Dan

So essentially, you're saying the fact that he has a signed contract should mean nothing? OK, so let's say the Jets make him the highest paid CB today and sign him to a 5 year deal. Then in 2011, he's just average. Hardy beats him for 2 TDs, even. Do the Jets get a new deal and cut him down to the 5th or 7th or whatever best CB level, because that's how he played in 2011? If it's fair for him to get a new, higher contract every time he plays good; shouldn't the owner get a new, lower contract every time he plays bad? Why does it have to be a one way street? That's why you sign contracts. Maybe they should just get rid of contracts all together?

OK. But, do they deserve to renegotiate their contract every year? Because Revis still has 3 years left (if memory serves corrrect) on his contract. He's had a great year; therefore, feels he deserves more money. Ok. But, can the owners, then, negotiate down each year when these great players (Haynesworth) have an average year?

OK... I think you've confused me again. Just to make sure I'm clear.. who's legitimizing our enemies? And when exactly did we do that? Are you suggesting that all Muslims are our enemies and therefore we shouldn't acknowledge anything positive that any muslim has ever done? Oh, and I'm fairly certain Muslim ideology, extremist or not, has a slightly longer history than 60 years. So what was your point again?

Brilliant! On that note, I can go get some work done.

OK... so now you said, "You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists". No where did I make the leap to Muslim extremists. That was your leap. The initial statement that started this thread was, "he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations". It was you that then began the argument that the Muslim world has made no significant contributions to Math and Science; ultimately landing firmly on the notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. And the great conlusion that, "Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies". So are you equating all Muslims to be our enemies or not? Because, as far as I can tell, the head of NASA did not state anything about engaging more with our enemies. He was talking about Muslim nations in general. You've misconstrued that notion in just about every way imaginable. Then you state, "Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals". But, when I assert that the war on terrorism similarly deals with ideals; you claim, "Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology." So which is it? Do we confront the ideals of our enemies or not? Or do we just acknowledge the ideologies that we think is appropriate? Similar to before, it's really hard to discuss or debate this with you because you change your tone in almost every post. You rarely state facts, and what few you do are frequently contradicted with your next opinion. I think the confusion is that you think your opinions are indeed facts. That's all I can figure at least. It is enjoyable though.

Brazil? KKK? ..I .. uh.... Happy Thanksgiving! So, ideals and ideology does not play into the war on terrorism? Nice to know that. But, I'm sorry I must have missed the point where we were reaching out to terrorist organizations to partner with. I thought this thread was about NASA reaching out to Muslims. Or are we just saying all Muslims are terrorists? What really sucks is that I just realized that Reagan legitimized communism in the 80's when he started acknowledging and working with Russia. Yeah, it may have eventually helped end the cold war. But, it gave ideas to a young Obama that communism is a good thing. Hence, we have a health care bill today. Oh the irony of it all!

Are you absolutely certain that there are no references to killing unfaithful people in the Bible? Seriously? From Reagan, 1985, referring to our long term cold war enemy: "In science and technology, we could launch new joint space ventures and establish joint medical research projects." So was Reagan a bad leader because he advocated that we exchange many more of our citizens from fraternal, religious, educational, and cultural groups. Or when he suggested the exchange of thousands of undergraduates each year, and even younger students who would live with a host family and attend schools or summer camps. That our two countries look to increased scholarship programs, improve language studies, conduct courses in history, culture, and other subjects. Why was he pandering to the communists? Was Reagan really a closet commie? Or was he just a bad leader that had no idea how to defeat our enemy? I think the evidence there is quite conclusive, he was.

So, what category to you place conservatives that believe gay marriage is immoral; therefore, they pass laws banning gay marriage? Or conservatives that believe abortion is immorale; therefore, they want to ban all abortions? Or conservatives that thing drinking is bad; therefore, liquor stores are closed on Sunday? Or... you get the point. So you don't think there are plenty of examples of far right conservatives that feel laws must be made in order to force their beliefs on everyone else? I think the cogent point that's been presented here is that there are nuts on both the liberal and conservative sides of the coin. And, I'll add, for anyone to argue that their side of the coin is more rational or more tolerant than the other is ignoring all the nuts standing behind them.

