Son of Gadsden

I have read in the past many Skins fans wanting to see Griffin do well elsewhere. I just can't bring myself to root for the guy. The whole "superman" routine was great at first until you realize the guy is just full of himself and delusional. It reminds me of the McNabb smile. Everyone crazy about how classy the guy is until you realize that's a troll smile. Even the guy's (RG3) preseason play is smug. Preseason is a time to learn, work on things you aren't good at, situational football when it doesn't count....GLORIFIED PRACTICE. I've never seen a team throw so many bombs in preseason. Nice work with those deep passes down by 27 in a preseason game. "Superman" saving the franchise in a preseason game. Forget the fact that you can't even hit a receiver on a slant or curl route, dont work on that. Just keep throwing those bombs, I'm sure that'll get you more prepared for the regular season. And I say "bomb" but it's more like a mortar. Reminds me of the Shanahan offense with Rex. Everyone that gets targeted either gets hurt going high, or has to come back to the pass and lay down. Hitting in stride is not a thing. 

I hope no one misses this clown. He's exactly what he was in Washington. We relied on that same damn Aldrick Robinson deep route for points every single game, otherwise it's a 3 and out, or settling for a field goal. Just replace Aldrick with Pryor or Gordon. And has anyone ever seen a quarterback get hit and look so hurt on every single play?  

1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Things will be different on Oct. 2nd when our Josh is the one to shine, not Gordon.   Browns o-line sucks, RGIII might not make it to week 4.  Or he might not make it to week 5 if he does

Hell, I was wondering if he was going to make it to Week 1 after tonight. 5 sacks in a preseason game? What a joke.

So from what I saw, I guess the Browns' plan is to get Griffin to throw a hail mary to his first read every play, and hope for the best? lol. That's what happened tonight. Bomb to a wide open first read in preseason, or get sacked, or an incompletion. 

Good luck Cleveland. The pain is now someone else's. 

I'd be really happy with that but how about squeezing some offensive weapons in there outside of one RB?

I would have loved to have been able to sneak in a TE and a WR, but what ended up going through my mind was that we had a top offense last year. Aside from Landry Jones, who I took to back up Cousins just in case RG3 isn't ready or is injured again, I think it's good to go. If Davis doesnt come back, we do need a TE.

Defense however, as we all know, was so abysmal, I hope they just load up. Hell, I'd be happy with a CB and S at every single pick. lol.

You know what, they can rate this as whatever they want. If this happens, I'll die happy.

Your score is: 3866 (Drafting Ability: A-, Player Quality A, Future Draft Picks: N/A)

Your Picks:

Round 2 Pick 25 (HOU): Matt Elam, SS, Florida (A)

Round 3 Pick 15 (MIA): Bacarri Rambo, FS, Georgia (A-)

Round 3 Pick 23: Tyrann Mathieu, CB, LSU (A)

Round 3 Pick 27 (HOU): B.W. Webb, CB, William & Mary (A)

Round 4 Pick 2 (K.C.): A.J. Klein, ILB, Iowa State (A)

Round 4 Pick 22: Jordan Mills, OT, Louisiana Tech (

Round 5 Pick 1 (K.C.): Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma (

Round 5 Pick 21: Josh Boyd, DT, Mississippi State (A)

Round 5 Pick 29: D.J. Hayden, CB, Houston (A)

Round 6 Pick 2 (K.C.): Kerwynn Williams, RB, Utah State (C+)

Round 6 Pick 23: Kwame Geathers, DT, Georgia (A)

Round 7 Pick 22: Etienne Sabino, OLB, Ohio State (A)

Your Future Picks:

2015 Round 1 Pick

Your score is: 3578 (Drafting Ability: B+, Player Quality A, Future Draft Picks: N/A)

Your Picks:

Round 2 Pick 19: Tyrann Mathieu, CB, LSU (C+)

Round 3 Pick 31 (S.F.): B.W. Webb, CB, William & Mary (A)

Round 4 Pick 22: A.J. Klein, ILB, Iowa State (A)

Round 4 Pick 26 (SEA): Shamarko Thomas, SS, Syracuse (A)

Round 4 Pick 31 (S.F.): Zac Dysert, QB, Miami (Ohio) (A-)

Round 5 Pick 21: D.J. Hayden, CB, Houston (A)

Round 5 Pick 24 (S.F.): Josh Evans, FS, Florida (A)

Round 5 Pick 25 (SEA): Tavarres King, WR, Georgia (B+)

Round 5 Pick 29: Braden Brown, OT, Brigham Young (A-)

Round 6 Pick 23: Kerwynn Williams, RB, Utah State (B+)

Round 7 Pick 22: Etienne Sabino, OLB, Ohio State (A)

HONAH BADGUHR!!!!11!1!

