Taro T

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

12 actually. And most of your questions were what I considered to be rather absurd and / or off topic, so I intentionally tried to stay on the original topic. That topic being that I have not seen posts by conservatives stating that they want to ban all public health clinics. A broader version of the topic would be that you seemed to be taking logical liberties in traveling down the road from 'Missouri shouldn't be providing free condoms' to "(t)here are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic ..." I will play your game though. Here are your questions and my answers Mr. Prosecutor. Really? Yes really. You haven't seen posts against all government give aways? Unlike you, I don't necessarily consider a health clinic a "give away". I am not certain what logic you are using but it is flawed, IMHO. You haven't seen posts about how the only legitimate government endeavors are defending the seas, the land and delivering the mail? No. You haven't seen posts against all government entitlements and social programs? I've seen a lot of posts about reducing / eliminating a lot of federal entitlement programs. I have also read a lot of conservative posters here that tend to oppose a permanent welfare state but do not have problems with providing temporary help to those that are down on their luck. You are absurdly reducing their positions. Something which you have been observed to do with increasing frequency of late. Where would all that lead to if not to shutting down public health clinics? Please see previous answer for understanding the reason that I am not dignifying this one with an answer. Didn't you read the posts which flat out accused poor people of loading up on cheeseburgers at mcdonald's and cases of bud light rather than making wiser spending choices? What in the world does that have to do with doing away with all public clinics? Did you not read the posts stating that all poor people are poor because they are lazy and lousy decisions makers? No, I did not. Once again you are exaggerating and it is distracting from your point. Did you read KRC's imitation of poor people pronouncing "Government" as "Gubiment"? So, KRC's "Gubiment" statement is proof that he wants all public clinics eliminated? Why do you think he did that if not to say that all people in need of public health services are stupid? I actually think he was busting on you more than the poor, but if that isn't the reason, I don't know why he did that. What do you think is behind those sentiments? Your making exaggerations when they are not necessary. Do you think the holders of those sentiments are any happier about providing free drug and alcohol addiction treatments to the poor what with their lazy, lousy, stupid ways? Again, I do not see your logical leap from 'if Missouri wants to stop government condom handouts' to 'all public health clinics must be eliminated.' I also fail to see where this question addresses the elimination of public health clinics, except in an exaggerated tangential manner. Why let the doctors decide how best to spend their budget? I am not even going to attempt to touch this question as it has nothing to do with my point that you are exaggerating peoples' positions. It also has nothing to do with a perceived belief by you that conservatives want to shut down all public health clinics. And to address your new questions, what do any of them have to do with the original premise that I do not see where "(t)here are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic ..."?

Switching to 400 was the key for me. I always let them go at least 20 minutes before testing if they "sound" right. Also, I have my best luck with keeping the sauce from being too runny when I start making it shortly after starting to heat the oil and keeping it covered on low heat until the wings are done. I still don't seem to time making the 2nd and 3rd batch of sauce properly though. If I might ask, Chef, do you have any tips to avoid "wing soup"?

None of that has ANY bearing whatsoever in the fact that Bill Johnson had a world class resource available to him and chose not to make use of it because he thought a boat would be a cool way to leave a legacy and didn't want to hear just how bad the idea and implementation truly were. The sad part is, if they had a much smaller boat and had worked with someone that actually knew something about ferry operations (instead of CATS), it is POSSIBLE that the venture wouldn't have failed. It definitely wouldn't have flamed out so spectacularly.

What in the world does any of that have to do with Bill Johnson being too foolish to get any input into just how horrible of an idea the Fast Ferry that he bought was? I did not live in Rochester in the '80's, so I have no idea if any of what you are asking about occurred or didn't.

Mickey, as much as you appear to wish to believe that all conservatives are selfish monsters that want to see the poor die from treatable diseases, it is not true. That several people on this board have posted against providing condoms in publicly funded clinics does not automatically mean that they think public health clinics should all be closed.

Remember, garbage plates are Ra-cha-cha drunk food. Super Mighties are Bufflo drunk food. Wings are just good any time, in either locale.

