murra

but why would you celebrate his cutting the salaries of working people in half because the government can't get it's act together?

Boy, was I wrong.

Also, I nominate "imagination" as the most ridiculous category ever. Don't get me wrong here, I understand that people need a PhD in history to conclude that James Polk is the 17th most imaginitive president of all-time. Presidential power-rankings ftw.

I love how fillmore wasn't on the bottom 5 list in '82, '90, '94... then he's the unanimous worst president of all-time in 2002. Must have had a bad year. He's swiftly recovered of course, since in 2010 he's again not on the worst list. Moving on up.

big game

Did you just use the probowl to explain why someone was a good player?

Apparently you miss a lot, as well.

Really man?

oh nfl, you classy classy cat.

Conner. Also, justnzane. Anyone who has the balls to link to their lower-than-low budget bills pregame youtube videos, including hours of footage of themselves stuttering, and still come back and post more is alright in my book. That takes the type of courage and honor that many of us simply do not have.

Pat LaFontaine.

Dale Hawerchuck is on the list.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2283/30...ision080291.jpg

On another note, anytime you see a Tim Graham article on the bills, the odds are good that he ripped it straight from a twobillsdrive thread.

Actually this exact topic was discussed at great length, genius: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...mp;hl=Posluszny

Wow Booster, you're such a troll man. Tool of the month material. Or just plain clueless of course.

I wasn't trolling at all, I believe the stuff I've said...except for me saying that you blamed bush for katrina, that was an educated guess, and I got that one wrong.

I don't think I've been that outrageous in this thread to warrant the "tool of the month" (although wouldn't the guy who monthly awards such an achievement be the real tool of the month/year/decade?), or troll, or clueless titles at all. I have seen much wilder claims throughout these boards than questioning the legitimacy of the predicted job loss, and certainly the projected ecological damage. When 60,000 jobs are lost in louisiana directly because of this I will rescind my previous statements. Until then, I have equal weight in this conversation since everyone's accusations are exaggerated and hypothetical. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this truly effects our economy, until then I have no clue why you guys are acting like you've won some sort of argument when there are still no facts on the table to support such a claim. I don't think I've been that outrageous in this thread to warrant the "tool of the month" (although wouldn't the guy who monthly awards such an achievement be the real tool of the month?), or troll, or clueless at all. I have seen much wilder claims throughout these boards than simply questioning the legitimacy of the predicted job loss, and certainly the projected ecological damage.

That it's not apocalyptic at all, because its happened plenty of times throughout history, despite what CNN tells you? And if you're so hung up on this being America's fault, why are you not bashing Obama the way you bashed Bush for Katrina (a NATURAL DISASTER)? Clearly this is being managed worse, right?

Please explain how these affected your life: 1. Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean. 2. Mexico - 1980 - 100 million gallons An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year. 3. Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo. 4. Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired. 5. Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired. 6. South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay. 7. France - 1978 - 69 million gallons A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel. 8. Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown 9. Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years. 10. Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons 700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia. (THIS IS ONLY THE TOP TEN)

Oh, you're welcome

Was there deeper meaning to that statement?

Of course, what I just typed was an unnecessarily long way of saying: But you retorted that with the same thing, so I thought if I repeated it back maybe you'd understand better.

Again, the politicization is rooted deeper than picking a side. There is political theory as to why conservatism* or liberalism aligns itself. There is no direct relation within the ideologies as to what's happening physically within the climate. There is however a strong correlation of beliefs between money and spending, and political identities. Why would it be considered strictly and absurdly partisan for a conservative, someone who almost always says no to unnecessary spending, to be applaud and against the plan to stockpile funds and allocate them towards trying to do something as outlandish as changing the weather. Of course it digs deeper. It now has become a government regulation issue. Why would that conservative agree to allow the government to restrict the rights of business output based on what has yet to be concretely proven. Then it comes down to restricting chemical outputs and then taxing companies that go over their limited annual amount. Those three issues are on the other end of the argument, and you're only looking at, "Many conservatives have themselves convinced the entire global warming theory is completely bunk." Its painfully deeper than that.

You said that already. Every issue is political, I can't believe you're trying to make an exception out of global warming.