Dan

I don't use a case for my phone (or iPod). I never quite understood the concept of buying a nice, pretty phone that's slim and lightweight and then covering it in some big, clunky case?

What makes this cycle particularly self destructive is that, now, while the Democrats are in charge; the Republicans will do everything posssible to prevent any serious progess from being made. Afterall, if Obama and the current Congress have any success, then how can the Republicans get back in control? So, they'll stall everything they can and regain control. Then, of course, the Democrats will do everything they can to stall and prevent any positive Republican progress. So, they can then point to and call out ineffectual Republican leadership. And so it goes ensuring nothing beneficial is ever truly accomplished. All the while, the only way to actually change anything - development of a 3rd party, term limits on Congress, lobbying/campaign reform - are squashed before they ever begin.

How about all of them. Or are you suggesting that over the past 100 years there hasn't been trillions of dollars in Federal money delivered to every state to build the interstate highway system, provide for public schools, build dams for electricity, reservoirs for drinking water, and so on and so forth? States rely greatly on Federal money for just about everything they do. It's nice to rail on the federal government and all their incompetency. It's nice to say that the states can do everything themselves. It's nice to say that you don't need anything from the government. But, the reality is that a strong federal government that's provided for all the various services that most everyone takes for granted is precisely what's allowed us all to live in the greatest country on the planet and not some 3rd world country of have's and have nots. TVA, alone, changed the entire landscape of much of the south giving some of the poorest areas of the country (TN, AL, MS, WV, KY, GA, NC) electricity, improved farming, flood control, and increased commercial traffic. But, I guess all those states weren't helped at all by the federal government, which gets its money from all the states.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I'd love to see a Bills game just played through without all the beer commercials. The officiating definitely seemed to favor the Spaniards all day. It wasn't as bad as a typical Bills/Pats* game, but awful close.

2 thouhts on this game: 1. These guys cry like little girls every time they're touched. I know they're tryign to draw a penalty or something, but do they really have to roll around in the worst pain ever every time someone touches them? 2. This sport will never be popular in the US until they can figure out how to get commercial breaks in every 5 minutes. (Oh yeah, some big-boobed babe shots wouldn't hurt either for the Aamerican viewing audience.)

Yep, thanks to Dean, I install WOT with all firefox installations.

**shhhh, I'm trying to get OC riled up on a Sunday morning.**

Leader

There's no guarantee he can be the best CB in the league for a second straight season. So, he's got to get all his money now. That way if he has a down year or 2, he's still getting his money. Careers are over rated, it's better to play for that one great season - then cash out at the expense of your team.

No. TO not having a job is not an indication they think he split the locker room and was a disruption last season. That is a figmentation of reality you created to help explain why Trent played so bad last season. But, it has no basis in this dimension of reality. TO not having a job is more likely an indication that 32 teams think he has a declining skill set and wants too much money for that skill set.

Can I assume you work in the Bills' locker room in some capacity? Because I've never seen a single article/quote/indication that the Bills' locker room was split last season.

You've been stating for quite some time that TO was a problem on the team last year. Can you point to one shread of proof that TO somehow affected Trent's play? Just because you keep sstating it, that doesn't make it true. I'm sure TO preferred Fitz at QB - but only because Fitz actually had the balls to throw the ball. And yes the play calling, scheme, etc. can lead to a QB's demise; as I'm sure it did here. But, what's concerend me most about Trent is he's accepted it. He accepted being mediocre. He showed no passion, no will to win, no leadership. He accepted losing. Can Chan change that? Maybe. But, I won't hold my breath. Trent's completely indecisive, deer in the headlights, lackluster stare isn't going to change overnight. If he starts, I fully expect him to be in the post game PC, week 1, with a blank stare - we just play the plays that are called, we have to get better, we're still learning, it's hard to learn a new playbook. Kelly, IMO, is just calling it as he see's it; when he see's it. He's always done that and probably always will. Do bad and he let's you know. Do good and he let's you know. He's always been like that. Nothing more about it. You really think he's sitting back calculating his press clippings/quotes today so that they all line up and look good 5 years from now?

Agreed. You know you're having a bad day when even your dog abandons you!

Half the board was busy calling home to ask their mom why she's posting old home movies on the net.

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.