No the muslim part was a bad attempt at humor, stemming from the PPP board in which someone started a thread about NASA's role being redefined. May I ask what your PhD is in?

Thanks for all the comments. It should be interesting if it happens, which the probability is quite high. We may spend some time in Dubai - that's where our current contact lives. However, the work would be in KSA; so he's saying all our time will be there. Of course no actual travel plans are made yet. The first trip is mostly exploratory and securing the work. If all goes well, it could become much more routine, possibly even looking to hire a couple of people to go over for extended periods. Definitely a big step for our outfit. No I don't work for NASA, but I would like to take this time and recognize all the achievements the Muslim world has made to internet message boards. There are a lot of gifted Muslim posters and it's our priority that we encourage them to post more.

Saudi Arabia. I'll definitely go, if the opportunity comes to pass. It could be quite lucrative. And, that's what I've been told the host company will arrange everything and take care of all travel, hotels, everything. My concern is.. I'm a long haired, cowboy hat, jean wearin, piss on you kinda guy and I'm not in any way familar with specific custums, dress, etiquette, and the like for that region of the world. So, I don't want to piss anyone off and end up in some infidel boot camp.

Good points. And pretty much what I was thinking. Maybe I'm not an idiot afterall. A key point I was hoping to see addressed in more detail over the last year was new industry which would provide completely new jobs. Given many of the points above, it would seem to make sense that getting into something like the alternative energy market could solve some, if not many, of those issues. I liked the thought of puuting Americans to work devloping the technology and equipment that supply the next generation with power that's being used here. Perhaps people are working toward that, but it would be nice to see it more of an emphasis. If you think I'm not going to be checking out every hot chick driving by, well we're just scewed. Because I'm sorry if it comes down to hot chicks or the fate of the free world, I'm taking hot chicks every day of the week. I do see your points. And that's been one of my biggest concerns over the past year. Not so much each specific piece of legislation. But the volume of it all at once.

Question, and a serious one as I'm not an economist in any sense of the term: How much of the current stagnation, slow growth, whatever is due to the economy just finding a new point of stability that's lower than where we were? What I'm driving at is, it seems a couple of years ago our economy was booming along and everything was marked up, expanding daily, all was good. But, then we find out its all built on a house of cards so to speak. So, is it reasonable to expect an economic recovery back to 2008 levels and higher? If I may try my hand at an analogy: If you're driving a car designed to travel 55mph, but your steadily keeping the peddle down and climbing to 60, 60, 75; then the engine blows. You patch the engine, you keep going, but do you keep going at 75mph or is 55mph the new stable speed until you find some way to overahaul the engine? Make sense?

Actually, being a little more open-minded and level headed; I prefer to wait until I actually see NASA's list of priorities on some official document before I jump off the bridge and stoke the fires of a good rant. I can tell you this though... the guy was giving an interview on an all the time, pro muslim news station. Would you expect anything less than a lot of glowing praise for muslims? I know from first hand experience that press releases and interviews are almost always scripted and tailored for a specific audience, message, even specific time and place. And that script will very often change from day to day depending upon the circumstances and audience you're targeting. So, it's very likely, almost a certainty, that he was given a very precise script on what to say - regardless of any official policy. Now did he go too far with his language and statments. In our eyes, yes. In the muslim world, I'd guess no. Oh and by the way, I think the trap has long since snapped shut.

Just curious... has any of the board faithful had to travel to the middle east recently for business? I may have an opportunity in the near future and, needless to say, it's a little concerning given all the recent year's relations.

