Dan

Actually no. I don't watch MSNBC at all. You say that there is no plan for these cuts; yet in a post after this you readily admit that all the talking has been going on behind closed doors. So, how do you know there's no specific plan for the cuts? You don't. I'm not saying every deal of every cut is in place. I'm not in the meetings. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone, including our politicians, are dumb enough to meet for as long as these people have been and not have any specific ideas - for cuts and taxes. Pretty much how I'd summarize this whole mess. I've heard or read plenty of speculation - certainly some cuts.. many cuts are down the road. But, certainly some cuts would be much sooner. Just as many of the tax loopholes would be closed down the road as well. Does congress ever pass a bill that has immediate effects?

I won't disagree much at all. Its hard to imagine a time when congress people or the President acted for the best interest of all and not just their reelections. Yes, the Dems... I think... are playing the game better right now. But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff.

The gang of six have been meeting for weeks, if not months. Both sides in Congress have been meeting, they've had a week's worth of meetings in the WH. I think we can all assume that they've all come up with about 2-4 trillion in cuts. Unless we want to assume that they've been talking sports for all these hour's and day's of meetings. The problem always seems to be when the Dems talk about closing the tax loopholes and such. That''s when the GOP walks out. I have to agree with RI and what many polls show the majority of Americans want.... a compromise. We need massive cuts along with revenue increases. The most influential members on one side seems to be ok with that; the other side has flat refused to compromise in any way.

The whole thing works if they have a replay official in the booth that does the review. If the Ref on the field has to wait for the specific footage to be cued up, run over to a designated replay camera and then come out to announce something.... it'll be horribly slow and inefficient. As with most things, the idea itself isn't necessarily bad, but the execution could make it bad.

Not my liberal friends, but your point remains true. Certainly both liberals and conservatives are equally at fault for the immaturity and lack of progress in this country due to it.

And this childish, immature attitude of "he said it first" is doing as much harm to the country as anything. I guess kids just aren't taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right anymore... among other things.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. To this one poster... the ball did mean something. It wasn't a useless. The guy has been going to hundreds of games, spanning the course of his life all the while hoping to catch a foul ball. After 33 years, he finally does. And he's supposed to just give it to some kid that's been to a couple of games? Just because he's a kid? I'd disagree. Now, as others have pointed out; had he stole the ball from the kid or in some way used his size to out gain the kid... then yeah that's be dickish. But, from his account, that wasn't the case.

Same here. I've used iAntiVirus on my MacBook for about 2 years and have zero complaints. Of course, it's never found a virus, but then again I've never had a virus of any type, on the computer. So, in the end, I really don't know how good it is at finding and deleting viral threats. But, in the end, it doesn't take up many resources, seems to just run and be out of the way, and gives me a little peace of mind thinking I have antivirus installed. In short, I'd recommend it, as well.

I know a little about ticks.... there's several things to consider. First, if the tick was on for about 36hours; there's more than enough time to transmit any disease agents including those causing Lyme Disease. For Lyme Disease it generally takes about 24 hrs minimum for the bacteria to be transmitted. Of course, it can occur sooner; it can also take much longer. Another thing to consider is the species of tick. Some ticks cause much more of an allergic reaction. For example, the lone star tick, cause a really itchy red bump that's much worse than most ticks. However, they don't occur everywhere. So, it depends upon where you live as to whether you may have encountered them or not. You didn't by any chance save the tick, did you? If so, send a pic or two and I'll do my best to identify it. Different ticks transmit different diseases; so its always helpful to know which one's ya got. Another thing is... sometimes people in their zeal to make sure they get all the tick they dig a little too deep and it gets little infected/irritated. So, it's very likely that's all you're seeing. The big thing to look for is any behavioral changes in your pet. The rash associated with Lyme Disease isn't always seen. So, I wouldn't go by that. But, if the infection is passed you'll often see a change in behavior: lethargy, different eating habits, etc. that indicate she's sick. I'd keep an eye on that. The sooner you seek treatment the better; but you have antibiotic treatments will work effectively if received within the first month or so.

This is what I've been thinking since this speech. Obama just made one hell of a ballsy and dumb move. He's just alienated and pissed off a huge group of voters and fund raising source. That's the type of move you see in a second term guy, not someone who's gearing up for re-election. I honestly can't see how he thinks he can "win" in this scenario. Israel and and the Palestinians will never agree to compromise, especially on borders. So, you come out and publicly push an idea that has an almost zero chance of playing out.... just so you can piss of every jewish voter in the country. Makes no sense. The only thing I can possibly think that's going through his head is that he's thinking its better to try and make all the Arab countries stronger allies than to further alienate them. Israel almost has to be our ally, otherwise they're on their own and no way I can see them doing that. So, its all political posturing to strengthen ties with the arab countries? Huge risky move though.

