In-A-Gadda-Levitre

yes, but the average american cares a lot more about foreign policy than our european counterparts

Yeah, you must have missed the memos about Iraq, the International Criminal Court, climate change, US policy toward detainees in the war on terror, where to deploy troops in Afghanistan, how to deal with Iran (diplomacy vs. use of force), and all the rest. Are they an enemy? Of course not, but there deep rifts that still exist between the two countries.

ok, but I have trouble believing they were elected because it had anything to do with their support of America and everything about their vision of where to take their respective countries. yes, totally agree, but we created enemies out of allies, regardless of their leadership and there's not much doubt that most Europeans hate the policies and actions of the Bush-led USA.

so, let me see if I understand this... In your left and right world, the right has selectively engaged with some bad guys like Russia, and refused to engage other bad guys like Iran, isolated the US from most of its former allies (such as Germany), and in the past 8 years has pandered its way into making the world a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and dangerous. And now the left, with its lofty idealism, will will lead us into disaster because they have no clue what the world is really like. Does that about sum it up?

he said: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. "I was able to get a sense of his soul. "He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said. Putin played him so well.

What the hell does this have to do with Obama? Maybe you should ask what is our president doing, besides having some assistant sec'y of state issue statements that Russia ought to comply with a cease fire or saying stuff like "this might have significant impact on long-term US and Russian relations?

another interesting perspective, but not sure I get this part... like he thought we were gonna back him up with troops or something? Bush has shown strong public support for the Georgian government, but who knows what discussions took place behind closed doors, especially regarding their strategy to send troops to South Ossetia.

Putin was just waiting for an excuse scary stuff

if anyone doesn't have NFLN, NFL Field Pass and they're away from Buffalo, you can listen to WSPQ streaming online You need the Real Player and the stream cuts out a bit, but it's live and free...

The Bills won't give it to him UNLESS he's there. They said it so many times. They expect him to honor his commitment by showing up, and they're willing to discuss a new deal. We don't know their top line, but it all starts with Peters showing up. He's (probably) being told, right or wrong, that if he shows, he loses his leverage. Which is what most hard line agents like Parker would say to do. Not sure why you keep saying it's the other way around, since the FO has been very consistent.

well, d'oh, of course. I'd bet serious money that's what's happening. It's also totally possible to make up a chunk of that difference in incentives. The issue between us is whether the team will negotiate this year or after the season. We're on the same page with everything else...

I looked up both Wawrow and Schefter. Schefter did say in 1 video that the Bills gave him a contract 2 years ago and wasn't budging, but didn't say specifically that they wouldn't redo his current deal now or in the future. Wawrow, as far as I can tell, hasn't said anything different from what's been reported elsewhere. The quote from a Bill's official in Sal's blog is interesting, but you have to agree that could be a negotiating tactic or simply feeding the press. My gut tells me the team is open to give him a new deal now, but it's off the table until he shows up. They've done it before with Schobel. They want to get Evans resigned first, and maybe Crowell, but it's entirely possible that they show him the money this season.

I agree that they have certainly talked, it's all about money, and likely there's a huge gap between the two, which is why there is no communication. However, The Buffalo News quotes Brandon as saying it's it's difficult to have discussions with someone who's not here. NFL.com, USA Today, and ESPN all confirm Brandon has said he's open to negotiating a new contract with Peters, but only if the player begins attending team functions. and Chris Brown quotes Brandon as touting their record of renegotiating existing contracts as long as those guys are honoring their existing deals. Translation: they're here, working hard, taking part in what the team is trying to do. I'm not sure how you can insist that the FO won't redo his current deal this year. Brandon never says or even hints that a new contract is only possible after this season. He only says show up first and then we'll talk.

Was CW cut because he failed his physical? I thought that was the reason. That's a little different than scared off by his health issues

I don't think KTD is quoting anyone; he's saying this is a hypothetical conversation that likely occurred in the past and explains why the Bills have been saying publicly there is no (recent) communication from Peters or his agent. They had a convo before, they're real far off and there's been no communication since, because both sides have dug in their heels.

no, they are adamant that he show up in camp before they will consider a new deal. I actually believe they will give him a lot more money this year, but not as a holdout. He has to work out with the team to show good faith. The FO has been very clear about that.

I used to live in Pleasanton, it's in the East Bay well south of Oakland. It's really a great area, but way overpriced. Housing costs in that town have tripled in the past 10 yrs or so. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything in the Bay Area under $600K. You're paying for great weather, lots of jobs and the proximity to San Francisco. Not saying it's worth it, just the facts. Right before the internet bubble burst in 2001, you would pay between $100-300K over the asking price, because ~30 pre-qualified people wanted the same house as you. That uplift went away, but prices are still way out of line compared to the rest of the US.

let's say we: Let the states decide if they want drilling, coastal, inland, wherever. We pump out a reasonable amount of domestic oil, balancing demand while maintaining some acceptable level of reserves We invest in alternative fuels - wind, solar, biodiesel, whatever. We build some new nuclear plants, but beware the nimby. Assume hybrids, fuel efficient cars, etc. all progress at some reasonable rate. We put in controls that stop the ability of speculators to bid up the price of oil on credit and then dump it off without having to take possession, while still allowing airlines (or similar) to lock-in a future price with a commitment to buy it. We build several new refineries or at least make deals with nearby refiners (Mexico, Canada, Latin America, etc.) we do all that... So we drill, build, invest, innovate, and take out the artificial price adjusters, what in the hell are we gonna do that will change the demand per person here? We're still gonna run out of oil and leave our children and their children in an awful mess, because we haven't changed demand. If anything, we may increase demand as the market adjusts to the USA's bold energy program, and oil prices start dropping at some level. High prices might really suck, but at least they change our behavior. I'd really like to know what people think are the right ways to limit our dependency on foreign oil, but also change the consumption.

I meant you are wrong if you're saying consumers don't have the ability to purchase green power vs fossil fuel. I also agreed that you cannot control the actual source of electricity that gets pumped into your home. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

that was a really good article, one of the best I've seen on the realities of Iraq.

well, obviously you cannot control where the energy comes from on the wire, but he's offsetting the amount of fossil fuels he would have used by purchasing some level of renewables. According to the Tennessean he purchased 108 blocks per month for the past 3 months, or about $432 per month. Again, I'm not justifying it, and actually scratching my head trying to understand how he is using so much, other than the fact it's a 20 room mansion.

instead of ranting, at least make an attempt to verify your opinion... Nashville Electric Green Power Switch

I'm not supporting Al Gore or his use of energy, but it helps to get both sides of the story

Roger Stone, a Republican Consultant, said multiple times on Fox News that (allegedly) there was a 'Whitey' tape

One more time... HE NEVER OPERATED A PORNSITE, it was a folder on his own family's server that wasn't password protected. According to the attorney for the defendant in the bestiality trial, he was intimidated by the Justice Dept, so until the independent investigation of his conduct is completed, he's innocent until proven guilty, much less charged with a crime. You throw unsubstantiated garbage around and then step in it.