Fan in Chicago

I know of a friend who was hooked on to a psychic who made a lot of money off of her over a 2 year period (last I was in touch with her). Hearing my friend's description of what they used to talk about convinced me that the psychic was a combination of a very good observer, mind reader conversationalist (read: bull$hitter) and scam artist.

Yup ... http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patrio...ead.php?t=82291

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I do not subscribe to the 'no-tax' theory. However, I am paying my fair share of taxes and have a right to complain when I see that money wasted. Example - subsidies for producing ethanol.

I know I am going to get blasted for saying this. But if no proof is presented, all we will be left with is a bunch of conspiracy theories and feel-good discussions about how we all know the Pats* cheated.

Accounting was never my strong point, but it appears that you have calculated the percent based on gross income and total taxes paid. There are several 'deductions' (and I use the word very loosely) that a company can take before calculating the taxes owed such as depreciation etc. To make a very basic statement, I think it is like calculating taking your gross salary and taxes paid without accounting for standard deductions. Am I missing your point ? Nanker's point is very powerful. Companies such as XOM pay enormous taxes to the government which pays their officials to talk smack about them. Nice.

If Hardy fulfills the first part (maybe a few more TDs) and Evans does the second, I will be happy with the progress.

K-9, nice post and I agree with it. However, we don't have enough depth along the OL. A bit much on the d side and not much on the OL.

Appears that I am the lone voice here but I can understand the outrage. She is a 15 year old but you would not be able to tell that from her make-up, the excessive lip-gloss and the skanky look in her eyes (especially the ruffled hair, just had great s** pic). My issue is that there are sufficient number of females of legal age who can do these shoots. Why do it with a 15-year old who arguably has not fully matured mentally yet ? Secondly, her parents are the real culprits here who accompanied her to the session and perhaps approved of the pictures. I see the nonchalance towards these pictures as a symptom of the slow decaying of morals in society. Shame on Vanity Fair and Ms Liebovitz (sp?) for taking & publishing pictures of a young teen celebrity. The funny thing is that Miley Cyrus had some other private pictures over the web with her in underwear. My 13 year old daughter brought it to my attention with apparent disapproval. I could see my daughter's interest in Miley slowly erode after seeing those pictures. Hannah Montana is a brand-name and a very successful one at that. Her celebrity father should have had the good sense to keep her demeanour and her public exposure controlled. I will hate to see another precocious teen go the Lindsay Lohan/Britney Spears way.

So are you and that is why this argument for and against is meaningless.

Sounding like a broken record but - how do you know that ? I admit I don't know to the contrary.

We do not know that for sure. It is pure speculation. This point has been repeated so often in the media and on this board that most take it to be real.

The long term return on assets is pretty poor also. Plus mandates such as reducing benzene in gasoline (MSAT2) need refiners to spend capital for zero return. Of the projects I am working on right now, a typical process unit to 'saturate' the Bz costs $150-$200 million. It just increases the capital outlay and operating costs without providing any marginal increase in gasoline price. It is as if someone forced you to invest in your house to the level of ~ 10-20% of the equity without any increase in house market price or salary increase.

This article is ridiculous. We are pretty much reconciled to JP being a backup in Buffalo. But to bash the guy further and say he is not even worthy of being a backup is pure ignorance and borderline malicious. He is approaching the level of intelligence shown by Expert_Opinion.

Cool ! I look forward to a big day for Lynch running up the middle.

I am assuming your first sentence was sarcasm. In any case, it will be interesting to see GAAP modified to calculate a 'windfall profit' line item. It is an incredibly moronic idea, who ever floated this term 'windfall profit' anyway ? But back to the original point, I don't know how high the price of oil needs to be before technologies to extract shale oil become feasible. I remember reading something like $140/bbl. It may be worth our while to start developing technologies now and work through the permitting process. Commericialization of technology, getting environmental permits, getting past the environmentalists & NIMBY people will take several years. I venture to guess oil will indeed be $140 by the time all these hurdles are crossed. Shell is doing the right thing by investing now. If however, there is a negative incentive to high profits, their desire will go down in a hurry.

Ofcourse it is. It is less painful to see oil-producing countries make the profits and build grand cities in the middle of deserts. We cannot have enterprising American companies do the same 'cos that would be robbing the American citizens. But not to worry, we will put in place a windfall profit tax and stifle such entrepreneurial aspirations. That will teach them greedy evil oil companies who make money from gouging the public and discouraging irresponsible consumption. This is neo-capitalism.

Given how technology in general has developed over the decades, the optimistic engineer side of me will say 'it is only a matter of time'. The heavy crudes which are mined in Canada were also at one point assumed to be difficult to extract or perhaps 'too expensive' for oil production. That day seems now like a distant memory. With oil well above $100/bbl, there is significant driving force to develop technologies for extracting oil from oil shale. We have a long way to go but it is exciting to even think that the potential exists within our shores. Wonder if we will call our future presidents 'sheiks' Sheik Obama ? King McCain ?

This link still has it up. Better than the earlier trailer.

Are you going along with the humorous nature of this thread or are you really serious ?

You are kidding me, right ? With all the inattention to the safety position, I will hate it if the Bills draft a CB yet again. Plus, we are back picking in the top 10 where eons back we picked our last safety.

I agree with you on this point. I don't know how good the 3rd round + TEs are but it appears that we waited around and when our turn came, picked who we thought would be adequate. As opposed to trading up and grabbing someone we needed. Granted, this is pure speculation but this incessant desire to add depth to the D is at the expense of similar attention to the O. A more balanced focus would have been nice. I am by no means trashing the entire draft but simply observing that the relative inattention to the O throughout this off-season has been frustrating.

Same talent as last year plus one rookie receiver. Same poor depth on OL

Whatever the answers are, he certainly wasn't picked by the Bills

Finally, a Tight End ! Now draft some OL depth in the remaining rounds