nkreed

Wait.... What?? Shouldn't his average be better since the ball doesn't come back out to the 20???

Let me make my position a little clearer. The entire world should not know how the Supreme Court will rule prior to a case being heard. This is the unfortunate state we currently live in. We know how cases will be handled (for the most part) becaus to of the politics behind the sitting judges. Instead of making political statements, I just want them to take the facts of the case at hand and make a decision.

I just want a darn court that rules fairly, not based on politics.

Could it be b/c she knew it would pass and voted "for women" kind of theater?

Wow. Talk about using the smallest thing to point to large scale disaster. The "significant warming" that is pointed out in the article is one that is on a small scale with 100% wind energy production (we know this to be improbable). Even then the affect is significantly smaller than our current waste heat production of fossil fuels.

Alaska Darin, well played. It was out of line to presume something. I never let you know my feelings at to the abomination of a law Obamacare in it's finality. The Who said it best, "meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Nothing changed, the insurance companies just made more money. You're right, I do oversimplify. How else am I to communicate with those that are too dumb otherwise? /s I have not argued for a lack of reasoning. In fact I will always argue FOR reasoning. Just because I left a comment stating that women have been repressed does not assume that I am without reason. What is the old addage? Oh yes, "the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." And what has this administration been saying since day one about those that made accusations? These are people looking to make money. So surprise that same line of thinking comes out with this accusation. I'm not going to say that this may not be the reason. Heck, even Hitler knew that in a "big lie there is always credibility; because the broad masses of a Nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than conciously or voluntarily" (Mein Kampf). So that lends me to ask, which side is making the broad lie that reached down to the emotional nature? It could be partisan in nature, or it could be the administrations lie told over and over too. Interesting thoughts no doubt. Healthcare- how has capitalism helped with the insurance industry? Where are the checks and balances of a neutral capitalistic society? Oh yes demand is so high that it commands a higher cost? How about limiting the supply by having a form of medice that treats the human, not the symptoms? We have moved too far away from treating the entire body as a whole toward a system that treats each symptom with a pill, that may cause a side effect for which another pill exists. I really do feel that we can simplify it down that far. I will go to the healthcare thread to post more if need be. Yup, it was a sorry attempt to stifle the rising costs. The original bill, as proposed would have worked, however the final outcome was terrible but exactly what the insurance companies wanted. I will not lie and say that Obamacare worked, cause I don't believe that's what I said. I just wanted to make it clear that the insurance issue has not changed with the exception that the insurance carriers are making more money. And how much time do you all have to make these posts? Jeeze these forums move fast!

This is why there is significant amount of under reporting of sexual assaults. Call bull on what is "presumed bull" is how we got here. Women have generally been thought of as less of a person since forever. (I'll conceed some religions and cultures actually point to women as the sacred line). However in European thought and the Western world born from European expansion, the woman has been treated as inferior. So if a woman makes a statement of sexual assault, it has historically been presumed bull if the male is of any importance to society. I'm not typing this to make any statement about the proceedings. I wanted to point out the presumed bull part of the statement and to try to explain the "other sides" thinking. Health insurance.....yikes here we go. We are paying 20k a year. First, we were well on our way to that number without Obamacare. Using this as an argument that it's Obamacares fault is revisionist history. Second, who can afford that? 20k on healthcare is absolutely ridiculous and where do these profits go? Pharma, medical tech and insurance (liability insurance that is). If these numbers don't tell you that our healthcare system is absolutely out of control I don't know what will. Again, blaming it on Obamacare is ludicrous. Our healthcare industry was headed this way well before the law. I think I know where you will fall in this argument, but I would rather have an entire nation paying for health insurance through a single means than only those who can afford it through a private industry. The cost would be reduced because we are all one pool of healthy and sick, and the ability to control cost would be significant. I'm also confident a second additional insurance market will exist as well, leaving people who can afford the payments to have additional items not covered under the single system. BTW, nice assertion at the end.?

So is there anything that is invented that is brand new? Unless we have scientifically discovered anti matter or have created a Quantum Leap accelerator there will never be a new invention. And to Figster's point, if we can use the nanocrystal electricity and electromagnetic propulsion together well enough maybe we can get higher and faster roller coasters!

This is an interesting topic, but what do all inventions really have in common? They make our lives easier in some way. I would consider in a few years self driving cars as a revolutionary item you speak of. This fully fits with your TV, radio examples, because those both just changed how we listen to others, while a self driving car changes how we drive. Others I can think of that fit in this discussion: Bluetooth, cordless power tools, Roomba (that's robotics), 3g then 4g and soon 5g, cellular phones. I'm sure there's a lot more it just has to be thought on a little longer.

I wonder when they changed it again. I remember a while ago the rule change to increase game speed, but always thought it was 5 mins to go in each half.

Quick, hold my beer! I gotta go score 6.

Bills suck. Isn't that what we're saying for not getting Mayfield? /S

Both actually. I should have worded it better, obviously. I was under the impression the initial post was about a future start. In my conversations with many a Bills fan, not on TBD, they seem to forget he started the snow game. So in this respect we agree, he started 3 games he couldn't finish. With that said, please accept this...?

Everyone forgets that Peterman started the snow game. He had already started 3 games that he couldn't finish.

The real question is can he own the team, since he owns the Sabres and Bills? And what about the Bandits which he owned through the Sabres I thought. Edit- I read the article and found out that indeed he will own to teams in the same league..... Seems like a conflict of interest.

Well obviously things have changed since I last looked at it. ? Thank you all for calling me out on it. I was confused when I first saw the decrease in +/- way back when they were introduced.

Don't you mean his bot? Also, on a side note about the buttons. Every confused decreases the +rating listed next to the username by one. I'm not saying it matters, but I thought I'd throw that out there for those that track it.

To try and get something on offense

FG, just to break the shutout

That's just blasphemy!

And Vlad knows the count

So will that get a fine?

Is this 2nd for defense too?

2!

A First Down!