....lybob

Who's worse a man who strives to do evil but fails and does good, or a man who strives to do good and fails and does evil? In the end it comes down to deeds not words- you will know a thing by it's fruits. And I think you are mistaken if you think that any overtures to Muslims are anything other than an attempt to put ourselves in a better position with a resource laden part of the world vis-a-vis China or a attempt to get some funding for the space program realizing we will soon have very little money to spend on anything but defense, social security, and Medicare.

Not equally bad just equally irrelevant How many professed Christians actuality follow Yeshua's teachings. Luke 3.11 if anyone has two tunics, he must share with the man who has none, and the one with something to eat must do the same." Matthew 5:39 Turning the other cheek? Matthew 7.1-5 Judge not? Matthew 5.44 Loving those who hate us? Matthew 25:31-46 taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick, visiting the prisoner- this one has emphasis as doing it is a way to heaven and not doing it is a way to hell. I'd say about 1 in 10000 professed Christians actuality follow any of the teachings so why should professed Muslims be any different in their following of the Koran.

I think for the number of picks they had that it's a pretty weak draft, I Like Gronkowski, Spikes, Hernandez, But not so much McCourty, Cunningham, Price- I would have gone Odrick DE, Cody NT, Everson Griffen OLB but then I like front 7 defense as much as Jauron likes DBs.

You should love their inferiority complex it's going to allow us to trade a few prestige points (first Muslim astronaut) for a boat load of cash.

"WSJ JULY 7, 2010, 11:03 AM ET Goldman Sachs: We’re With Krugie! By Matt Phillips Elfin Timesman/Laureate/Pulitz-isto/Princetonian Paul Krugman has been banging the drum on the need for more stimulus pretty much since the effort to zap the economy back to life was first announced. A well-coifed, dulcet-toned Harvard Scot named Niall Ferguson says that’s a bad idea and bond market vigilantes will show up in the dark of night and pummel U.S. bonds to applesauce, twist Uncle Sam’s arm around his back, and force him pay through his bleeding nose to borrow. Anyhoo, the econowonks over at Goldman Sachs seem to be siding with the Krugster, suggesting that as the economy shows signs of softening, another jolt of stimulus seems to be in order. The bond markets know we’re good for it, they argue. Their proof? The low-low yields on U.S. debt. Goldman analysts wrote in a note dated July 5: Our recently released Global Economics Paper No. 200 entitled “No Rush for the Exit” argues that policymakers should react to the combination of a sluggish recovery and declining inflation with additional policy easing, either via a return to unconventional monetary policy or via further fiscal stimulus. The obvious counterargument is that monetary and fiscal easing carries long-term costs in the form of, respectively, a risk of a renewed asset bubble and a higher public debt burden. But our study shows that these costs look far from prohibitive at present. On the monetary side, US financial markets are nowhere close to bubble territory. On the fiscal side, it is difficult to argue that the US government has reached the limits of its debt capacity when long-term bond yields are low and falling, and when federal interest payments stand at just 1½% of GDP. When compared with the risk of a renewed economic downturn and/or a descent into deflation, the cost of additional stimulus seems to be well worth paying." Goldman Sachs and Paul Krugman agreeing? It's like those Superman Lex Luthor team ups, or Jehovah and Satan coming down arm in arm saying we decided to split the difference "you can screw anyone you want but you still go to hell for eating pork or lobster" "you can keep your foreskin but no more praying for threepeats" I'm going to have to reevaluate everything.

my opinion and some quotes I agree with If two countries issue debt publicly and privately and one invests in technology, infrastructure, industry and education while the other spends on entitlements, military adventures, depreciables and zero-sum speculation, it is reasonable to expect the former will build wealth to repay the borrowed money while the latter will impoverish itself to repay the money over time. Both will increase employment levels regardless of how the money is spent, but that misses the point of the populist majority's constructive anger toward the government. "Working people don't rise to the task because they have been propagandized into believing that "fiscal austerity" is something that needs to be done in order to save their children from an even worse fate. What actually needs to happen in a deflationary collapse is to spend more money into the system, not pull it back out by paying off the federal debt; but the money needs to go into the real economy - into factories, farms, businesses, housing, transportation, sustainable energy systems, health care, education. Instead, the stimulus money has been hijacked, diverted into cleaning up the toxic balance sheets of the financial gamblers who propelled the economy into its perilous dive." - Ellen Brown "Creating capital for business has to be less than 1pct of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. . . . My 2 cents is that it is important for this country to push Wall Street back to the business of creating capital for business. Whether it's through a use of taxes on trades, or changing the capital gains tax structure so that there is no capital gains tax on any shares of stock (private or public company) held for 5 years or more, and no tax on dividends paid to shareholders who have held stock in the company for more than 5 years. However we need to do it, we need to get the smart money on Wall Street back to thinking about ways to use their capital to help start and grow companies. That is what will create jobs. That is where we will find the next big thing that will accelerate the world economy. It won't come from traders trying to hack the financial system for a few pennies per trade." - Mark Cuban

