dayman

Yea for real. Give up a 5th to have him as a back up. Problem is can't trust the fans in Buffalo to chill and let him ride the bench.

Well they just got their cap open a bit they're probably in play for somebody. The real question is who?

I would say yes, but not if he does any worse. Cam is far and away going to be the greatest QB moving forward anyway so it's moot. It's Cam's league we just haven't realized it yet.

Relevant to the debate about if presidents can control gas prices we were having...I was watching Real Time "overtime" (while failing to fall asleep) and the final question was exactly that! Obviously it's not exactly gospel but Bob Lutz (Vice Chairman at General Motors Company) addressed it. He basically said absolutely not, only way they can effect it is to drive it up with taxes. Maher disagreed saying he thinks a big reason the price is high right now is because of the potential looming Iranian crisis and the rhetoric around it. Lutz basically responded saying there’s always going to be some marginal barrel somewhere in the world, add speculation, add expectation and that's it and that the promise that you could lower gas prices as president is about the most unfulfillable promise you could make while campaigning. One mans opinion anyway. (now to sleep for real). For the record, he is conservative.

And there you have both crossed the line of civility and made and ass out of yourself. Thank you for the speculation on my girlfriends biological makeup and direction on how she and I should behave as well as the oversight of the fact that birth control is not merely contraceptive.

This response is so incoherent given the context of the discussion and the text you quoted it hardly warrants a response. In any event there's a hypothetical in the last sentence you quoted. To give another hypothetical, podiatrists cutting medicare patients toe nails for exorbitant fees. I agree it is nice that certain local establishments take a stance on issues like this and voluntarily provide a discount for generic birth control to those who's health insurance does not cover birth control. That would be an even stronger argument if the female body was uniform across our species, but it's not and the reason there are a number of different approaches (both in pill form and otherwise) to birth control is because there needs to be to help individual women. You see...generic birth control (Tri-Sprintec is the one that you are probably referring to) doesn't cut it for all women. Of course you probably don't care (or maybe even don't believe that?) but then again your stance on the issue doesn't make me think you are a doctor. Not to sound snobby but "just go take this pill for $9" isn't something I would go telling women if I weren't a doctor. In any event, my girlfriend would rather not depend on private charity when it comes to taking care of her body. She would rather just have it included in her healthcare plan (along with a bunch of other things that are in there that I don't see you attacking) because as I've stated earlier, we both consider birth control to be healthcare.

I'm not so sure the primary thrust of the "get off gas now" party (if you want to call it that...I wouldn't call them that but so be it) is environment. I was actually surprised to learn (not that this is really all that closely related) that if you live in an area w/ coal power you pollute more w/ an electric car than you with gasoline. Only nuclear and to a lesser extend natural gas areas reduce CO2 emissions through those cars use. I'm not sure what you are saying here in the emboldened portion.

oil goes under the hood gas goes in the back hehe

I don't understand what you are referring to here.

Tom this is what the pill does. It does both.

Haha he did there's no denying that. As for my stance on gas Rob, IDK what to tell ya dude. It's just the way I see.

To me the idea that drilling as Gingrich wants to spike the global supply is the way to go is just wrong. Also leave it to him to promise $2.50 a gallon...ok Newt. We HAVE to move towards alternative fuels regardless. How we do it, when we do it...all open to debate. But the sooner and more aggressive we are about it the better off we'll be. Massive investment in oil or in other means? I'll take the later. I can see it's not popular here. As I've said over and over, I've seen strong personalities on both sides talk about how drilling domestically won't have the effects on our local gas prices that the proponents of drilling would have us believe. Ultimately disagreeing on something like that is reasonable though, it's difficult to forecast even for experts. I know Solyndra, believe me it's all anyone talks about. One company that went bankrupt. And yes, there are others. So be it. It happens. I'll not be asked to defend every bill labeled "Obama" that people on this board hate.

From everything I've heard/read on the subject that's a specious argument.

Well I just don't agree that they don't care gas prices are high. From a purely political standpoint I assure you they do. As for failing green companies...that's what happens as we all know. I'm not defending a huge amount of public money funding that research but that talking point is overblown. As for the last point on Obama failing to get an export tax that he "could have got" I really have no knowledge of that. You can elaborate if you want but I can't speak to that.