Debbie, I worked for the last 10 years in Geneva (before going out on my own 1 year ago) and don't know of a single employer there that pays $10/hr without benefits. Do you mind my asking who your friend worked for in Geneva? I will grant you that the Ra-cha-cha economy is not where I would like to see it, but it is NOT the disaster that you make it out to be. I also don't know how to break it to you, but the genius who brought Ra-cha-cha the Fast Ferry is one of your beloved Dems. Had the SOB asked ANYONE at Simon to look into the economics of the project, they would have pointed out to him that there was no way in heck that the thing would be successful without it getting a license to have a casino on board. The jackhole blew ~$40MM on a dream with NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that it could be successful. By the way, there is a lot left to go back to. With all due respect, I think you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Mickey, I do not believe that you are correct in that statement. Granted, I have only been posting here for ~8 months, but I have not seen that sentiment posted here.

Of the teams that will / might make the playoffs, my preferences for Sabres opponents currently would go as follows: TB Philly Atlanta Rangers Montreal Carolina NJ Ottawa

The Missouri government has a $9T debt? No wonder they don't want to shell out $8.99 a pop.

I'm certain that you didn't mean it too, but your post comes across as sounding like you think it is ok for the minority party to demonstrate leadership and provide ideas for 2 months every 2 years.

Dean, I understand that this is your favourite chant, but how many times do I have to remind you that "Ooh, aah, ... " typically ends in "Sabres on the golf course". This is an unacceptable chant. Check out TSR for acceptable ones. With any luck, the Sabres have several months before they are thinking about hitting the links.

Thanks. Actually, the document referred to in the news article is linked in BiB's thread.

Can anyone else get this link to work? It doesn't seem to work from my computer.

Sterilized at the very least.

So, the US uses naval and air bases in the UAE (and Saudi Arabia) for free? Cool. No wonder they wanted to infiltrate our ports and kill us all!

That's the $29MM question. I don't know what the consequences would be, but am willing to predict they won't be what the "reformers" intend them to be.

No, no, it's not bribery because the politician ALWAYS supports the position that the donator supports PRIOR to the donation. The money given to the politician is simply money given to support a person who holds the same position that the lobbyist / donor supports and help that person get (re)elected. Because the lobbyist knows what a wonderful job congresscritter x is doing and it is just a terrific coincidence that the lobbyist may be asked to help in drafting / formulating legislation. It's just another way that we have the best elected officials that money can buy. (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)

Hasn't it always meant that? I would actually like to see the full text of his comments because it seems to me he was referring to "lobbying reform" in general, not the 527's in particular. But getting back to your previous comment, lobbying / campaign / whatever you want to call it reform is ALWAYS about protecting incumbents. Limiting the amount of money that can be spent by challengers (which is a big part of what 527's accomplish) is always considered a good idea by those in power.

I'll try. The league bowed to fan pressure in '70 and brought home team whites into the league along with Buffalo and Vancouver. The league bowed to equipment manager pressure in '03 and made home team darks the norm so teams could travel with just 1 (white) set of uni's on road trips. (Regardless of whether the home team wears their normal (dark) uni's or their alternate (dark) uni's, the visitor will wear white, unless the game is in Montreal where the alternates are white.)

I forgot to add in my original reply to you that I hope your increased posting of late is an indication that your battle is going well.

Cool. Did the results of your poll on the other board end up the way you expected?

I will not dispute your claim that UAE supports Hamas, (I didn't know that they did, but of Middle Eastern countries, Israel is the only one that I would be surprised to hear that they were supporting Hamas.) I'm not certain what the Taliban supporting al Qaeda has to do w/ UAE nor DPW. I know the Commission report states that there were [EDIT:possible] contacts between al Qaeda and UAE prior to 9/11/01 and that Pakistan made contact w/ Taliban for the US post-9/11, but I could not find where the UAE contacted al Qaeda post-9/11. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could learn details of this meeting? UAE supports several US Navy functions in the region and have been an ally in Afghanistan. I do not see where telling them to blank themselves is in the US's interest.

Or does anyone want to take a guess at how many US companies will be required to comply with foreign laws containing provisions similar to those on page 4? (All grandfathered companies "controlling critical infrastructure" have to be US controlled / owned within 5 years.) As an aside, if this bill passes, does that mean that ALL cargo must be inspected? If so, have they figured out what will constitute "inspection" because my understanding is that not all cargo is currently inspected? At least we don't look like racists with this one (excepting (and it's a big exception) the "Special Rule" for "Specified Port Terminals" Why that has to stay in here now that DPW has stated they won't take control of the US ports is beyond me.) (Oh, wait a minute, we do look like racists. ) If that was gone, we'd just look like people that think "free trade" is great for others, but not for the US. Either way, can we possibly appear more hypocritical?