Dan

Thanks!

ok. For those that may have attended in the past, how soon do I need to buy tickets, make reservations, etc.? Bruce is in, Ralph is in, Bills in HOF game... if that's not enough for every Bills fan to attend, then what would be?

He's' a 90 year old man that just realized the culmination of his life is enshrinement for all time into the HOF. He looked shocked, in awe, and amazed to me. Cut him some slack. I find it most telling that the majority of his comments were about other players and the City of Buffalo. Not himself. The man is all class and I'm proud he's the owner of the team I live and die for.

Yep. Sounds like summer in the Mississippi Delta too. We regularly have 100+ degree F temps for about 2 months straight. It's called Air Conditioner, Dibs. Turn it on and turn it up. Yeah it'll run the utility bill up, but its better than sweating it out all day and night.

This one puzzles me as well. A quick google gave me some background. Who knows about the merits of this. But, it would probably sound quite a bit different if there were a group of Texas national guardsmen that were being denied benefits. Some of the others, for ex. the $87mill for family planning. I would put firmly in the "depends how it's spent" category. What if they use that money to hire social workers and print brochures (just made up some service)? Well, that's maybe not such a waste. I suppose there's some history on this portion of the Bills as well, if I chose to look into it.

I'm not the best person to argue these points, I admit (so don't beat me up too bad). But, isn't the economy linked to all sorts of jobs? Yes, the exportation of goods and services seems important, but so are many other things. If the housing market is failing, new homes aren't being built, and a multitude of jobs, goods, and services are declining. The result is layoffs and depression. So, how is not rebuilding national park facilities (just to continue with that example) not good? It would seem to help offset those losses and declining demands from the housing market. That would keep people employed and lessen the economic decline. Yes, having people paint houses isn't necessarily the best type of jobs and the best for long term economic growth. However, it does serve an immediate need. I'm not at all convinced that this Bills is good or will "stimulate" anything. But, one thing about all the "pork" that strikes me is that it seems extremely far reaching. Let's just say all programs in this Bill pass and are funded... there's hardly an area of the economy that won't see some benefit - short term and long term. Contrast that with the Big 3 bailout. A relatively narrow section of the economy is helped for just the short term. Which is better to help the economy, I don't know. Look at the TARP bailout, thing. You're helping the financial institutions, freeing up lending and credit and all that jazz. Great, I guess. But, we're giving the banks billions so they stay in business, but the banks aren't giving me anything to keep me in my house. So, how is that helping exactly? It's been explained 10 ways to Sunday, but for my simplistic mind it just seems to be perpetuating the "live beyond your means" mentality that got us all in this mess. I don't need more credit. I need a job; I need cheaper groceries (yes, food prices have gone up quite a bit); I need an alternative energy source that isn't subject to the whims of terrorists. So we give the banks billions to stay in business, but we shouldn't give anyone else anything but the ability to go further into debt? I think I've strayed from the point, but it's not like I know half of what we're talking about any way. I guess it would be easier to judge this Bill if there was a decent alternative to discuss. But, all I've heard is tax breaks for every one and I really can't see how giving people a tax break is going to help with this huge cluster!@#$ of a mess. I assure you, any tax refund I get is going straight into savings in case I lose my job.

I think it's time for a definition of "pork". Yes, some, perhaps many, programs in this Bill seem questionable. However, I think the vast, vast majority could be beneficial to helping the economy not just by creating jobs, but by also maintaining jobs and by injecting money into the economy. Of course, that all depends on how the money is actually spent which, as far as I can tell, is not clearly defined the the Bill. For example, $250 mill for computers. That presumably buys alot of computers which keeps Dell (or whoever) and the computer parts makers from laying off workers while updating computers that are probably horribly out dated. I don't really see that as a bad thing. For a second example, $670 mill for National Parks facilities. Again, you'll need people to rebuild those facilities, supplies, wood, paint, etc. That either creates jobs or potentially allows Sherwin Williams to not lay off workers. Plus the National Parks get a much needed face lift. Not really a bad thing. Again... if done properly. If they spend $1,000 on a gallon of paint then we got problems.