Certainly some, no doubt. But by no means all... But, ok, I'll go a little old school because it's easy for chicks to get all photoshopped up after their boob jobs and assorted plastic surgeries these days. Perhaps she's been mentioned before; if so, good for that poster. But it really doesn'y get much better than... Phoebe Cates The Classic Shot and she's aged quite well.

Yes. I'm finally getting the respect I deserve!

Hoo ray! I think I've just stepped up to being someone's favorite whipping boy. Happy, happy, joy, joy for me.

OK... this is really long past pointless and I have work to do. So, rather than refute each point you've attempted; I'll do just one and then let you rant back some nonsense. Sound good? You seem fixated on the fact that Obama is no leader. And you're asserting that I am disputing that. Can we at least agree on that? In the thread in which you reference (I assume because no link was provided): I clearly state in my 4th post in the thread that: "Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama has shown leadership on this mess. I'm just saying that at least some of the things people want to see done are being done." Furthermore, in my initial post, I clearly state: "And yes, Obama has made many missteps" So, I would think it's fairly obvious that I'm not giving anyone an "all thumbs up" for how things have been handled. The problem with your argument is you stated: "That's not my point. My point is: given Obama's clearly demonstrable tendencies to be ideological, instead of practical, to the point of obtuseness, why on God's green earth should we let him be in charge of any other major initiative?" So which is it? Do you want him to be the great leader and take charge of the oil disaster or do you want him defer leadership to someone else? You've indicated that you want both to occur.... you're upset that he's not leading, but you started your entire argument asking why should we even let him. And, in perfect bizzaro world fashion, I'm the one that's contradicting myself. Nice.

Did I win yet?

Has this become... "Women You can find a Picture Of" thread?

I've never once stated that Obama gets a passing grade. I've never stated that he's been a great leader through all this. I've simply stated that here's one example of something good being done. Your problem is that you're completely biased. You've drawn your line in the sand and refuse to budge. Obama is bad, he's not a leader, he's a socialist, and every other talking point your heart can think of. Nothing Obama can ever do will be right in your eyes. And that is what is what is most troubling - everything becomes politicized and reality becomes completely distorted. Rational thought and discussion have become an after thought. I can't even discuss this simple little issue without being labeled and idiot and a liar. But, that's ok. I'm sure you've already decided I'm an Obama supporter; therefore, I'm agin ya. And all I do or say is wrong by default. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world where all that is either good or bad can so easily be determined and forever known. Nanker is right, this issue is largely window dressing. It's most likely political cover designed to do one thing - get votes. Because Obama, like every other first term President wants one thing - a second term. But, that doesn't change the fact that if I were a fisherman on the Gulf coast, I'd have at least a little relief knowing that there's money set aside to compensate me. It doesn't mean I'd be happy; that'd sleep easy; it doesn't mean I'll even get my fair compensation; but it does mean that I can start thinking of ways to inflate my lost revenue and cash out and move to a part of the world that God doesn't hate.

A lie about as big as suggesting the government and BP have consistently ignored the broken pipe, containment and cleanup of the mess. How many meetings did BP attend at the Whitehouse to set up the $20B fund? Or are you suggesting that before and since the fund was set up, that that's all anyone has been able to focus on? And, why is it ok to spend some time on #2 before #1; but not #4? So what's wrong with doing #4 first, if that opportunity presented itself? I mean, if it's ok to do #2, why can't we do #4? Or is that too far down the list? Can we only focus on 2 things at once, but 4 things is just brain overload? My premise is that something good was done. A fund was setup to ensure that people would be compensated. It took relatively little time; yet gave people some assurance and perhaps a little glimmer of hope. But, you're unwilling to acknowledge that anything good was done. Why? Because, it was done in the wrong "order" or was it done by a President that you refuse to give any credit to?

We may have just stumbled upon some new posting guidelines. Another thing I do alot... you have a post you want to comment on. Give it an hour, maybe a day. If the issue is still unresolved, then reply. But there's not sense replying to every comment.