bleedorange

I don't. At least, not in terms of the government.

With Pacman's suspension, I think that means they get a fifth rounder from the Titans now. So they pick up an extra second-day pick and get Roy for a 1st and 3rd. Plus, Dallas already had an extra 3rd and 4th in 2009 from last year's draft. In other words, I think it was a pretty good deal.

After reading the description on the Myers-Briggs site, it seems to fit me pretty accurately. But I wouldn't mind taking the real thing at some point.

I just took this online test and, according to it, I am an ESTJ.

Admittedly, my CDs are all over the place now. It has transferred over to where I'm just constantly fine-tuning my organization of music on iTunes.

Do people actually not have their CDs ordered alphabetically and chronlogically?? The concept seems very foreign to me. How do they find anything?

Sorry I missed it earlier (I assume this is the post). I think my main issue is that I believe the wealthy are already paying more than their fair share. Simply asking them to pay more because they can isn't sound policy, nor is it fair. I do believe that it is a form of redistribution of wealth. Our problems as a country on an economic scale are too complex for me to even fathom and everything I have read points me in two different directions, based mainly on political ideology. I guess that's just par for the course in an election year. But we do need to spend less. However, I gue

I agree and we're all guilty of it from time to time. It's just harder to have reasoned discussion on a message board as opposed to in person because it's so easy and tempting to take one aspect of an argument and just run with it.

Give me a break. For one, I was responding directly to viatroy's post about work ethic, etc. Secondly, I don't act like the poor work "just enough." Stop putting words in my mouth. Third, getting to your second paragraph, people who do work hard for the money they make deserve to keep as much of it as possible for themselves. On a purely philosophical level, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence.

I know what you're saying, and I didn't feel attacked. I was just being argumentative. I don't necessarily agree with your assessments on consumerism, though, because there are many things that we choose to go without or sacrifice. I think the individual is responsible for making those decisions, not the people offering the goods.

Yes. They worked hard to get there. And working harder doesn't necessarily mean more physically taxing work. There are other factors.

Nobody is making that connection. My wife and I both work. Are you implying that we are not being parents to our 1-year-old? Or that we don't see each other? Or that we only work so we can "buy shit"?

So you want to work just enough to get by and then have the government redistribute the wealth of those that work harder to benefit you even more?

I wasn't implying that people don't work hard for the money they make. I was merely responding to the quote Obama made to a plumber about spreading the wealth around. On a fundamental level, I don't think that works. I don't think that inspires people to work harder. I don't think that encourages economic growth on a personal level. I don't think that squares with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. My wife and I work hard for the money we earn. We choose to save some, try to wisely invest some of it, and try to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our daughter. But apparently, this income and these investment choices are considered, by Obama and others, to be too much money and the government should take more of it than it already does to give to other people. This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama. BTW, I understand a lot of people on this board

Are you taking volunteers?

I was really hoping we could keep Will Muschamp around for at least another year, but it looks like there will be too many high-profile openings at the end of this year to do that.

Wait...what?

But this board allows those freedoms, so I'm not sure why you're complaining or why you would bring up "freedom of speech," but whatever.

Why is it that when someone starts complaining about "freedom of speech," it's usually in a place that could legally and easily prevent that person's speech?

4 teams from the Big 12 South in the top eight. Ridiculous.

With 1, 3, and 4 all losing, it would not surprise me if Texas winds up #1. Although it will probably be close. I can see more voters, when having to decide between Alabama and Texas at #1, going with Texas based on short-term memory and the fact that Alabama struggled with Kentucky. Not that any of it matters in early October, though.

Most satisfying victory over Oklahoma in my life. I think I love this year's team more than the National Championship team from 2005.

I've always thought that Magic was being used as a government medical testing subject for all new HIV/AIDS medications.