Max Fischer

Hate much? It's football.

I was kidding . . .

Jets should have iced the kicker.

Ok, that was cool. That guy can kick. That would have been good from 65.

Even on the big pass, Russell saw the blitz coming 20 yards away and was back peddling. Dude, he's at least 7 yards away when you threw the ball. Stand in there.

Farve looks 39. Also has that, "I could be hunting right now."

The Jets' woody is limping.

Russell is a bad QB. Quite a ways to go to prove he's a starter let alone a #1 pick.

By the way, Derek Anderson of CLE has looked terrible. Doesn't look like the same guy as last year.

I can't stand the timeout before the kick. Has that ever worked?

Agreed. I'd rather be good and they ignore the Bills than suck and they talk about them.

A conservative columnist doesn't think Obama is ready to be president. Not surprising, has no effect. A conservative columnist doesn't think McCain is ready to be president. Now that could get some attention.

They did. You couldn't miss that.

How did your tinfoil confirm that conspiracy? That' supposed to be secret. Rats foiled again.

Why don't you conduct a simple Google search or perhaps get a clue? Do you mean 6,000 years ago when people and dinosaurs roamed together? Yup, CO2 levels are now higher than they were since the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of course, if you did just a little research or even read the article that I posted earlier, you would see that the levels remain nearly constant and in balance up to the industrial revolution (do you want me to research "industrial revolution" for you, too?), then they started to rise steadily since then. Natural CO2 is not a problem but the questions is whether the industrial CO2 is contributing to dangerously high levels -- and are the high levels having a negative effect on our health and environment. If you believe that humans did well when they roamed with the dinosaurs then there's nothing to discuss. If you think that humans did not live with dinosaurs and the situation may be different then maybe you'll want to look up the facts.

I don't know. Maybe. Though I have to say if Obama picked a Dem Palin he'd likely be in a world of hurt. I would certainly be disappointed and likely appalled that the Dem nominee would choose such an unqualified VP when there were so many better choices. The Democratic Palin would be so cringe-worthy I don't think I could stand to watch or listen to them and I'd seriously question my nominees judgment. Though you have to admit - other than Spiro Agnew and Dan Qualye, there haven't been many more unqualified and divisive VPs in a long time. Even Cheney didn't have nearly the "Dr. Evil" characterizations at the time, but he certainly was considered qualified. Generally, I think the Republican VPs have been well selected, which makes the Palin choice by McCain that much more puzzling. Kay Baily Hutchinson would have been a much better selection.

I did not make that argument. The discussion began with CO2 pollutants -- YOU interpreted that to mean a ban on ALL CO2 -- including natural CO2. That was your straw-man, Comic Book Guy, not mine. You are the one who brought up the blanket condemnation of all CO2, not me. Good God, man; shelve the pompous arrogance and take a breath. The first article is about "emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers." Did you read it? That's what this thread is about, genius. You started your breathless attack not on the article, not on what I said, but using the straw-argument that I was against ALL CO2. No, not even close. To prove that point I provided two scientific articles (you call offering evidence to debate "parroting" - sorry, I'm not a expert on the subject - are you?) making the point that the earth's natural CO2 balance is out of whack and due to the UN-natural emissions. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Your rush to win an argument again clouds your basic common sense.

You are by far the biggest moron on this board. And that's saying a lot.

The GOP has gone over all of this countless times. Why is it that more Americans are supporting Obama than the war hero John McCain right now? Could it be that your characterization are simply wrong? (oh, right, it's the media's fault)

What's an RCow? You said you're voting for Obama but you've never said an honest and insightful thing on this board.

Look Smart Guy, the issue is simple. Just because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't make it so. Come on, dispute the facts that I posted earlier. It's much harder than sitting on your throne declaring yourself smarter than others without ever offering a scrap of evidence Psudeo-intellectualls like you are so tiresome. You remind me of this guy: DC Tom It would make sense if DC stands for DC Comics.

You can't even give us a straight answer on who you're voting for and why.

EPA re: Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. -- Won't you consider that the CO2/nature balance has been a bit out of whack for oh, I don't know, over 200 years. The amount of CO2 has risen while nature's counterbalance has decreased thus throwing the whole thing off? -- Don't you think its possible, and even logical, that this imbalance can contribute to climate and health problems worldwide? -- Do you seriously believe that by reducing CO2 emissions from cars and industrial plants that we will reduce CO2 levels LOWER than in 1770, thus throwing off nature's balance the other way? -- You're not nearly as smart as you say you are. First-ever study to link increased mortality specifically to carbon dioxide emissions While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, the new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.

I guess I tend to listen to the scientists. What do your voodoo doctors say?

Yup. Then again, I'm willing to pay a few bucks a month to make sure my kids are healthy and we all don't wind up spending billions to treat those who get sick. Simply stemming the rise of asthma cases alone would more than pay for the cost. Then again, I'm only quoting science.