How many people has Johhny Cash sung about killin? Delia's Gone openly calls for shooting your girlfriend!

No. You're just the one spouting off obnoxious retorts that are a far better representation of verbal diarrhea than my original question. Yes my question was somewhat leading; however, it's really simple and shouldn't have brought out the response it has if someone has a rational answer. Joe Minor brought up a point, that's been brought up here and with pundits elsewhere; namely, that if we end the tax breaks the oil companies will raise the price of gas to compensate. Hence, we should continue giving them huge tax breaks. My question is simply to point out a fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning. All businesses pass all costs on to the end consumer. So, why don't we give all businesses big tax breaks? And that's not even to mention that while these companies have had this tax break; they've steadily raised the price of their goods. So, how much good is it really doing to help me at the pump?

Is this more verbal diarrhea getting thrown all over this great thread? I'm confused. (no... i'm joking) I don't pretend to understand this healthcare waiver business. But, I'd guess it's something in the law that allows them to file for waivers; they get reviewed and in some cases granted. If I don't want to pay my employees health care; I can file for a waiver as well (I assume) and hopefully get out of it. However, if I want to get a nice reduction in my taxes, I don't know of any waivers that I can fill out requesting that I not pay all my taxes. In reference to your first set of questions: yes. no. no. But, yes there may be plenty of reasons to give big oil specific tax breaks. I'm not suggesting they pay more. I'm suggesting that we currently have proposals on the table to end all sorts of tax breaks (like mortgage interest); yet we can't touch a break given to these guys? The expression, what's good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind.

Of course companies pass cost increases, as well as increased taxes, on to the consumer. But why should one set of businesses get breaks and incentives when others don't? No, I asked a leading question. It's only considered obnoxious if you don't like where it's leading. People (not just here) are arguing that we should continue to give billion dollar tax breaks to hugely profitable companies; primarily, because that will keep gas prices low. Well, why can't my business get large tax breaks. I'd pass the savings on to my customers. I'm just trying to understand why these few, greatly profitable companies continue to get nice tax breaks amounting to billions of dollars at a time when we're talking about cutting all sorts of programs to save millions of dollars from the budget. If the country is broke and needs to cut spending, I'd suggest we could also stop subsidizing highly profitable companies.

Sorry.. just asked a simple question. If you don't have an answer, a polite, I don't know would have sufficed.

So why don't we give ALL businesses huge tax breaks so the cost of everything will go down?

I reckon not. I'm not arguing for extremes. I'm stating that some things are larger, and more impactful, than one individual or a group of individuals. The MS levee flood control system is a perfect example of that. The Army Corps has had to manage the water levels in the MS and all major tributaries to keep this flood under control. The TN river, OH, Columbia, and dozens others have all had their flow controlled so as not to inundate the MS river and exacerbate the problem. The floodways have been opened to protect people and land many miles down stream. A group of individuals in a relatively small area cannot do that alone. It's an example of managing a system that encompasses 9? states. This is not me or any one small group of individuals saying "protect me". This situation is a prime example of the federal government recognizing long ago that you can't let such a large, economically important area of the country be at risk. I fail to see how a few small individuals are dictating or demanding that the rights of everyone be set aside so they can live in the Delta. There are 2 issues here, as I see it: 1. Should the federal government maintain and operate a flood control system on the MS River and most every other major waterway in the US. I think the country decided quite some time ago that it was best for the nation to do so. And I would contend that, to the benefit of all, it has been money well spent. This it not a case of a few individual farmers benefiting; this is the entire nation benefiting from the production of these crops. 2. Should the federal government help disaster victims, via additional FEMA money. Everyone complains about that.... until the disaster is in their back yard. And eventually, it seems 90% of the country gets their's sooner or later. The floods and hurricanes may get all the media attention; but FEMA and other federal monies and resources kick in and help people in all corners of the country every year recover from wildfires, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, earthquakes, oil spills, disease out breaks you name it. Once again... presumptions run wild around here! What are you talking about OC?

I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is.