"REPORT: Despite warnings from many economists that stimulus may be too small, network news rarely raised the issue March 06, 2009 3:58 pm ET SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be. Comments A Media Matters for America review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts -- one on each network -- included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be and may have to be followed by additional measures. Although the size of the stimulus package was referenced during at least 48 of the broadcasts that addressed it -- with anchors and reporters, in many cases, characterizing the bill as "massive," "enormous," or "giant" -- rarely was the concern raised that the package's size may not have been adequate. Indeed, The Washington Post reported on February 17, "[A]s big as it is, the final bill is smaller than what initially passed in the House and Senate, and it falls well short of filling the $2 trillion gap in demand that many economists foresee." Economist Mark Zandi wrote in an op-ed on February 15, "[M]y most significant criticism of the current stimulus plan is that it is too small." He added: "Our struggling economy will produce nearly $1 trillion less than it is capable of this year and will underperform again by at least as much in 2010. The $789 billion in spending and tax cuts to be distributed over those two years is not going to fill this expected hole in the economy. I would thus not be surprised if policymakers are forced to consider a second stimulus plan soon." (Zandi added, "Nonetheless, when combined with other aggressive policy steps, including efforts to shore up the financial system and stem foreclosures, this fiscal-stimulus plan will go a long way toward relieving the current economic crisis.") Zandi was not alone. Other economists -- including Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, James Galbraith, Eileen Appelbaum, and J. Bradford DeLong -- also assessed the stimulus package as too small" You may think all the economists who thought the stimulus package too small are all fools- but please don't pretend they didn't exist.

Iran Must Be Stopped By Bradley Blakeman Published February 17, 2010 | FOXNews.com President Obama came to power believing that he unilaterally could disarm Iran with his charm and conciliatory demeanor. He was wrong. The president’s naiveté has given the Iranian government time to step up their nuclear weapons technology and crackdown on pro-democracy dissidents. Last fall, President Obama held a press conference and announced that Iran was in fact well on their way to building a second uranium-enrichment plant. This was a significant announcement and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iran, in complete defiance of international law, is well on its way to building a nuclear weapon. After his announcement did the president call for an emergency U.N. Security Council Meeting? Did he see to it that the most severe sanctions should be brought to bear on the Iranian government? No, he did not. He simply has called for more dialogue. Well, talk is cheap. The president squandered the perfect opportunity to lead the world in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why did the president let the perfect forum to bring the Iranians to task before the world community slip away? Isn’t that what the Security Council is supposed to be for? Is nuclear proliferation by rogue regimes not important enough to convene the Council? The president most surely knew all the facts. This should have been debated, and Iran should have been called before the Security Council to defend itself. The president was intentionally derelict or grossly negligent in this missed opportunity. He had the president of Iran in New York. When the president made his announcement this past fall, most of the world leaders who make up the Security Council were at the Opening of the General Assembly in New York. All members of the Security Council should have had their feet put to the fire and either condoned this illegal activity or condemned it and sought serious measures to correct it. Sadly, Obama will turn out to be the Neville Chamberlain of our time. Just this past week Iran’s president boasted defiantly that his country was a nuclear power. I take him at his word. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, like Adolf Hitler, is warning the world about his country’s ultimate intentions and his own. Hitler penned "Mein Kampf" in a jail cell. He explained his intentions for the world should he come to power. At the time he wrote "Mein Kampf," Hitler was a prisoner and was not able to make good on his wishful intent. The world chose to ignore his warnings, let him come to power and then let him implement most of his stated goals. The president of Iran is doing the very same thing. Ahmadinejad has told the world all about his ultimate intentions. He seeks the destruction of Israel and of the United States. His country is building the instrumentalities by which he could achieve his goals, while the world sits back and watches. Sixty million people perished during World War II, with weapons far more primitive than can be even be produced today. If lone homicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves for religious fanaticism, why then is it beyond the realm of possibility, that a leader is willing to sacrifice millions for the same beliefs? We have seen it before. It has been said that, “If we do not learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.” Truer words were never spoken. Hitler wrote the following words in "Mein Kampf" that have been parroted almost verbatim today by the president of Iran: “I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” How many will needlessly die before we act to stop a repeat of what the world experienced during the time of Hitler? Iran must be stopped, and stopped now. Either other responsible nations will join us or we must do the job alone. We have no choice. We must take these rogues at their word and pay attention to their deeds.