If party A is going to make bad decisions and party B is going to make bad decisions, then I need to consider other factors in making my deicion than the quality of the decision made.

If party A can make bad decisions AND cost less money, then that gives party A an advantage over paty B.

If you don't have insurance companies, then you no longer have to keep track of who has what insurance.

All those records and details are extra over head. The associated costs simply go away.

Not to mention duplication of the efforts by individual insurance companies can be eliminated.

As well as things like advertisement and recruiting customers.

The associated costs are eliminated not transferred (or at least transferred to non-medical related costs. You might see them show up in things like the price you pay for cable tv).

Your argument hasn't changed, my argument hasn't changed, and neither of us seem to be budging on our stance. Even hearing your arguments, as someone who works in insurance...I just don't see it. I've heard the agents' sides, I've got my side as a policy holder, I've heard every bit of the law that I care to hear, I know the Constitution like the back of my hand. I also truly believe in capitalism/freemarket/democracy. But most of all, I believe in the people to make their bad decisions rather than choosing between two parties that make worse decisions.

However, seems JMS and Wrong Direction are moving 10 times faster than us in this argument, so I'm just going to take the sidelines now.

I respect your opinion, and more so respect the way you've said it. And I appreciate a mature argument that didn't involve insults. Tis hard to find that on the internet.

The law doesn't say it isn't a tax, and in fact, I believe the lawyers that were supporting it in fact argued that they didn't think it was a tax, but if it should be considered a tax it should be Constitutional.

So the Supreme Court didn't change it from a mandate to tax. The law is vague, and they exercised judicial power with respect to it.

They decieded it was tax and given the Constitutional power of the government to tax, therefore constitutional.

But healthcare is inter-state commerce.

And Congress has the power to tax.

We have a Republic, which isn't a democracy.

I'm making the point that a free market health care system will fail because people don't even have the necessary basic information to know if they are making good decisions.

1. I never said that government can make better decisions than people. In fact, I expect them to make bad decisions.

2. That centerally managed healthcare systems have lower overhead, and therefore reduced costs, is not a matter of my opinion. It is a based on several different studies that look at over head costs in different medical systems.

3. That people make poor decisions in complex situations, especially with respect to things like healthcare, again, is not my opinion. It is backed up by multiple studies. If you want some reading you can start with this:

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/71844.pdf

Why do you expect that a free market health care will do fine?

Why do you expect that centerally controlled systems will fail?

The NHS in Britain is over 50 years old and while it is undergone modifications, I don't see any reason to think it is going to fail any time soon.

1) The law might not say it isn't a tax, I'm not a lawyer, therefore I can't confirm that or not, and I don't see any citations from you citing that it says anything about being a tax. I know that our dear president has stated repeatedly that it is not a tax...yet it turns out that it was only held up by the feds power to tax.

But the government isn't requiring me to buy health care, they're requiring me to buy health INSURANCE. I can get sick and not go see a doctor if I choose not to, but I don't have a choice of buying health insurance or not. Health insurance is not sold across state lines.

1) republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president

indirect democracy: A form of democracy in which the citizens elect government officials but following this election have little or no input as to governmental decisions made by those officials

Spared from being politically correct, there is no difference.

3) And I am arguing that the government doesn't either.

4) a) That's exactly what you are saying, you are saying the people can't make good enough decisions, so the government should make them for them. So, if that's the case and the government can't make good decisions either, what the heck are we doing giving them more stuff to decide?

but who's paying for all the overhead that's going away? It's going somewhere. Nothing is free.

c) liberty means people are free to make bad decisions, and I'm all for it...because from what I've seen, the government does NOTHING but make bad decisions...and, as stated, we are suggesting the government should take this over. So, I'll stop arguing with you that people make bad decisions if that is what you are set on and I can't convince you otherwise. So, who's going to make better? Rex sucked last year, but our question was...who can make better decisions? We tried Beck and he didn't make better ones. Oh yes, I just compared Rex to the people and Beck to the government, so?

