John Adams

What happened to $200/barrel by the end of 2009?

50 million to get 35 billion...sounds shrewd to me.

Bullcrappy.

No. It's your opinion that Toyotas and Hondas suck. Every major objective publication disagrees so it seems like it's a fact that American cars (for the most part) suck and Japanese cars (for the most part) are better. That being said, Ford has some decent cars these days and believe me, I'm happy about it. Quick: which American car company is in the best shape? If you guessed Ford, you get a free paid year at the Job Bank. (Before you get your breasts in a ringer, I know: the Unions finally agreed to cave on that absurdity.)

I'd consider a Ford for my next car but *most* American cars suck rooster. The other bailout was a lot different; I leave that debate to you two lovebirds.

I took that after I read the article that said most govt officials score about 40%. I scored 88% and was not happy.

No, they rode in a Chevy Malibu hybrid that gets an amazing 28/34 per gallon. Let me see how confident I am in the Big 3. A month ago, they wanted 25B. Today they want 34B. I am sure that number won't go any higher; they are so responsible. GM HOPES(!!!) to break even in 2012--tell me why they shouldn't go into BCY again. At least Chrysler says it will hope to break even by the end of 2009. (I know: They are both lying.)

I love this: Oooh Ahh...24/32!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the best GM can do? What a joke. I had a car that got 28/35 in 1990. And we wonder if GM deserves to survive? EEI: your turn to tell us how great American cars are.

Yes, it's nice that the leech is starting to let up but it may be too late. I blame the Unions. And I blame management. Both royally !@#$ed up. The condition of American autos couldn't have happened without both.

Culpepper can throw the ball 80 yards and I ain't afraid of him.

Trent looked good early on. Lately he looks bad. I don't think anyone is giving him a free pass. He hasn't played himself out of Buffalo (yet) but I suspect he won't be the definitive starter going into camp next year either. He'll have to earn his job against some journeyman like David Garrard.

Try it and sue him if something bad happens to you. On another note, as a person accustomed to throwing off an insult here: there are some lines. Don't threaten people. Don't say you're going to kill public figures. Don't talk badly about people's kids. Avoid a handful of accusations that could really get people in courtroom trouble.

Probably, but get it right: By saying you have a 70IQ, I'm calling you retarded, not an idiot. (SDS Disclaimer: This was not meant as a threat and this statement cannot be used against me in any court of law since it was likely said in jest. By using the above statement in a court of law, the user of said statement admits to being a grade A tool.)

He studied Terman's Termites. The evidence is compelling: You are no better than VABills.

It's not dangerous if they don't breed. But oh, how they breed.

Gladwell says a high IQ only gets you so far in his new book: Outliers. He says to think of a high IQ as giving an advantage but only to a point. People with a 130 IQ are not necessarily appreciably worse off than people with a 190 IQ. (Both are better off than someone with a wacka-like 70 IQ). How's that for a thread hijack?

I don't hate Quakers. I do find their Peace Pledge impractically stupid. See: we agree.

I don't hate creationists until I meet them. Sight unseen, I think they are REALLY REALLY stupid and dangerous.

In the interest of full disclosure, EEI's argument for how the Japanese gov't helps its auto industry is that the gov't keeps its currency value low. It's a stretch but he's sticking to it. I helped him out a few weeks ago by adding an argument that in Japan, the gov't pays for healthcare. He needs all the help he can get for his argument that Consumer Reports (and every other nonaffiliated car review magazine) is part of a conspiracy to dupe the American consumer into thinking that Japanese cars are better than American ones. Because, you know, the American consumer can't make up his mind without Consumer Reports. He supports his argument with anecdotes from some website called sludge. You can't make this stuff up. He voted for Lyndon LaRouche.

7th Grade in the Nazareth Hall coat room. Julie (will omit her last name) was about a foot taller than me!

Not throwing stones but a point of information: In America, it's spelled defenSe not defenCe.

Know a lot of homosexual couples who have kids? Didn't think so. I know (well) at least 4 homosexual couples who have kids and several other homosexual couples send their kids to my daughter's school (a private school). In this limited exposure (which is no doubt more than you're exposed to), I can say that those kids are as normal as any other family. Some of the kids are screwed up (not in any gay/bizarre way--some are just not great kids). Some are stand out kids. Which is how kids are in any family. I find their normalcy reassuring. I also have exposure to several homosexual teachers that my daughter has had. She seems to be turning out normal but I'll keep my eyes peeled for deviant behavior.

It's a challenge to debunk all of your arguments at once because you have so many fallacies. Tell me: is your support for the above that what was law 200 years ago is what should be law today? Also, do you have a link for the proposition that defending a homosexual was punishable by imprisonment in 1808?

While we're playing the "what if" game, I'll give you the "what if the Bills beat Cleveland and SF" and take back "what if the Bills lost to Jax, Oakland, and St. Louis." The "what if" record is now 5-7.

What stupidity.