Acantha

Oh look, now Bernanke says he might lower the interest rate to help things out! http://www.cnbc.com/id/27070225 It's almost like they are trying to detroy everything. Something I'd like to draw attention to: "Inflation" does not mean a rise in prices. A rise in prices is the RESULT of inflation. Mr. Bernanke knows this of course, but the wording is designed to draw attention away from what is actually happening. Inflation refers to the increase in the money supply. By printing more and more money (by way of tax rebate checks, 700B bailouts, and hundreds of billions used in bailing out Fannie/Freddie/AIG), you inflate the dollar and cause an increase in prices as the economy adjusts. Not only does this raise prices, but it does not raise them uniformly, which means the everyday citizen is hurt by this more than governements and banks are. Fortunately for guys like Bernanke, it takes time for all of this to happen. A few months, maybe a year, so that when the prices start to skyrocket, the blame can be pointed elsewhere. I don't know much about the stockmarket; I was never interested in it. But I do know about economics, and let me tell everyone something....be worried. These guys aren't even trying to be sneaky about this stuff anymore.

Of course by the time the effects of that 700B impact the credit market, it will also be screwing with prices. How much will be people be investing when gas goes up another few bucks? I'm guessing that over the next 3-6 months, the dow goes up again, but over the next 1-2 years, it all comes tumbling down.

A LOT

I don't think so. We have 5 CB's right now at various levels of development. I say do whatever we can to keep them together (add our safeties to that) as long as it's feasible. Greer isn't going to brake the bank, he should be kept.

If the question is will Davis be able to find someone to coach the team, then yes, of course he will. He can go get the janitor that's cleaning his office to do the job. He can go find some pop warner or high school coach to take the job. Of course there will be somebody. I think the obvious point is that it's going to be pretty damn difficult to find anyone that could actually do the job well to take it. Besides the fact that everyone can see how bad things are inside the organization, it seem Davis is trying his hardest to find a coach will just shut up and color. A year and a half ago Davis had almost nobody stepping up. He got turned down by the Offensive Coordinator from USC! So what do you do when the OC turns you down? Find an assistant with nothing better to do. What happens when that doesn't work out? Eh...the Oline coach will do (I'll give him a pass since it's interim) I keep hearing that Lofton is interviewing and I hope it's not true. If it is, it shows how far gone Davis really is.

At work and I can only see the stills, but that guy in the white shirt didn't budge. Just hangin out, waitin for his fries, man. Yeah, but what if she was really asking for it?

Yep...here comes the curse.

Good thing we have an stupid coach who insists on having depth at the DB position.

So you stay away from the board on weekends so that you don't post pointless things in threads you don't like? Seems like a good rule.

For starters, yes, I will come right out and say that I think it's bull. But, I'll go ahead and give it to them and suppose that neither candidate saw any of the questions. Let me ask you this, if I were to tell you that in a few weeks, I'm going to ask you random questions about the 2008 Buffalo Bills offense, specifically the passing game, would you need to see the exact questions that were going to be asked in order to know exactly what you needed to beforehand? So yes, I agree with what your saying about them not having to worry about the questions. And while I have no faith in the integrity of the media, my laugh was at the fact that Lehrer's statement is absolutely pointless, not that he was lying.

These debates are set-up before hand, with agendas/questions that are all signed off on by the candidates. This debate wasn't mean to be about the economy at all, but was supposed t focus more on foreign policy. The events of the past few days most likely forced the few questions that were asked, and the answers were probably come up with hours before the debate instead of weeks. Not to mention that both candidates are trying to tippy-toe their way through this bailout mess right now, because neither wants to do the wrong thing. You should expect to see far more economy questions in upcoming debates. By the way, after I got about 3 minutes into it, I couldn't get myself to watch anymore. I've been reading the transcripts as I've seen them available. Given that, what did you think was "stronger" about McCain? Since you followed that up with comments about physical cues, was that what you meant? Or was it more with the answers that you thought were better? From what I've read, and I haven't gotten through everything yet, I haven't seen any surprises. But reading doesn't really convey stuttering.

Florida's play calling has been horrible all season. In the other games, the defense and special teams dominated, so they were able to pull them out. This time, in addition to bad play calling, the offense kept fumbling, which killed the defenses ability to hold Miss down. Florida absolutely deserved to lose this game. They've been playing lazy offense all season (and supposedly that includes fall training camp). My guess is that this will wake them up and we won't see anymore games like that, but in the mean time it has rightfully taken them out of the BCS championship game. They'll have to dominate everyone to have a hope of catching back up. I think it's time for Meyer to take over the offensive play calling again, too.

Exactly. After the mess between the Iraq wars, we really should have learned our lesson. We cut off ties, sanctioned them, basically destroyed them economically all in the hopes the people would have no choice but to overthrow the government. In the end, all it did was kill hundreds of thousands (some say in to the millions, but I think the better estimates are in the 350,000 range) of civilians. That type of thing doesn't work anymore. As you pointed out, Cuba is another great example, and so is N. Korea (although in those cases it's even worse because we're the only ones). Yet we're heading the same way in Iran.

I don't agree with this argument and I never have. I do think that inviting these people to the White House, or having direct talks with our President is unnecessary until agreements have been reached. But to avoid having any talks with them at all comes across as nothing but childish spite, especially when we have such an aggressive posture toward them. It really says something when Japan, given all the horrific history, can have relations with N. Korea, yet we simply refuse. And it becomes absolute hypocrisy when our congress is telling China that they need to have talks with the Dalai Lama with no preconditions. You know, in the name of peace.

Nope, we should kill them all instead.

Doesn't matter who won. In the end, we've all lost.

Then next time either PM him or ignore me. I simply asked what you meant when you posted on a public message board, and somehow I'm the bad guy who should crawl under a rock to make the world a better place. Whatever. Best wishes to your niece.

I voted I let them talk and don't say anything, but I have to qualify that with: Except the dolphins. I trash dolphins fans every chance I get.

You should have responded to my other post, which was obviously what you took offense to. But really I didn't mean any offense. I just didn't understand what point you were trying to make. Was it that people in the military don't mind being deployed to Iraq? That we should support the troops no matter what we think of the candidates? Something else entirely?

If it wasn't for the fact that this country elected Bush, and then RE-ELECTED HIM, I could never believe McCain would have any shot in the world of winning this election. As it stands now, I almost expect him to win. Really, doesn't Obama just seem more like the old fashioned kind of scumbag politician that got this country through the 70's and 80's and 90's? Instead of the new, unbelievably delusional, wacko/lunatic style politician of the new millennium? Can't decide if we should get back to our roots or push forward.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with anything?

Yeah, the whole "picture with shockwave" doesn't leave much to the imagination anymore.

All of humanity can rejoice to that one.

And believe it or not, people raising prices serves a purpose, economically speaking. If "price gougers" are allowed to raise their prices, people won't be lined up filling every container they can find with gas causing gas shortages; they won't be able to afford it. Mean while, those with the most need, will be the ones to pay the higher prices. The higher the prices go, the less people who buy gas (and as a side effect, the more people who will be riding mass transit, bikes, car pooling, etc...), and in order for gas stations/oil companies to continue making profits they will have to lower prices, until an actual free market demand price falls into place. It's a good system, until someone steps in and screws with it.