cold

It's fairly common knowledge that Mitt Romney seems to be the frontrunner in for Republicans in the showdown with Obama this November. Many are predicting a close election. Recently, there has been rumor that Ron Paul is secretly teaming up with Romney and the two have some sort of deal or mutual agreement in place. It's been reported that in the Arizona debates last week, Paul criticized Santorum and Gingrich a combined 39 times and Romney just once. If there's a Romney/ Paul alliance right now, the assumption is that Paul has been promised a spot in Romney's cabinet or somewhere in his administration if Romney is to win the presidency.

Personally, I'm a fan of this. I like Ron Paul's strict adherence to the Constitution and his fiscal conservatism. I think he'd be a great voice at the highest levels of the federal government in a Republican administration. He doesn't have a realistic shot at winning, and I think his campaign knows this, so this (if it's true) is a shrewd move on his part and good for Republicans everywhere. The promise of Ron Paul as a prominent member of the Romney administration will sway some of the Paul base into the Romney camp, in addition to solidifying the perception of a Romney presidency placing a high value on fiscal responsibility and budget soundness.

What do you think of this possible development?

Do the dogmatic tenets of liberalism remind you of the very institution--religion--liberalism claims to have no use for? Liberals pretentiously claim a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority by calling everyone not in lockstep with their views "sheeple", yet they fail to realize that liberalism itself resembles a religion. The words "heresy" and "blasphemy" are replaced with "racist" and "homophobe", and Obama is the messiah.

Romney and Rubio seem, to me, to be the best chance to win this election. Is this the Republican Party's perfect ticket?

...do you think he'll receive the same amount of flak and hatred that Bush received for signing the USA PATRIOT Act into law?

I mean, both take freedoms away from us, same with the PATRIOT Act, but we don't hear about how Obama is a tyrant or a dictator when NDAA and SOPA are discussed, do we? Even though the PATRIOT Act has served as a good boogieman for liberals to trumpet as a proof of Bush's tyrannical ways, it really has been all hype. Everyone blames Bush for PATRIOT Act, yet he only signed it into law. Congress creates these laws.

Congress created NDAA and SOPA, Obama has signed off on NDAA, and will likely sign off on SOPA if it passes Congress, but has not been connected with either bills in the way Bush was with USA PATRIOT Act.

To me this seems very suspect, as PATRIOT Act criticism and concerns predicting an Orwellian state and totalitarian dictatorship have been largely unfounded and foolish. Will liberals condemn Obama for passing the NDAA, which allows troops to occupy our streets and indefinitely detain citizens without trial?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aso_S...

Now that we're on the verge of this actually happening, what do you think of it? Are LSU and Alabama the two best teams in the country? I think that fact is undeniable. While the game may be another defensive stalemate in which neither team scores a touchdown and heads to overtime locked at 6-6, I think you've got a true national championship. However, I don't think this is going to be an emerging trend. In the SEC's string of 5 (now 6) national championships, only this year do I believe two of its teams to be the two best in the nation. Even when Alabama and Florida matched up as 1-2 in the SEC title game, I never felt the loser still was the second best team around.

Is this a trend or an anomaly? Do you like it?

Most importantly, who will win?

Not much more can be said about this game. It's been broken down and picked apart for the past two weeks by everyone with a voice, and it all boils down to the same core things: number one at number two, the great equalizing force in a 1 v 2 matchup. Both teams have incredible defenses, although I give LSU the edge. They seem to get some beasts, probably pluck em from the bayou. Also, LSU's played better competition thus far. Both teams have gamebreakers on offense, Bama has Trent Richardson who has the ability to wear a defense down. LSU's Reuben Randle is a monster, and I think he's underrated. Personally, I think LSU has a much more versatile offense with two QBs, both of whom I like better than AJ McCarron because of their experience. Not only that, LSU has a bruising tailback in Ware, along with a good stable behind him. The defenses are a wash. It boils down to offense in my eyes, and LSU can pass and run, while I think Bama's passing game can and will be shut down.

I'm taking LSU, 20-13. I just think they have more playmakers on offense whereas Bama relies heavily on running the ball and will face a lot of 8 man fronts. Still, Bama's massive O Line can very well win the trench fights and allow their running game to chew up clock and wear down LSU's defense. Count on a trick play or something creative from Les Miles, which makes this game more exciting, to me at least. Should be good, will definitely be close, and the entire experience will be unreal.

