Gene Frenkle

So you're relatively uneducated opinion about global warming trumps the scientific consensus of 90-95% of actual scientists who are experts in the relevant fields. Got it. Sounds more like you have a strong opinion that you're too invested in to let go of. Science is ever-evolving and the best you can ever do is base 'what we know' on the current observations and resulting analysis and theories. It is non-biased, has no preference of outcome and is always quick and happy to change based on new observations and data. Your 'I don't buy it' is a common logical fallacy called the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Further, your opinion is driven solely by your world view. You offer no competing theory, but instead link to a ridiculous fringe article from an incredibly biased Conservative publication whose political ideals benefit from the debunking of human-caused Global Warming. Really credible. Please go stick your head back in the sand with the rest of the retards who this there is still any sort of real debate about this, given what currently know. On the outside chance that you're right, that you actually threw some sh-- to the wall that stuck, it is for all the wrong-headed, blindly ignorant reasons.

Screw that, rednecks suck.

Then retire to their bunkers and start consuming canned peaches. Load up the guns and wait for the Rapture to begin! Heeeee haw!!!!!

Sounds like more gotcha journalism.

...and call me non-PC if you like, but M.I.L.P. is freaking hilarious!

Oh the rednecked irony!

Ooops...please delete! Evil board.

Details to come...

Way to avoid the subject with a completely lame and irrelevant ad hominem attack! So typical.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1849215,00.html I think it's kind of ironic that two of the countries that consistently seem to spout 'Death to America' and other such crap are being directly affected by the lack of consumption of their product by the infidel American consumer. I don't understand all of the implications of this on the global economy, but strictly as a visceral gut reaction it feels pretty good to stick it to Iran and Venezuela. How does this hurt us? What am I missing here?

We should have just let the south secede when we had the chance.

JP !@#$ing sucked today. He looked like Rob Johnson back there - holding the ball, wandering into the pass rush - a deer in the headlights. His bomb to Evens was a thing of beauty, but that's not enough. He had a few other nice passes, but for the most part he was late with his throws because he can't force his 10 cent head get rid of the damned ball on time. His screens to the RBs are ridiculous. First he telegraphs the play by staring down Lynch or Freddie, then he throws it a bit late and floats it out there, giving the defender plenty of time to close the gap and preventing our backs from even having an attempt at a first move. I honestly though he was trying to throw the game when he stepped out of the pocket near the goal line and got crushed by the rush coming from the outside. They should cut his ass and sign whatever vet they can find to manage the game when Edwards can't play. He thinks he's playing !@#$ing Tecmo Bowl!

What are you, 12?

This may be a dumb question, but how does one 'follow' Warren Buffet's moves? How do you keep up and know what he's investing in? Just curious.

How did you extract the image?

Link?

Oh, I think most people just don't care.

Well, my understanding of the current situation is that the regulation of variable rate 'subprime' mortgages during the inflated housing boom of the past few years would have (by definition) prevented less than qualified borrowers from buying well above their means in the first place. This would have kept housing prices at a more realistic level and would have likely prevented a large number of the 7,000+ foreclosures we currently see in this country on a daily basis. I'll make the disclaimer here that I am no economist or market expert. If I'm missing anything, please enlighten me. I would assume that the effects of such preemptive action on our economy should be obvious. Less people in financial trouble, non-inflated housing prices and therefore more people with discretionary income. This was really just a throwaway comment. I'm not looking for a drawn out debate on the subject.

Well, one might start by regulating the mortgage industry. But that's just my pinko commie anti-free-market ideology talking. I was going to say 'manage the economy', but it didn't flow as nicely.

Or a country or a war or an economy.... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Says the guy with the 'tampon ticket' avatar.

Welcome to the No Spin Zone.

Wow, that's very creative and will probably tip the balance for McCain!

Well, if he's a cokehead, that must qualify him to be president? Or does he have to be an alcoholic as well?

For anyone who missed it, the hypocrisy is absolutely hilarious, particularly Rove and O'Reilly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uGenNjOAI