My guess is that it is an opening bid to get money from them.

Here, the second emotocon I've ever used I read about your last 50 posts and you took an awful lot of shots as compared to actually adding anything to the conversation.

As a practical matter I think you are right, but I don't think it is impossible, with the Internet it is possible to find out from where and at what amounts candidates are being financed- what if there was a block of voters who vote for the candidates who received the least amount of special interest money, what if there was a block of voters who refuse to vote for those they see on TV or hear on radio- If you could make special interest money and expensive media ads a detriment instead of a benefit I think you'd see a profound change in government.

Why is C harsh for our coach, If you think Gaily deserves better than a C then list the 16+ NFL head coaches you think he's better than.

You're probably right but after reading this article I wasn't exactly sure what they were trying to convey. Since my own writing skills are lacking, I'm not the best person to bring this up but I'm amazed at the number of spelling errors, wrong word usage, and just incoherent writing I see in newspaper and magazine articles. I'd never ridicule anyone on a board or blog for it because they aren't paid to be writers but newspapers and magazines hire people presumably for their writing skills.

"Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick." Terrible sentence, should be either: Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is hardly a nick. or For an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick.

That's too bad because you were plenty dumb to begin with.

I thought the Bills might take a shot at Jimmy Graham but I was not to be.

I did not hate Scott as a RT his pass blocking was that good but I thought his run blocking was ok.

True doing everything the cop says doesn't necessarily stop you from getting a beating but resisting will almost surely get you a beating. As a son of a cop I'll tell you this, about 5% of cops are plain heroes, 50% just want to do their jobs and get home safe and sound, 25% are like the stereotypical dumb jock (individually maybe not bad guys but watch out if they get in a group) 15% have personality disorders and 5% are out right criminals. I don't know how it is now, but back in the day it took multiple complaints for anything to be done about a cop, at least 5-6 but maybe more if the guy is liked, if you realize that only maybe one in twenty people who had a gripe would make a complaint you realize how many people you'd have to screw with to get to that level. Usually they would just move you to a new precinct . If you continued to screw up you'd eventually get disciplinary action but more for causing you superiors headaches than anything else, if you were an ahole and no one wanted to be your partner then you might have to do foot patrol which I'm told sucked mightily. Occasionally cops police their own, a cop who caught a teenage girl in the park who was drinking underage coerced her to give him a BJ, a few days later got a tremendous beating at a Hertel Ave bar by a bunch of off-duty cops.

I wouldn't have him as my #2 WR but I'd have him splitting out or going in motion a lot of the time- if he's only going in as a third down back then that was a waste of a 1st round pick- he should be on the field about 75-80% of the time but he should be used as a decoy about 60% of the time. 12-15 runs 6-8 passes thrown to him and the rest of the time making the defense worry about him.

Agree with this, I sometimes wonder what we would have thought of the Bush Presidency if he had Powell as Vice President, James Baker as Secretary of the State, and Richard Lugar as Secretary of Defense.

Since Buffalo and Detroit both have the longest play-off droughts in the NFL I think we should be able to combine the best players from both teams and merge into the Rust-belt Renegades- we'll play 4 games in Buffalo and 4 in Detroit and they can put a craptacular team in LA to get back to 32.

I agree but it is the gauge they use now - I was wondering if it was the cause of the 13.6% to 18% gap- maybe 1980 article used the old measurement that included food and energy while my data compares inflation using the new measurement that doesn't.

I don't remember the when but I remember the why publicly given reason, food and energy prices are too volatile to give accurate information on inflation trends speculated reason, food and energy prices raises the rate of inflation which looks bad for politicians and increases the amount of payouts for Social Security and other inflation indexed programs.

True in the long run but there can be huge dislocations in the short run- this happen to blacks who migrated north for jobs- had family supporting factory jobs and other manual labor jobs but when automation reduced the need for grunt labor they were in a bind because they generally had less than an 8th grade education- some of the great unintended negative social consequences of Welfare started at this time because it's support of single mothers over families- leading to the abandonment of families by unemployed fathers.

Question about inflation numbers does anyone remember exactly when they stopped counting food and energy?