What do you think?

What MCs have the best flow? I'm talking about real MCs, not any of this Wiz Khalifa "bad bitches rollin' up my trees HAHAHAHA" nonsense that people accept as hip hop nowadays, or that Lil Wayne "WEEZY POOPIN ON 'EM SIPPIN SYRP ON THE MOON" garbage that's out today. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate modern hip hop, but most guys around nowadays are completely missing the point. But, not having great flow doesn't mean you suck. For example, I wouldn't say Cudi has great flow, but he's still good.

MCs with legendary flow in my opinion are Nas, Biggie, Black Thought, Rakim, Big-L, Ice Cube, and Jay-Z.

I'm not asking who the best rapper is, I just want to know who you think has the best flow.

I guess they already do, in the SEC title game, but when will it be official? When will we reach the point that the unanimity of opinion on SEC superiority amongst BCS voters will lead them to pit two conference foes against each other in the National Championship?

I don't know if it's probable, but I sure think you'd have a better game. Two conference rivals, from any conference, not just the SEC, have nearly met in the BCS title game. Ohio State and Michigan nearly had a rematch in 2006.

Impossible, improbable, or inevitable?

It's so funny. From about 2006 on, hating George W. Bush was the most popular thing in America. People couldn't wait for his term to be over, and people thought Barack was the second coming of Christ himself. Now, a mere 30 months into Obama's Presidency, it's safe to say that not only has he been a MUCH worse President than GWB, he may be more widely opposed as well. A lot of Americans felt for W, because not 9 months into his first term, 9/11 happens. We had a relatively strong economy for his first term and even afterwards, right up until about 2007, when spending from the war began to catch up to the economy, and the Democrats took over Congress as a result of the public being fed up with the wars. It's true that GWB spent a ton of money, but his spending pales in comparison to that of Mr. Obama. It's also true of W that he got the U.S. into a war against a pervasive enemy, "Terror." Such a fight isn't winnable in 3-4 years, that's a lifelong fight.

Still, at least W stood for something. He was a damn proud American, and although he made many bad choices (how can you not as President?) he still stood strong by his values.

Now, liberals and Democrats are seeing just how tough it is to run this country. W was the most hated American from about 06 on, and now Obama seems to have replaced him.

How much has your opinion of Obama changed, and has your view of W. changed since he left office?

Now I know there are no photographs of guys like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. But what about someone like James Madison or Andrew Jackson? Madison died in 1836, Jackson in 1845. I don't know exactly when the camera was invented, but I know it was around the 1830s. I'm sure a US President would be photographed at some point, right? Of course, no one probably had the audacity to ask Old Hickory to sit down for a photograph, but still! I do understand that they may have been photographed and the pictures were lost or destroyed over time.

Would you vote for the lesser known of George H.W. Bush's sons, Jeb Bush, were he to run for President next year? For those unfamiliar, Jeb Bush is the younger brother of George W. Bush, and former governor of Florida, an office he held for 8 years, until he was no longer eligible to run because of term limits. Jeb served from 1999 to 2007, nearly the full duration of his older brother's US presidency. Bush was very popular with Florida voters, a base which is one of our nation's most diverse. Florida, as you know, encompasses many Latin American voters, many Jewish voters, many African American voters, many White voters, some of our nation's poorest people, and some of our nation's most wealthy citizens. Jeb had near universal appeal in that state, and it's obvious he can have appeal on a nation stage, especially to the recent resurgence in conservatism, spurred by the lack of faith in the current Obama administration, and its diminishing base of support.

Jeb has expressed no interest in running next year, and has even denounced rumors suggesting he would run, but my question is simply whether or not you'd vote for him. For the GOP to win the next election, they need a candidate with executive experience, with universal appeal, with pedigree, with name recognition, and a candidate with the ability to be a strong leader. Turning Obama into a one term President must be done, but it can only be done if a candidate presents himself as a significantly better option.

