nkreed

I find your thinking hypocritical. You choose which you want from the agency: A) Assist with the cleanup and have the responsible parties pay for the remediation then and there (maybe send grants to help cleanup) -OR- B) Actually clean up the sites of hazardous waste and send a bill (upfront the costs for cleanup). Then send a bill to the responsible parties. If the EPA cleaned things up, you'd complain about how expensive it is. If they do what they currently do, the EPA is unnecessary. It's a lose-lose to you. And you know full well they wouldn't get a fraction of the upfront costs back in a do the work and bill later scenario.

I'm pretty sure they call these channels "in the clear." To the OP, I would try that also, just plug a coaxial cable into the cable outlet and see what "in the clear" stations there are at your residence.

So he will take up residence in Las Vegas, right? Isn't that where the Raiders are playing this year 🤔

If it works, awesome! If not, as pointed out above, there are other tricks in the OTA bag. I receive almost all Buffalo channels and a ton of Canadian channels to boot. All this and I live near a high power transmitter!

http://tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29 This should give you a good approximation on what you can get with an antenna. I know you tried it already, but it would provide you with the stations you could reasonably get with an indoor antenna.

HA! I agree with that. Not to mention the awkward handle setup. However, as I understand the basis of the new design is to prevent the buildup of gasoline fumes in a confined space after the pouring is completed. Gone are the days of the vent on the back to help with pouring. Leave that open in a hot confined space and you are asking for an airspace in the explosive range. If you are pouring the gasoline, you should be smart enough to have fresh air during the pour.

Every organization can become leaner, yup I agree. What I don't agree with is the background to the cuts isn't to simply reduce the costs. The background to the cuts it to undermine the agency's ability to enforce the rules and regulations. While we can debate the rule and regulations all we want, this isn't a simple reduction of costs and it shouldn't be sold as such. Awesome, lets use the article's text justify the bold section: Research and analytical numbers can be used in many ways, deception being the most common. I'm not distrusting the Journal of Economic Growth's numbers (I haven't looked at them). I just find it funny that the article justifies their side with numbers, just as the EPA did. This response won't fit with my perceived "liberal" thinking. The Ethanol force into gasoline was a result of the governments large subsidization of the corn industry in the US. Ever wonder why High Fructose Corn Syrup as an "evil ingredient" in foods is rarely brought up anymore? I wonder where all the extra corn went? This was a payout to the corn industry. It's a pretty obvious outcome of the lobbying efforts that can poison our legislative branch.

That first sentence is quite a broad stroke. Who left the toxic waste in the mines to begin with? How long was it going to before it leaked from the storage into the environment? That doesn't downplay their perceived lack of empathy in this instance. I'd like you to expand on the bold statement a little more.Is it the government that creates these four criteria? Are you saying that government needs to be dissolved? If so, I may begin to understand where you are coming from with your statements. I haven't been lurking around these boards for too long.

Your example is ridiculous. When environmentalists are talking about pollution, they are talking about the pollution corporations are willfully doing. You know the ones who make their workers close of an RCV when the EPA walks through so they aren't violating the emissions standards, but then open it right back up when the EPA walks out. This never happens, right? "Corporations have to follow the rules and regulations to stay in business." http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2014/03/20/costly-verdict-in-tonawanda-coke-case.html I don't smoke, never have. But I do breathe the air that others smoke. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

Truthfully, I don't think these organizations have enough teeth to do what they should. They inflict superficial wounds into large corporations, and the corporations turn around and continue to the same things. Now if the corporation's major bosses were held liable for the deaths and disabilities they cause, then you'd have more of an adherence to policies and laws. I know I'm linking from a Huffpost offshoot, but how these corporations operate is important to understand. http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/ We watched the tobacco industry cover up all of the negative information they knew about cigarettes, have the large lawsuits hit them, yet they are still out there, killing your lungs.

Take your Union issues to PPP!

I see that you have gotten your hands on the CIA jackpot of hacking tools for American citizens. (Maybe even a microwave?) Wait, you're not going to hack this tournament are you?

There's no way he's coming here now. You don't defensively send out that tweet and then sign there.