OK. But for the sake of my non-factual, largely unknowing argument; they made some money and got a bonus for doing so. Yes, they made me money in that the value of my stocks went up, but if I kept my money in the market (which I'm assuming most people do) then I've made no money by year's end and most likely lost money. Yet, they've still made their money. So, how did they make me money and if they would not have artificially driven up my stocks all year, I'd actually be better off at year's end?

That's kinda how I see it. The only ones to make out were the Wall Street guys. They make money coming and going with each transaction, now they get nice bonuses for all that coming and going. If I had money in the stock market, sure I was looking good then; but now I've lost it all. So, when it's all said and done; Wall Street made money all year and they're making money now. I got nothing but a warm fuzzy back in July because I was advised to keep trading right up until the bottom fell out. (not me, I have no money in the stock market, but it sounds better if I say I) So, Kelly, I'd have to disagree with your point #2.

Not sure about that... but off the top of my head: Packers, Steelers, Chiefs, Raiders, Cardinals, Bears, Lions. So a few, I'd guess. If the Bills switched to that logo, they'd take away the last thing about the team that I still like.

I really dislike your avatar.

Pretty well spot on. Rush, Coulter, and all these types are good at one thing and that's getting people riled up enough to listen to/watch them. They say whatever they can to get people to tune in. Period. No different from Howard Stern, really. Stern does it with hookers and sex talk, while Rush and Coulter do it with politics talk. I'm sure there are "liberal" shock jocks just as bad, although I don't know any of them. I would guess they're not as good as Rush or Coulter, otherwise I'd know their name. Bottomline: anything Coultler, Rush, or any of these guys says is nothing more than entertainment much like listening to Stern.

Didn't we all get a check last year - about $1,200? If giving everyone a grand or 2 is such a great idea, why are we still in this mess?

You are correct. Those exact words are not in the Geneva Convention; I mistakenly left the quotation marks (I apologize for my haste). The text is a summary largely taken from Wiki. I used that language because, quite honestly, they summed it up better than I probably would have. The actual text of the 2 Geneva Conventions that I referred to can be viewed on the International Committee of the Red Cross website: Convention III and Convention IV In such, they precisely define a POW in Convention III. In Convention IV, Part II, Art. 13, they provide for the General Protection of Populations. As such, "The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war." I think it safe to conclude that if you're not a POW as defined in Conv. III, Art. 4, then you'd fall into the broad category of the general population in Conv. IV, Art. 13. Either way, they define the proper way to care for, interrogate, and otherwise handle people and POWs. And this most certainly does not include people that are "foreign agents" are to be interrogated, tortured and shot on the battlefield. This whole notion that the Gitmo detainees are enemy combatants or foreign agents or any other term is (IMO) meant to confuse the situation so the previous administration could contend that they fell outside of international law. Fact of the matter is, there are relatively clear international laws that define how people captured during a military action should have been handled. We discarded those laws for our own purposes - right or wrong. The result is the current mess we have. Did detaining these individuals and torturing them prevent terrorist attacks? I honestly don't know. Hopefully, it did. Regardless, when they got all the information they could from them they should have done something other than hold them indefinitely without trial. How useful could their information have been once you got to 3 or 4 years in captivity? Perhaps they had the stomach to torture them, but not to rig a trial or put a bullet in their head.

Agreed. They need to find some guy that they're about to discharge for some reason.

I thought the Bush Administration did that? And we don't have Universal Healthcare yet. So I'll reserve judgment for the time being.

You do realize that the link you referenced is a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 and it's not a formal Declaration of War. Right? This resolution provides certain authorities to the President, as well as certain responsibilities. Of course, the President has ignored many of those provisions - just like most every President has that has sent troops into armed conflict for the last 50 years because the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution Act has been debated since it's passage. Do you really pretend to suggest that the Geneva Convention states that "foreign agents" should be "interrogated, tortured, and shot on the battlefield" as they're captured? Seriously? Pointless I know but still: Actually according to the 3rd Geneva Convention in 1949, "there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law." If an individual captured is not classified as a POW, then they must be classified as a Civilian. Either way, they are both entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy. Interestingly, if they're classified as civilians they can be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. Also, the country of origin of the combatants has no bearing in the discussion. The primary problem with the detainees in Gitmo is that we've not done anything with them. We didn't classify them as POWs. We didn't prosecute them. We didn't shoot them. We just captured individuals, ignored all facets of international law, tortured them, and thought we could hold them indefinitely. It's a mess any way you slice it. Quite honestly, they should have shot them all years ago. But for some unknown reason they've let the mess just persist. The problem now is what do you do with them. Almost any trial is going to be a mess at best because they've been tortured and held improperly. Most are not welcome back in any country. Maybe they should just transfer them all back to the US to stand trial and have the transport plane crash in a storm at sea.