Because it hasn't been tried, and it deserves a chance.

Because government takeover never ends well. Europe has it, yeah...and if you haven't noticed, it's not doing so well economically. Plus, I've been to Europe, and though I can't say anything about their health care...let's just say I'm glad I live here...so you won't see me lobbying to be more like Europe. Like I said, there will never be an issue in the world that I side with government on. I believe the people can handle themselves in every aspect other than protection. You're right in whatever statement you made above, to tell you the truth. We don't have a free market. We say we do, but we don't. A free market has to have minimal government intervention. We certainly do not have that. To have that we would need contracted police forces, volunteer or contracted fire departments, privatized education, etc. And in my belief, this country would be better were that the case.

The Constitution doesn't use the word interpert, but it clearly states:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

The Obama healthcare law is a law arising under this Constitution.

But it doesn't state that the powers excplitially delegated are the States or people's write, and in some cases it broadly grants power to the federal government with respect to the ability to tax and regulate inter-state commerce.

And the US was not established as a free market (there would be no need to do things like regulate interstate commerce in a free market or tax things like whiskey) or a democracy.

Try learning some history. I think you said before people that don't know history are bound to repeat it.

What happens to people that think they know history, but don't really?

I'll ask again, why? What evidence or information do you have that suggests that your doctors are "good"? Do you have any real information at all about the long term survival or health rate of their patients?

And of course I haven't said that, which only shows me the problems you have with reading comprehension.

I actually think people on average do a pretty poor job of picking their doctors and their elected representatives.

My whole point is with respect to healthcare there are advantages to a centeralized system with respect to reducing over head costs.

In addition, there are good reasons to believe that a free market will fail (i.e. people can't make good decisions with respect to complex issues like healthcare).

If given two choices, one of which might fail (a centeralized system), but will have lower over head costs vs. a system that we expect will fail (a free market), doesn't it make sense to choose the one that will give you some "benefit"?

Given the choice of two options, doesn't the one that seems less bad seem superior?

Free markets give you people that make poor and uninformed decisions AND high over head costs.

Centeralized healthcare might give you poor decisions, but at least you can control your over head costs.

Add to that despite your claim of knowing people where there is a centeralized system don't like them, that a large number of polls show in general the majority of the people in those systems actually do like their healthcare, I certainly don't see the reason to reject the idea out right.

It has nothing to do with baby sitting anybody. It has to do with doing what makes sense.

Forgive me for not doing individual quotes here. Evidently I'm not quite so savy with codes, or more than likely just impatient.

I'm not seeing any argument for "interpretation" in your response. Judicial power doesn't mean power to change the constitution. There are clear violations in Article 1, sections 1, 7, and 8, and also to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 10, and 14. The 5th being a bit of a stretch, but could be an argument. As I said, the mandate was ruled unconstitutional...and changed from a mandate to a tax by the Supreme Court, which is not granted the power to legislate by the Constitution. If I'm wrong about that one, please correct me.

You can stretch the 10th Amendment and bend it to say what you wish all you want, but it clearly states that all powers not given to the feds by the Constitutional are the states'. Health insurance is not interstate commerce, it is intrastate commerce...therefore is not allowed via the Commerce Clause that you are referring to. So as I said before, if the states' want to delegate healthcare via the tax idea, it's their right. I've seen nothing from you proving that wrong. I see your interpretation of the Constitution, which, like the Supreme Court's interpretation, holds no water...at least no Constitutional water if there is such a thing.

Very well, a point made. There is no mention of a free market in the Constitution. However, we do in fact have a free market economic system. It is not a "pure" free market, but in that note there is also no "pure" democracy. Not really a democracy at all, in fact. An indirect democracy isn't really democracy. I guess that's a different subject altogether though.

But, to answer your question for "What happens when people think they know history, but don't really?" Socialism.

