John Adams

I agree with Gene on this one. I may sometimes agree with OC but I won't read his multi-paragraph diatribes. If you can't edit your thoughts down to 2 paragraphs, (a) you're not respecting my time, or (b) your post is oververbously didactic (OC's crime) and a waste of time.

Yeah, reason with him. Good luck with that. Does he know you're black?

Fox is painful. One of my partners is uber conservative and forces us to rotate the news playing in our cafeteria through at least a day of Fox. It's funny to see their take on things. On another note, are Fox anchors (male and female) sporting more makeup than any other anchors? I always find them quite disturbing looking, even the strippers who do the midday reporting.

Those people get healthcare. We're talking aout the subset of people who can't afford it and their general state of hard work and diligence. It seems that Picnic Table Effer believes they are a paragon of sweat and rigor.

He said that generally, "...people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living." He didn't say it was a law. There are certainly a lot of people living off the system and not working hard for a living.

Jacob. I have no doubt.

I celebrate Christmas and send out a yearly Christmas card with Merry Christmas on it--and I'm not Christian.

Healthcare and doctors are a resource with a limited supply. The best way to ration out that supply is by charging for it. Some people can't afford the best medical care and thus won't get it. The problem of limited doctor supply is greatly exacerbated by 30M people about to get free healthcare. Who loses in that scenario? The people who have been working and paying for their medical care all along (ie, the great majority of people and the people who are working hard and earning their living). So yes, poor people get less. Not nothing. But less.

We discussed this when the health care debate was at its fever pitch. My biggest concern all along has been supply and demand--there are not enough doctors to provide services to everyone. Not that it's stopped the government from pushing ahead. What this will mean: longer waits, fewer treatments, and poorer health. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...hp_mostpop_read

The same people who complain about liberal PC get their breasts in a wad about Xmas.

How come every time I read Blacks in your posts I hear a different word?

You miss the point. Many on the right (on social welfare issues) believe that we've created a welfare state where many people don't work and just live off the system by choice and that's unfair. Further, there is the problem that by taxing at such high rates to support the lazy, we remove incentives for people to spend their money on social issues however they want, ie, on programs that might work instead of government handouts that probably don't.

Anquan Boldin from Jake Plummer. Randy Moss from Duante Culpepper, Brad Johnson, and Randall Cunningham (end of career).

Johnny Coli, where are you?

I'd take 400% return in 2 years. And I'm all please and thank you.

Why?

Anyone who would nominate him over you can't post at PPP.

With credit to Joe Miner, we have a nomination for King of Morans

In a few years, she'll fall far enough for JD.

Someone brought up awarding DePelle (?) John King of All Religious Posters. Sounds good. Others come to mind. King of Arrogance--(too easy) King of All Racists--(too easy) King of Unions--(too easy) Queen of Liberals--(too easy) King of Smokers--(too easy) King of Gay Gyms--! Maybe we don't need an award process after all.

Getting there? You must be the last person who thinks conner's posts are credible.

Not sure I follow your post. I understand your issue RE commercial launches and licensing. That's something that has been and will continue to be overcome. Your statement about the moon's value compared to Antarctica agrees with Buzz. The moon is not valuable (probably), except as a training place for future missions elsewhere. Sadly, nothing in our solar system may be interesting beyond satisfying scientific curiosity. For example, it's believable that a person will land on Mars and return some day. We will probably find frozen water there. But unless we discover life or evidence of it, Mars may have little to "wow" us. The same may hold true for the other watered moons in our solar system. But that doesn't mean we should not go and look. Space exploration--especially manned--is one of the few adventures that captivates almost all of humanity's imagination and we should keep doing it.

Big day for an 80 year old. I think her name is Jesse Jane for the record. Jesse James is the guy who's cheating on Sandra Bullock.

BTW, care to revise your opinion on Wisc yet?

I am torn between Neil's POV and his fellow cremember. Buzz Aldrin was on Howard Stern this morning (really). He had the opposite take, arguing that the moon is a dead place and why bother going there using NASA. He said that if there's any value to being on the moon, commercial companies will go there. If they don't go there, it will speak volumes of the moon's value. He also argued that the cost of developing a single program is so great that it had better have a perceptible value. He liked that we're shooting for Mars, despite its difficulties. FWIW.