Damn, I fully expected the entire fix "you're an idiot" but then couldn't figure out if you were playing along. Damn you PPP, "your" so confusing.

That Football Outsiders guy had to really go back a far way to make that comparison. The only reason this works is because he went back to 2011 and 2012, where 24 of the 58 games happened. Patriots total games: 111 Patriots over 30 points: 58 or 52.25% of the time Over 30 Since 2013 season: 34 / 74 total played games (incl. playoffs) = ~46% of the time Not surprisingly 11 of the 34 came last year.

Ha this one's funny.

I will honestly say I know nothing about college football players. Here's my board, using fanspeak's rankings: #10 TE O.J. HOWARD ALABAMA #44 WR ZAY JONES EAST CAROLINA #75 CB KEVIN KING WASHINGTON #156 QB CHAD KELLY MISSISSIPPI #171 G ZACH BANNER USC #195 OT J.J. DIELMAN UTAH

My Sarcasm meter is currently on empty So just in case this wasn't a joke the video I was referencing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OVqwFXM4v4 (And, no I still haven't figured out the embedded youtube video thing yet)

From the Article: That's an interesting take, considering the 2015 video posted in the signing thread, his routes looked lazy. Now I will say that I can't find any videos of his 2016 season, so he may have improved. The stop route was the only one that seemed to catch defenders off stride. Otherwise he was not crisp in his footwork. What is interesting is the Punt Return capabilities. I wasn't aware this was something that he had done well in the past. That's a great aspect of the signing. Here's to hoping he's an valuable contributor this season!

........

Cheap? The end of E1 couldn't have been cheap. Otherwise, I will stick with it for a few episodes, now that I have seen the first two. If it doesn't really start to pick up, I will not watch it anymore. For me it's more of a nostalgia thing. Also, is anyone else annoyed by the fact that the timer is on the 12 hour clock, not 24 hour (its 1PM, and the show say 01:00:00)

All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position. Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case. Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.

Like everything there is a balance to this statement. Basing employment solely on how students perform sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't factor in multiple variables. How many students are in the class? What's the average grade across country, the state, the county,the district, the school? How many students are receiving services in the classroom or being pulled from the classroom? These attributes play a key part in how a teacher may "score" from year to year. Case in point is Common Core, where a vast majority of testing scores went down. In this example it's obviously not just the teachers fault. However, imagine a classroom where special needs students doubles in a year. Would this teachers' students not perform as well on tests as a result? How about an administrator who doesn't like a teacher (cause in any place of employment this never happens) purposely puts low performers in that teachers classroom? The proposed formulas don't factor this in at all. Lastly, instead of being ignorant to the stringent rules Unions must adhere to, how about you understand why members pay dues, and what members can do to about the dues that go towards political causes. (IMO, if you don't want to pay the dues in a union, then you shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of membership. That means no representation in grievances, you negotiate your own salary, you are fully on your own. But "Right to Work" states say that you shouldn't be forced to pay dues, but can reap all rewards of the Union, including pay raises and representation in grievances (required federal law). But you chose not contribute to the organization that is protecting your rights as a worker...hmmm sounds like conservatives legislatively bankrupting Unions to me.)

How great on the surface. Lets forget that poor kids will have really not be given the opportunities to get better education, students with disabilities will be left behind and that the public schools will be forced to pay for it anyway. Poor kids will not have the opportunity to move to a different school because outreach of these programs doesn't reach poor communities. Whether it be purposeful deceit (by government) or sheer lack of resources, it will disproportionately affect those from poorer neighborhoods. Students with disabilities will not be required to be taught at different schools (especially if they are private). Either the private school won't have the resources to provide for disabilities or they won't pay for it (it is privatization after all). The bill is still coming from the taxpayers. No matter how we look at it, the taxpayers in the community pay for it. So if most of the students bus to a different district, then you close the schools in the neighborhood, leaving behind no community gathering place. Kids spend more time at school and a substantial amount of time on buses. There is no educational savings as a result and people in a community without a school are just going to get mad they pay taxes for no schools. These are just my initial thoughts, since no plan is without it's downfalls.

They were asked to give their responses. Every single generation thinks it's kids and parents are inferior to themselves.