Your question about quality of doctors I find irrelevant, which is why I didn't answer. I'm trying to understand what point you are trying to make from it. Are you suggesting that the government has better knowledge of doctors, or that they can produce greater doctors? And if that is the case, you have faith in the government to chose your doctors for you? What happens when you don't like the doctor the government chose? My point to that was, I've had several teachers in government public school whom I've found to be idiots that had no idea what they were talking about. So you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the government would know quality control if it slapped them in the face.

But, hell, why not answer the question anyway. I'm still alive. I'm well. So, my answer is yes. I believe my doctors are pretty good. However, ironically enough, and supporting to your point: I've had a torn ACL and meniscus that has become chronic...by therapy advice. I say therapists because all 3 doctors I have seen say there is nothing wrong, yet my left leg has been proven to be 42% weaker than my right, i suffer from commonly occurring dislocations and severe pain, and by the therapists calculations I'll be sporting a wheelchair in my 30's. All from a motocross accident. Duke medical center has told me I have a serious problem, but because the doctors in my area are idiots, the MRI's are useless...so they need to wait for a severe dislocation to take a look at it. Hoping they are better. So, my answer is that I have faith in some of my doctors, and not in others. However, in regards to my point, if I don't like the doctor or don't have faith in them...I'm free to go see another. And I believe very much in Duke's doctors.

If I supposedly incorrectly comprehended what you said, then I don't see a logical argument from you at all on that. If you believe that people can't elect proper representatives, then you don't believe in government, yet you want to give them access to your health care. I don't believe people can properly elect representatives, not do I care if they can choose proper health care. The point is it is their decision. It's a free country, and if they want to find good doctors, it is their job to research and find them. Once again, I'm confused at the point you are trying to make, not because a matter of reading comprehension, but lack of logical explanation. I see "You're wrong and it doesn't work that way", but no real Constitutional explanations, just interpretations.

Everything in your last claim is your opinion. Your opinion is that people can't make good decisions on their health care. Even if that could be proven as fact, it is also your opinion that government can make better decisions than the people. The point that I find most ridiculous is suggesting that a free market is expected to fail whereas a centralized system might fail. I expect the centralized system to fail, and i expect the free market system will do fine if put in place correctly.

My claim of knowing people that don't like the healthcare systems of Canada and Europe was a grain of salt comment. I respect my friends' decisions and trust their opinions. I don't expect you to do any such thing. However, the majority of people are sheep, so polls don't mean a lot to me. The overwhelming majority have supported a lot of terrible ideas in the past. I was never suggesting that the majority doesn't like the system. However, still, what "makes sense" to me is keeping the government out of my business.

I'm going to have to say that I side with everything "Wrong Direction" said above. I can't say I disagree with the idea of health care reform. I can say I disagree with the method of this one.

The constitution was written 250 fifty years ago times change and it should be address every so often, I think it was Jefferson that said it should be reviewed every 20 years. It is not perfect and the founding fathers knew that[/Quote]

However, that's the belief of a single man and was not included in the Constitution. If everyone believed that, it would expire every 19 years.

I think Roberts made the right call on obamacare his argument was the best of the lot. The supreme court should have term limits as should congress. There should be a limit on campaign spending. Make is so much per capita that way it would be fair

Here it is July and I am fed up with political ads, i lflip the channel every time one comes on

Switch to Netflix. No ads. haha. Get rid of political parties altogether with those term limits and you'll get a real democracy, and the negative ads will severely decrease. There isn't a problem in this country that we can't blame on the Republicans and Democrats.

At this point, I would like to submit my application for a trademark on a new cultural phrase..."Obamadon'tcare"...it's not really a political thing on my end...i just think we should have it to join its fellow...

Awwww Herman Cain is so going to sue you Jumbo. He's already got "Obamadoesn'tcare".

1. Do you not believe the Constitution is correct with respect to the Supreme Court being the interpert of the Constitution?

2. States have always had to "bear" things that they opposed: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html

3. Are you really claiming that a socialist/democratic system isn't possible? That the French, Swiss, and Canadians are headed towards a Soviet or Nazi style government?

Do you have any reason to believe that you are making good decisions with respect to your healthcare?

Do you have any actual data that your doctor is a good doctor? Do you have any data that indicates that his patients long term have "positive" out comes, especially in an economical manner?