Have we officially declared war on anyone through an act of Congress? If not, couldn't we argue that anyone captured or run into on the "battlefield" do not have to be treated as a POW? I'm not sure what that means and obviously this is a greatly complex situation. However, that doesn't mean to imply that there is no right answer or that we can/should treat these individuals however we see fit. I would suggest, however, that it means maybe we should have thought all this through before we started taking prisoners. Perhaps the biggest problem with this whole war on terror/war in Iraq thing is that none of these issues were thought out and we seem to be making it all up as we go along. Can you imagine sending troops into battle and not have a very clear and definitive objective and especially a plan as to when they'd be coming home? Apparently, we learned nothing in that whole Vietnam stuff. Or maybe we did and the plan all along was to never bring the boys and girls home?

I don't understand this whole concept that they need someone to appeal to the real conservative base. Is that conservative base going to suddenly vote Democratic? Absolutely not. It seems to me the Republicans would want someone that can appeal to the moderates more, while reassuring the base that they'll not stray too far. I think that is ultimately what hurt McCain. Palin, although she excelled at firing up the base, she completely alienated everyone else. And I don't understand how anyone can blame the media for coming down on her. She agreed to an interview with Couric and bombed. Not because Katie sabotaged her or blindsided her in any way, but because she couldn't answer with any sort of competence standard VP-candidate type questions. Biden got the same type of questions. Although you may not have liked the answers, he answered them with a certain level of competence and confidence. The media jumped on Palin because she let them by not having any sort of grasp of national issues. You can easily draw a comparison to Hillary. When she first began asserting herself (with that health care deal), the media jumped all over her. However, she fought back and stood her ground. Very few liked her positions, but she answered the tough questions and showed a certain level of competence on the issues. For Palin to succeed at the national stage, that's what she's going to have to do - demonstrate a certain level of competence as opposed to just rally support on conservative base issues like gun control and abortion. All this other talk about people looking down on her as a hick or anything is just obscuring the fact that she just wasn't ready to run for national office. She and McCain should have known that, but they didn't. In some respects, I think you could also draw a comparison to this recent Caroline Kennedy situation. She, too, was not ready for a Senate seat - for a variety of reasons perhaps. But, rather than try fight for the fame and glory, she had the good sense to back out. If Palin doesn't actually become knowledgeable on national issues and develop sound ideas/solutions, I would hope she'd do the same in a few years.

I'm fairly certain I've never directly insulted anyone on this board. Typically, I find it counterproductive. And no, I'm not trying to get a rise. I was just curious if you really thought the media "sabotaged" her or that she could osmotically become a the fear of democrats.

Seriously, do you actually think all that or are you just trying to get a rise?

Therein lies the problem. Once the cat's out of the bag, it's hard to put it back in. You give several hundred million to some of the wealthiest individuals and businesses in the country, but you don't give any to low income and small business? Yet we rushed into the first bailout anyway. Talk about a mess.

Problem is 3 of those 4 (banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business) were bailed out before the Big O entered the game. So, how is Obama going to be more socialistic than the previous administration? He may be as socialistic, but do we have to pretend the previous Administration didn't start the ball rolling?

I'm merely pointing out the fact that people have suggested that Bush took all these measures to protect the people and it was worth it because we've not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Yet, no one gives Clinton credit for there not being any terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 through the end of his Presidency. If lack of attacks can be used to justify Bush's efforts to protect Americans, why can't the lack of attacks be used to justify Clinton's efforts?

But haven't there been numerous terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11? Do those not count? Furthermore, there have been thousands of Americans killed in Iraq an Afganistan. Perhaps not due to a "traditional" terrorist atack, but those American men and women are still gone. Isn't it possible that AQ is perfectly happy killing Americans there as well as here? That's not how I remember it, but I suppose that doesn't really matter.