Taro T

Nah, she's very open-minded. Unfortunately, most of it seems to have spilled out that opening.

Yes, because the constituents and those reps realise that the "free federal money" game is a loser means that once the money has been added to the national debt those same reps should double (triple, whatever) their losses and make sure that while their constituents will get saddled with the additional debt they won't receive any of the benefits of that debt.

Sorry son, you are just going too far w/ this crusade.

But of course, the Big Kitty only shows up to eat from the kitty litter pile. So it wouldn't seem that way to her. Sorry big kitty. I jest. It must be cool, because it's all comedy. Even though I'm not a professional comedian, I've watched them on TV, and I know this is good stuff and just because you appear to hope to aspire to have an intellect as high as Conner but can't quite get there, the joke won't be lost on you.

Pelosi, Reid, & crew definitely still want to push this through. I'm not convinced they have enough votes to get the house to go along w/ the reconcilliation route. Unless something surprising happens in the next 8 months, the Dems will take a bath in November. At that point, I can see the lame ducks being willing to push this through; it can't cost them their jobs after the election and it can get them cushier lobbying jobs.

My guess is that after the 1st week in November, they DO ram it through. As long as the current Congress (House & Senate) are in office, it was my understanding that all bills are active until voted down. If the House waits until after the elections to vote on the Senate's bill, can't they approve it when they know the majority of them will be lobbyists? I know Barry will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk.

Nowhere in his post did he say Palin would be a good President. He said she'd be better than what we've got now.

That one was funny, but the creepiness factor knocked it down a notch. And who knew Abe Vigoda was still alive?

That one was definitely the best. Yeah, hard to see what was "offensive" about the ad. Although Tebow tackling his mother was rather bizarre.

As KT stated, people aren't slamming the Pres for saying "Hey, we need to tackle the deficit." They're slamming him for saying we need to tackle the deficit while proposing a budget w/ well over a $1T deficit which includes new spending not covered by his "freeze", said freeze coming a year after he blew the previous year's ridiculous amount of spending right out the window. People are slamming his words for not even being minutely correlated to his actions. I'd love to see him actually become financially responsible but I don't see any way that happens; at least not in 2010. I don't see where a one time $5,000 reduction in employee cost will do much to sway the businesses over to making that additional hire. It will sway some, but as LA states, the majority of companies that will take advantage of the $5k are companies that were going to hire anyway. Basically, Obama's saying "hey, you were going to hire anyway, here's $5k; remember that name O-B-A-M-A in '12."

Nope, he missed the game in Minnesota.

You do realize that Hostetler was the Giants' QB in XXV, right? Simms played against the Broncos.

While what you write is accurate, I'm disappointed you popped in. This frick said, frack said thread was highly entertaining and I was curious to see how it would all evolve w/ no external interferences. Oh well, maybe they'll get another dialogue rolling. It's a little early for beer and popcorn, but I might have to make an exception for that.

Cool. Glad to read he's doing better.

Tim, I know you addressed this prior to the Buddy Nix signing, but haven't seen anything since. Any thoughts on whether Modrak ends up staying and any thoughts on changes below his level w/in the scouting department? Thanks for keeping these threads going.

Of the 3, Patterson is far and away the best. How truly sad is that.

Are you trying to imply there's a masculine version?

So which fonts are hoax fonts and which are proof fonts? You could save the MSM a lot of time by pointing this out to them.

Let's see: McGroder hired from w/in - not so good Polian hired from w/in - best move EVER Butler hired from w/in - still had a strong team but set up cap issues Donahoe hired from outside - not so good Levy hired not from w/in but w/ obvious ties - not so good Brandon leading GM by committee - slightly better Nix hired from w/in - ??? Basically, I don't see how they've done the same thing repeatedly.

You very funny.

Sorry, you lost me at "Unemployment worse. False." How is unemployment not worse today than it was on January 19?

The "command and control" is simply putting greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act PSD provisions. And, your instincts are good in not liking the sound of that.

Who says you can't be on both lists?

Can't recall who said it 1st, but quote was "Democracies can only function until the electorate realize they can vote themselves money." For a long time we've seen our elected officials hand out money like it was free candy. The current batch steps it up a notch (or several).

Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2.