yet Newcastle should keep Allardyce around because of what he did at Bolton.

Here's the thing with Sam Allardyce. When he managed at Bolton, there was little in the way of expectations or pressure; everything he accomplished and those top-8 finishes were a bonus because they exceeded what people thought Bolton could do.


Now that he's at a bigger club like Newcastle where there are higher expectations (though I'm not sure why because they haven't won anything in a while) and everything he does is more scrutinized, he's shown that he can't handle the pressure even with a roster that actually has some decent talent on it.



Sam Allardyce is no different than many of the other English managers: average at best, sometimes bordering on clueless, but when they're put in a situation where nothing is expected of them, they sometimes overachieve (see Steve McLaren at Boro and then at England; it's the same thing).



If they get pasted today and then lose to Birmingham this weekend, he should be sacked. He wasn't Mike Ashley's choice and hire as manager and Newcastle obviously are a team that is going nowhere fast. Allardyce brought in his guys during the summer, HIS players, and they've failed miserably.

Honestly Liverpool John, where do you come up with this stuff?? Your comments on other posts are just as moronic, to be fair, and you couldn't be any more anti-American/pro-English. I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works here.

Right, but you seemingly don't understand that it's a "what have you done for me lately" business, and for all of Liverpool's history and their success and for the relative lack of Chelsea's past success, the fact is that Chelsea have won more than Liverpool recently and that's what people care about.


As thescout said, not sure how you can put Maple Lions at #5 when nothing's been posted there for a more than a year. Surely there are better blogs out there; why are you grasping at straws?