birdog1960

i'd be interested to know which half of the issues you more or less disagree with and why those gov't interventions are not at odds with your libertarian values.

you're half right

it's both. and you can add staying out of end of life issues (eg schiavo case), reproductive issues (although, all liberals don't agree here or with a single position on any of these issues)), religious issues (ten commandments in courtrooms, teaching evolution, etc). it's a very selective non involvement of gov't desired by many conservatives including some "liberterians".

doin just fine. these confounding, ridiculous tactics always come out when they won't concede a point they know to be true but is not aligned with their agenda...it means you're winning. any objective, new reader of this thread would conclude this.

it's scary to see us following in the footsteps of the ancient romans. saw a documentary the other night that stated that the romans routinely left disabled and malformed babys on garbage dumps to die of exposure. at least it's very rare in our society for something like this to happen but still very worrisome for our future...

it's convenient..ends and means, stuff like that

stick to your guns. you're right. there's honor in having a social conscience.

so buffet would just fold up his tent because it wouldn't be worth working for a few million less a year if he was taxed at a higher rate?

have you never even heard of the pentagon papers? kerry wasn't one of the traitors that lied to the american people about vietnam. guess they left that out of your coloring book history text. i'm still astonished that the swift boat disinformation program worked. the lesson: never overestimate the intelligence of the american public.

that's what i thought. we don't have a bet.

too many contingencies..i'll take 2;1 on romney being prez in 2012 regardless of running mate or who actually is nominated

best possible scenario for liberals! anyone watching fox news sunday? it's like a republican pep rally...i mean, even more than usual we just saw unprecedented wall street volatility and continued panic and they spend an hour on bachmann and perry never mentioning the markets?

all of which makes the trade even less strategic....but you miss the point! it saves wilson millions on payroll. cap and winning be damned. did anyone hear tasker try to rationalize this move last night? he was citing thge fact that the BEARS had a couple of bit players paid almost as much as evans. sure convinced me that this wasn't a salary dump move

how do you know this? why gamble with a known quantity when your chips are so low? why not gamble on some free agents with all that cap space?

i'd love for all the optimists here to explain themselves. the arguments to be pessimistic have been made ad nauseum and don't need repeatingbut relevant questions do. is the roster measurably better than when nix/gailey took over? are they truly the brass you were hoping for and are you really impressed with their work to date? will this years team be any better than those of the last 10 years? will next years and what evidence do you have to contend that? do we have a stockpile of top draft picks in the next couple years? do we have trade bait to fill gaping holes and needs? will we fill those holes with top or even mid level free agents? seems to me hope is pinned on the unproven genius of the new gm and coaches (which this trade puts in further question) and the belief that current rookies and future ones in the next 2-3-4-5 years might turn out to be much better than those of all the other teams. sounds a very long shot to me but what am i missing?

charity...wilson will donate 10% of the savings from not paying evans and all the apologists will use it as evidence of his greatness.

i wouldn't either...is it any wonder top coaches, gm's and free agents shun buffalo like the plague...it's the dollar general store of the nfl. and they prove it repeatedly while people somehow find a way to rationalize it. addition by subtraction on a team this devoid of talent? no way.

you think he'd be upset by that, now? nix isn't exactly showing the team response either, that would involve trying to win. and this move is really going to make buffalo a more desirable landing spot for veteran free agents (not that they will EVER spend the money needed).

you do? can you please explain it to me?

tiger = david duval redux? i think we still may see some good showings but the days of everyone fearing tiger are likely done.

anybody know the committee rules? greenspan implied it would only take a majority vote for changes. if so you'll only need one reasonable person on either side to complete a compromise...we can hope.

i like darryl johnston. loved van miller. howard cosell was my all time least favorite. tasker is pretty bad. almost forgot, rush limbaugh's short stint was very painful.

hilarious no ones gonna give any sympathy to these guys. i'd say more than 1/2 the lawyers i know really dislike their jobs. ya think these students went into it for the excitement, intellectual challenge and satisfaction of the work. no, for the money and then they didn't do due diligence on their prospects. poetic justice indeed.

"brave new world", huxley, you're right. liking the pot idea though. think of all that tax revenue...tea partiers would never go for it on that basis alone, wouldn't meet mr grover's test.

might not but history says it can and likely will again. been thinking about the solution and since you are openly playing devils advocate so will i. how bout orwell's soma model. devise and distribute a drug to make the underclass numb and passive. many go looking for a state of numbness now. in a way were already doing this (with limited success) with the availability of street drugs, alcohol and the ever increasing array of mindless activities like ipods, video games, tv etc. just step it up a notch and do it better.