Condoms simply aren't a close equivalent IMO. My girlfriend gets so many benefits from her birth control besides us not having a baby we don't want right now. Her periods are regulated so she knows when she gets it (it's no longer quasi-mystery) and it's lighter. It helps cramps and pain. Generally it helps women control their body, the biology of which stacks the deck against them from the get go. If men had periods we wouldn't be saying things like "use a condom" and "don't have sex." Just my opinion but birth control is not simply one of many options. It is THE option.

If there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly has nailed on the head it's his talking points on gas prices. He puts it better than I will given the time I am willing to spend on this post (or probably am capable of) but the bottom line is it's a global market and even if we extract more oil domestically it's still private companies doing it and it still flows into the global market. It'll just end up in a big pot with the rest of the oil. China is willing to pay more than us per barrel, a private company that extracts it has no barriers to sending it over there and getting $5 a gallon. Hell, it's roughly $9 a gallon in Europe right now! So it's not like we're doing terrible. He did put forth an idea about crazy taxes if you send it out, which I'm not sure how practical it would be (and I know we wouldn't like it other nations did that). But the point is...the no presidential candidate can really do anything in the short term and in the long term it's not something that going to necessarily help us relative to world.

I mean, like I said it's fair enough you don't feel it should be included. To me, the idea coverage that leaves out birth control and other reproductive care is complete is BS. Did you know for instance medicare covers pedicures? Podiatrists are banking. Sort of anecdotal for me to say that but the point is IMO even assuming that we should begin to adopt a more minimalist approach to what is and isn't covered...I wouldn't start with birth control. I also believe it saves money ultimately. The people that need cheap birth control the most are the exact people who have kids that cost society far more than the pill. As for designer pills and any slippery slope argument about fertility...well...we can have that discussion but I'm not really against reasonable limits on how we approach managing reproductive care in terms of cost.

Ultimately I think people need to elect more moderate/reasonable politicians to the house/senate. That would require educated people who care about local politics outside of the presidential noise which I can't see happening anytime soon. Like I've said before...no American politician could possibly have a great term in the presidency right no IMO

That's a very complicated question. I don't have the answer. But the game of "this for that" and blocking everything you can and just competing for every little tread of momentum party wise is what I refer to. And Nancy Pelosi and many democrats are equally as guilty as the Tea Party champions so don't think I'm just throwing the far right under the bus.

Well as for your first paragraph you are ultimately not satisfied with the way Washington works. Neither am I. Either way, "we" adopted it. As for the second paragraph, you are entitled to your opinion I would never call it wrong. I would cover birth control (for what most people I talk to in real life consider obvious reasons).

Like it or not as a nation we have adopted healthcare reform. With such a change we have adopted standards. Some things are in, some things are out. Women's reproductive healthcare is in, as it should be IMO. If you don't agree, chalk it up to one of many things we all pay for (in this case through premiums) that you don't want to pay for. There are a lot of those things I pay for I don't want to pay for. I don't call the people that money goes to entitled. As for the religious argument. I don't see pacifists across the nation getting refunds for the billions upon billions that pay for our wars.

Once upon a time people were living independently. Then to guard against clans of roaming pillagers they got together to form some sense of community contract...a social contract if you will to protect each other. As society gets more complicated people necessarily become more intertwined. The great debate is how you view that social contract (conservatives want it as loose as possible generally and liberals wanting it tighter than that). This and all the issues that flow from this are legitimate political debate. Politics as it has become (certainly since Atwater changed it forever) it just spin and BS and it's all noise. That's the way I see it. "Entitlement" and things of that irk are just stalling progress and logical discussion that we need to strengthen our society.

Haha, it's fine to not like government if that's how you feel. That's a legit position IMO (to an extent). But degrading people is just typical Lee Atwater holdover mentality that has dominated the Repubs party since the late 80s.

When I see anyone from either party talk about high gas prices I automatically assume they are dumb thinking the president can control that. Also...unemployment and debt are a side effect of the greatest collapse and most complicated recovery ever. Unemployment and poverty would be worse if not exactly the same under a conservative leadership. The real issue is that nobody can keep promises or have a truly great presidency with Washington the way it is now. It's completely broken.

The whole "entitlement" push is so stupid. Just be real and admit you don't like government and leave it at that conservatives. No need to degrade people.