**EDIT**

Your argument essentially requires that people can't do a good job of electing their representative (and if people are doing a good job of that, then it raises the issue of all the problems you say the government has actually problems), BUT that people can do a good job of making decisions with respect to their healthcare.

That seems unlikely to me.

Where exactly does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? Where is the word "interpret" found in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution?

"Interpret" if you will, but the 10th Amendment plainly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Health care is not delegated by the Constitution. But hey, even if they had this mysterious power to interpret the Constitution the way they see fit, it was a 4-5 decision...4 of the justices said it's NOT Constitutional. Actually more than that, because it was held up by the governments ability to tax, not mandate. The mandate was unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court also held up slavery as Constitutional, held up segregation as Constitutional, and held up Roosevelt's wackjob bill sending all Japanese American's to internment camps as Constitutional. They aren't exactly the most stand up, Constitutional court in the world.

-Adding to this, our own Declaration of Independence states: "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." States, in those days meant "nations". We have 50 independent nations that are in a union. It was this argument that caused the South to secede before...and the North almost before them.

I'm claiming there is no need for a "socialist/democratic" system in a country that was established as a free market/democracy.

Yes, I have faith that I know what is best for me before the government does. Absolutely. I also have faith that I know what's best for my children in the future, not the government.

I don't understand what the point of your argument is, does the government have a better ability of being able to produce better doctors than I have now? They sure haven't shown that in public school in the case of teachers.

So you're saying the people can't do a good job of finding their own doctors and taking care of themselves, but they CAN do a good job of electing their masters? Your argument is no less contradicting than mine...the only difference is if I make a bad decision on choosing health care, it's only me that's affected. Seems like a flawed logic to say the least.

Deep down, you and I's argument seems simple: You believe the government should babysit the American people and save them from themselves, and I say the American people are not babies, and can take care of themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting from it. Might have to just agree to disagree on belief here, because I'll never buy that.

It doesn't really matter with respect to the point. And there is plenty of evidence that people don't in complex situations like healthcare.

You must know a non-average population of Canadians. Multiple polls show they are in general happy with their healthcare system and prefer their healthcare system to a "free market" approach. And generally want healthcare delivered through a non-profit manner:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/29/canadians-mixed-system-health-care_n_1636796.html

This is older, but 63% of the British say that they think their health care system is a good value.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2048

So now going to a more federally regulated healthcare system is going to lead to the Third Reich?

Or cause government leaders to use nuclear weapons?

The point behind everything I just said is we are handing more and more power to government. You trust the government with your own health more than you trust yourself? You trust a broke, deep in debt government that has no respect to it's own means or what it does with it's money with YOUR money? Our government is already bigger than the Constitution restricts it to be, and we want to give it more power. The states are run through tyranny rather than practicing their own sovereignty that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence established for them. 26 states oppose this health care system, yet are being unlawfully forced to bear it. The point is we are sitting here applauding to these changes the same way the German people applauded theirs I am sure. The same way the Soviets did, I'm sure. They welcomed Fascism and Communism with open arms also, but clearly, many of us failed history class. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

---------- Post added July-21st-2012 at 11:38 AM ----------

Everybody realizes health insurance companies in the United States are legislatively exempt from competition don't they? Free market indeed. :doh:

Choice? You have a choice maybe over what logo appears on your bill. That's a long way from having a choice. For free market to work first and for most you have to have competition. without competition you by definition don't have a FREE MARKET !. The United States hasn't had competition in the medical insurance industry since we passed the McCarran- Ferguson Act in 1945. It's an antitrust exemption for the industry. It outlaws cross state competition and puts each state in charge of saying who can offer policies in it's territory; It further allows insurance companies to collude and set prices to eliminate competition.

Why would congress do this? Because back in the day we had non profits running the healthcare industry even insurance companies. The thought was never to set up a free market it was to set up a public trust of sorts. Competition was seen to be too expensive. The problem was when we went to for profit companies for delivery we never reintroduced competition!!

Folks who talk about free market are kidding themselves. Medicine is so specialized today a free market system would not, and has never worked to deliver such goods anywhere in teh world; especially not here. IT is impossible to deliver services via a free market because the services have long ago eclipsed the consumer’s ability to afford them; That's why we have insurance. And insurance by it's very nature is collectivism. Healthy people paying for the services of the sick so they will have the safety of the collective when they get sick.

