Adam

They should be able to ask that. Why does the law apply to them? I also don't understand why they are against it (I am not Catholic, so I guess I don't understand a lot of practices)- wouldn't using contraceptives help limit abortions? Wouldn't that be a VERY good thing?

What was the law that said they provide the service? Do they only hire people based on religous belief?

Umm, Eric Moulds?

Despite his numbers against Revis, I just don't see him as an elite outside guy, but I think he could be extremely productive and could detroy a safety or linebacker.

Sorry, but the zealots aren't making laws, no matter how much they desire power.

The more junk you consume, the more you pay- of course that lends itself to the problem of how to keep track.

My long term plan would be to resign him and move him to the slot, but I would be fine in letting him go- as long as we have a viable plan in place and that fits into it. Another part of my plan would be to make Mario Williams the highest paid player in the NFL and to add Hines Ward.

This one may have a "little" personal bias. I'll admit that. First, look at how much is wasted on processed foods every year- and yes, I said wasted (I claim the first, not fifth ammendment). These so-called foods cause numerous health problems, which will boost the cost of health care and insurance (by increasing the mean risk). Heck, I'd rather see some military run restaurants, which would have the type of food our troops eat, with some of the money funding either our troops or going to their families (that may be completely pie in the sky). Granted, the savings might not be huge, but you can't discount anything with the deficit we have.

What if the church thinks they should be allowed to pay less than minimum wage?

I know that looks out of place. When I finish at the MVD and take care of a few things. I will explain when i am in front of a full size computer. I am sure you will be waiting with baited breath. I know that looks out of place. When I finish at the MVD and take care of a few things. I will explain when i am in front of a full size computer. I am sure you will be waiting with baited breath.

Actually, the blunder was by his parents

Cut entitlements Cut military expenditures Cut energy use Eliminate fast food and soda

Just wait until after they make their pick, then form your opinion that its a bust

Why not replace Socialism with the wars or torture, and Barack Obama with President Bush? Partisan stuff like this is so stupid. As much as what is going on in our country bothers me, it isn't like Syria. Complain if it makes you feel better, but I bet you don't wish you were there instead.

Then I think he will be playing for someone else. It will hurt us short term, but long term we will recover. If letting him go is part of a long term plan to get better, then I'm fine with it. And the last 10 years doesn't count, as the current front office wasn't here.

If there was a sin tax, would they have been able to charge this poor girl more, after giving her the chicken nuggets?

This gets post of the day, for being hilarious!

If it were that easy, everyone would do it. You have to do it in the context of building a team, otherwise the franchise QB turns into garbage.

I think Reed understood post snap reads, better than Kelly did......

He helped make Jim Kelly. Andre Reed is more of a Hall of Fame player than Kelly will EVER be

The parents need to do it, but they somehow need to be educated, because they are idiots.

I'd say look at the surface of Pluto. I won't say the planet Pluto, as I am not sure if it qualifies as one today. It might tomorrow though. Democrats will have to accept steep cuts to entitlements. Republicans will have to accept steep cuts to the military. We can get by with steep cuts to both. Failure will bring about the end of our country.

Fitzpatrick is not great, but he is the best option available. I suggest sticking with him until something better becomes available, instead of just going with something more popular. The line is getting better, but isn't where it needs to be.

Couldn't agree with you more. Bombs aren't the only deterrence between us and China right now, either- look at all of the economic ties. Number of weapons probably doesn't mean as much as it once did, now that they are much more powerful than they used to be. You have to look at type of weapons (chemical, biological and nuclear) as well as range. And people who won't be deterred by anything need to be taken into account, which van change the equation.

most people on message boards make those assumptions, whether they have the real info or not. To me, reduction is mote about cutting costs. You won't have peace without deterrence, no matter what some may want to believe.