I know, I know, it would be extremely difficult for a sitting Speaker to run for President, but that's beside the point. Recent events regarding the debt ceiling have shown, quite clearly, that John Boehner is a force to be reckoned with. He's had to deal with childish behavior by members of his own party and members of the Democrat party, as well as nothing but insults and jabs from Jimmy Carter Jr. (the President formerly known as Barack Obama.) Boehner has responded to these attacks by consistently taking the high road.

He's shown he holds considerable influence, and he seems like the most important man in Washington right now. He's not afraid to go head to head with anyone, even the President. Although his lack of executive leadership (gubernatorial, etc.) hurts him in the eyes of most credible voters, his leadership skills are undeniable. Obama's approval rating is a paltry 40%, and it seems unlikely he will be reelected--at least if the Republicans nominate a strong, quality candidate.

Would you vote Boenher in 2012 if the opportunity presented itself?

I like the Cavaliers; I lived in Cleveland for a few years, so I was pulling for them to make out well in the draft lottery. They obviously did make out well, but I was actually hoping they'd get the #2 pick. The #1 pick is analyzed too much in the days up to the draft that by draft day, there's always a consensus guy that everyone believes will go #1, and they fully expect that guy to be taken first. This year, in a draft that's pretty lacking in elite talent, the expected top pick is Kyrie Irving, a player I'm not sold on at all.

I've seen him play in what little games he made it into, and I was definitely impressed, but I was much more impressed with Derrick Williams, Kemba Walker, and Brandon Knight. Enes Kanter also seems more enticing to me. Kyrie Irving just has that kind of laid back demeanor; he doesn't look like he's capable of intensity or that fire you need from your elite point guard and floor general. Even Derrick Rose, who is extremely shy to the public, will get intense and fired up in games. You need that.

Personally, I want them to go for size and take Derrick Williams first overall. If you can get him with #4, which is doubtful, by all means do it. But I'd rather see Kemba Walker go to Cleveland with that #4 pick if they do indeed go for a guard. You know the guy plays hard, you know the guy gives it 100% every single game, and you know he's a natural winner and leader. You know you're going to get, worst case scenario with Kemba, a gritty guard who will always give you everything he has.

I respect Kyrie Irving, and the fact that he must have shown enough promise and character to be recruited by Coach K at Duke, but he hasn't shown me enough. I'd like to see the Cavs take Derrick Williams first overall. Size is everything in the NBA. If they can grab Williams and Enes Kanter, that would be wonderful. It's not like they're going to be contending much next year, they can grab a point guard then.

Apparently the NFL Players Union representatives, ie. the players themselves, have been accusing the NFL owners of collaborating as a cartel, an illegal form of market monopolization.

Is it just everyone but the parties involved in these "discussions" who understand how dumb this entire thing is and has become? The NFL players were put on this earth to play football, not to negotiate and make unfounded legal accusations. What they fail to understand, the players, is that while the NFL may have a stranglehold on professional football in America, they're a part of a much larger market, and that is sports entertainment. They compete with the NBA, NCAA, MLB, NHL, and many other leagues for the largest share of the sports entertainment market. From that perspective, they are far from a monopoly. And, if you get even bigger picture, they're part of the entire entertainment market, which includes movies, music, etc.

Do you believe the NFL players would bring an argument this stupid to the table? Or are they right?

I'd like to pick up some Ralph Lauren solid color polos for the summer, but I'm reluctant to pay $75 a shirt if there are other options out there.

I'm wondering about Outlet store prices, and maybe even discount retailers like TJ Maxx or something like that. Any suggestions or advice?

I was pulled over for speeding recently, and I was immediately given a court date to assess my penalty. The court date is today, and before I go, I'm looking into all possible options I have if the ticket ends up costing me more than $150.

The 8th Amendment says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The excessive fines imposed part is what I'm interested in. I'm 20 years old, even $150 is a lot of money for me. And even if it weren't, the principle of the whole thing is that I just plain will not pay that much money for a simple speeding ticket.

It's surely an excessive fine, and the 8th Amendment is so simple that it needs very little scholarly interpretation.

I read an article on SI.com that suggested the Twins may be close to declaring themselves dead for this season and begin fielding trade offers. Names that were thrown around were Cuddyer, Kubel, Pavano, and, of course, Francisco Liriano. Think the Yankees will make a run at him? I'm only asking about the Yanks because they're my favorite team, but if you think you know a team that might go after him, elaborate.