I'm aware. However, I don't agree with your opinion on free market. I will always believe in free market and the people before I believe in the government. The government can't even make a simple mathematical "collectivist" system such as "social security" work...so you want to hand them a complicated system of health care!? I just don't get the logic there man. One thing that has been continuous over time: the government will let you down.

For a free market to work, it requires several things. First and for most that people can make good decisions.

I have much more faith in the American people to make good decisions than I have faith that the government won't make bad ones. Like most men with power, government only pushes for more...and they are willing to offer you whatever incentives you want for "free" as long as you give them some more power.

There are many countries that have a more socialized health care system than us that at least appear to be paying less than us- most notably by reducing over head costs.

Examples? I've heard Canada and the UK mentioned the most often, yet I have contacts in each that all say they hate it...and that's because I seriously asked them how they liked it...not because I'm trying to trash it. Regardless, I don't see how this particular system is sustainable..and even if it is, I see absolutely no solutions it brings compared to what we have now. I see money being taken from one pocket, and put in the other, and the government gaining MORE power it doesn't deserve or need.

Do you really want to claim that "corruption" doesn't happen in private industry?

Let's say, that people don't embezzle money from their employer?

The difference is, those people get fired. Those people don't have access to nuclear weapons and armies. Those people can't wage wars and enact legislation on the rest of us. There is absolutely no comparison. Embezzlement and the Third Reich are worlds apart.

As someone who makes a living explaining it, I've yet to meet a single homeowner who understood his/her homeowners insurance well enough to get the contractors paid right by themselves...or even communicate properly with them. So on the subject of health insurance, I've seen so many average Joe's trying to argue a health insurance POLICY whom have absolutely no idea how insurance even works, it's laughable and impossible to take seriously.

You know, my sister-in-law is a liberal. She argues Obamacare with me all the time, and I just sit there and listen to her theory on how health insurance works...which is quite honestly made up based on a good guess in her head...and makes sense in theory...but factually is absolutely incorrect. I usually just say, "You know, you're a psychiatrist...and as a insurance restoration contractor, I don't try to explain to you exactly why a schizophrenic patient has an imbalance and why they see things that aren't there." So let's just take a step back and see if we all have any idea what we're talking about...or if we are making educated guesses on a subject we aren't even qualified to argue. Because quite often, that's what I'm seeing.

But, hey, here's a thought that goes beyond the whole "You can't make people buy whatever the government wants them to buy in a free country."

What about those who's religion causes them not to believe in the healthcare system? Are they still fined because of their religion? If that's so they don't have freedom to practice their religion...they are fined for practicing their religion. If you say you're going to exempt them from the tax (as the Amish are from social security), then it's not fair that they aren't forced to buy it, but I am.

The health care system is screwed up. That's for certain. The welfare system is screwed up. That's also for certain. The social security system is screwed up. That's proven. And we keep piling more stuff on the government to fix, when everything they touch dies. The government has a hard time handling the things they are SUPPOSED to be handling, and we want them to handle more. It's time to tell the government to back off and take our country back ourselves, and pay for it and run it ourselves...while the government stands guard to make sure we are allowed to. After all, that is their ONLY designed purpose. Free market is the system that caters to human nature, socialized systems of ANYTHING have always proven to be flawed and have always failed. Even our police are a grand example, and I mean that to no offense of any officers that may be reading this. How often do we hear of "dirty cops". Dirty cops would be gone if police were privatized, because they company would be fired and a new one replace them. Government spawns corruption in everything it touches...and we continue to have faith in it.

Yeah, that's obviously gold. Definitely not yellow. Yellow is bright. Gold has a brownish tent to it.

Better go ahead and call that optometrist.

we're starting a major project as soon as the weather clears. The roof of our single story rancher is 4 - sided (can't remember the term.)

Hip roof.

sucks because i jumped the gun in anticipation and took all the gutter, fascia and soffit off of the house...

The gutters are the biggest problem there. If your shingles have enough overhang, you might get away with the fascia and soffit being off. If you have a basement, you'll likely have problems with groundwater from the gutters being removed. If you don't have a basement, you still don't want that water running at your foundation. For just the winter, I can't see it being a HUGE problem, but it's not good.