As someone living in Greenville, MS, with the river currently cresting at over 64ft today (the highest level since 1927), I'll readily state that this notion of "don't build in a flood plain" is completely asinine. You do realize that the flood plain of the Mississippi River covers millions upon millions of acres of some of the richest farmland in the world. So, no one should live there? The country should abandon it all because it floods? Really? The Army Corps has built levees, yes to protect people and property, but the levees are also built so that this country can have access to some of the richest farmland in the country. Because the development of the Mississippi flood plain from IL to LA is in the best interest of the nation and covers multiple states, why wouldn't the federal government be the responsible party and do exactly what they did... build a levee and flood control system that protects our citizens, our commerce, and our economic development? If you follow the original line of logic further, where would you build/live in this country? The vast majority of this great nation is in a flood zone, earthquake zone, hurricane zone, tornado zone, or some other natural disaster zone. Should we abandon all of those areas and leave the people there to fend for themselves?

It remains to be seen if the steps being taken are steps in the right direction. However, it's undeniable that a lot of steps have been taken in the last 2? years to improve and address problems with this team. Furthermore, most of these steps have been called for by the "negative nancies" on this board forever. So, you'd think attitudes about the team would be improving? The Bills have essentially replaced the entire FO, now. Modrak was the last of the failed decade staff to go. We're purging the roster of the small, too comfortable with losing players from the failed decade (although there's a few more I'd love to see go this summer, eg. Kelsay, McCargo). The new players being brought in (FAs and draftees) are at positions of need. They realized Edwards was in over his head as DC and bought in a significant assistant to help him. They've replaced the uniform of the failed decade with what we all anticipate to be a much desired retro upgrade. Now, it seems we're replacing the turf from the failed decade; perhaps even getting colored end zones back. Quite honestly, that's a lot! It's been done relatively slowly and methodically; but, it has been done. Now, let's hope for it all to translate to success on the field. If it does, then we're clearly heading in the right direction and the overall mood of the fanbase should improve along with it. IMO, last season we did see improved play on the field. It didn't translate to the win column. But, I saw many things that we hadn't seen in years. My biggest concern now is how much will/is the lockout preventing the players and coaches from continuing to build on that modest progress.

You can get DNA from just about any part of the body. Certainly some areas are better for testing than others. Given they had the body, I think it can be a given that they got all the tissue and blood samples needed for an accurate test. From what I read, they compared it to familial DNA samples. So, they're essentially saying, with a high degree of certainty, that this is a brother or son (or father) to whomever they compared the samples to. Taken together with all the other factors - eye witness ID, physical characteristics, known locations of other family members, etc. I'd think you could then conclude an identity pretty accurately.

Yes it is. I routinely perform tests to identify viruses (RNA, not DNA, but same difference). We can process sample in about 3-4 hours. There's also field tests that are somewhat less accurate, but can be preformed in under 2 hours. Certainly this is different test, but DNA samples can be processed quite rapidly given a dedicated lab. My questions would be: What DNA tests were performed and where were they performed? If they've got the right lab set up at the military base in Afghanistan, then its entirely possible for the tests to have been performed in a timely manner.

I very much agree with your comments. I hope you didn't infer from my comment last night that I think the war on terror is over. In no way did I or do I make that assertion. However, this is clearly a significant victory in that war and should be celebrated as such, before we get back to the business at hand. I was working for NYC on 9/11/2011. I was on, under and around the pile for 4 months beginning 9/12/2011. The images and memories from those days and weeks will unfortunately last with me forever. I promised to never forget while saluting the ground zero flag and cross. I have not forgotten. I've waited patiently for this bastard to be brought to justice and I'm just damn glad I was able to see justice done at the end of an American bullet. Politics and bull **** be damned, this is the best news I've heard in a decade. Yes, there's more work to be done. And I have all the trust and belief that our military and intelligence officials will continue doing that work. Just as I'll go on remembering and praying for their speedy and safe success. As an aside: I'm glad he was buried quickly at sea. Put him out of sight with no grave to mark his existence.

OC... you and I have enjoyed sparring back and forth here a little. Thank you for that. And thank you for a post that is spot on.... job very well done by all involved. Let's all tip a drink to those that have sacrificed and worked to get this !@#$er. Saw on the news.... the intelligence that got him started with the detainees and was tracked and verified for about 4-5 years. Amazing to think of all the work that went into this manhunt. Job well done indeed.

For nearly 10 years, I've turned on the news almost every morning hoping to see this deadline. I can't express enough my admiration for ALL the individuals involved in this.