Would he even be a good move, with his health concerns and all, for a contender looking to bolster the starting rotation?

Before you state the obvious, I understand the difference is 200 feet per second.

But what makes a pellet gun with a maximum velocity of 1200 feet per second less dangerous or fatal than a handgun that with a muzzle velocity of, say, 1000 FPS? I understand that actual handguns use much more menacing bullets, compared to the .22 caliber pellets a high end air rifle would use, but is it simply the bullets that make handguns much more lethal than air rifles of similar velocity? Or is it the gun powder combustion and hammer, etc. that makes an actual handgun that much more powerful?

Will Senate Dems get out of the way and let some real change occur? Or will they take their predictable path and immediately objecting to and opposing any and everything proposed by a Republican? Will these ignorant socialists finally realize that Medicare and Medicaid are as unnecessary as Social Security, something which is lucky enough to avoid the axe in this proposed bill?

I hope the Democrats realize that spending more and increasing the size of government is not the answer.

I know there was a lot of hype about the Red Sox and their big offseason pickups in free agency, and about how the Yankees were largely silent in free agency, and missed out big time on Cliff Lee, but if you look at the rosters, I think the Yankees may still look like a better team.

1B: Yankees have Teixeira, and I'd take him over Adrian Gonzalez anyday. Tex is Gold Glove caliber. Tex doesn't get the nod by much here, though.

2B: Yanks have Robby Cano, BoSox have Dustin Pedroia. Probably a wash there, since Pedroia won MVP a few years back and a lot of people are picking Cano to win it this year.

SS: Yankees have Jeter, Sox have Scutaro. That's not even a comparison. Scutaro is a career .267 hitter and Jeter is arguably one of the top 3 shortstops to ever play the game.

3B: I'd take A-Rod over the Youk here.

C: Catcher may be a wash, Yanks are starting Russell Martin and have Jorge Posada to come off the bench occasionally.

DH: I think I'd give Ortiz the nod over Jorge Posada, but Ortiz fell off pretty significantly after the sterioids allegations. I wouldn't be surprised to see a big season from Big Papi though. Still, I trust Jorge to come up with clutch knocks whenever he's needed. He won't blow you away with power or average, but he doesn't have to with the lineup the Yankees have.

I think the Yankees have a decisive advantage in infielders, and the Yankee infield is probably the best in the game.

The Red Sox outfield may be a bit better than the Yankees here:

CF: Yankees have Curtis Granderson, Sox have Jacoby Ellsbury. Ellsbury missed a lot of last year, and will likely come back pretty well this year, but I'd take Granderson any day, no question.

LF: The Sox have Carl Crawford here, and the Yanks send out Brett Gardner. Carl Crawford is unquestionably one of the most dangerous players in the game. I like Gardner's hustle, and the fact that he can steal a lot of bases, like Crawford, but it's Carl Crawford, no doubt about it.

RF: This matchup may be a wash. JD Drew for BoSox or Nick Swisher for the Yanks. I think Swisher is a better clubhouse guy, and can put up pretty decent numbers, but JD Drew puts up similar numbers as well. Toss up, slight edge to Swish.

Pitchers: I think the Red Sox, with Lester, Buccholz, Beckett, Matsuzaka, and Lackey are more solid 1 through 5, but I think the Yankees have a better top end. Sabathia is the best starter for the Yanks, and better than Jon Lester, in my opinion. Hughes will be solid, Burnett can be horrible or brilliant, it all depends, that's a huge question mark, and the Yankees have unproven Ivan Nova, and are rounded out by Freddy Garcia. I have more confidence in Boston's rotation, just a bit.

Bullpen, I think it's pretty close too. The Yanks have the greatest closer ever in Rivera, and Rafael Soriano is awesome as well. Joba Chamberlian is a big question mark. Papelbon is a great closer for Boston though, and they're pretty solid with Bard and Wakefield back there as well. Bobby Jenks though, I'm not so sure. The White Sox dumped him for a reason. I heard he has an alcohol problem...

So there it is. I think the Yankees, although they're older, are still a bit better (at least on paper). Only time will tell who is the better team, though.