Rubes

Ah Joe, you always keep things interesting. Well obviously I did read the credits (given the whole Dr. Trash thing) but that's okay if you want to assume otherwise, as this seems to be one of your strong points. I did read that oil companies made up a large portion, if not most, of the sponsors for this conference, as was the James Baker III Institute, not much of a liberal-backed organization itself. I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be paying attention to now, the limp-wristed linuigini-spined liberals or the liberal pantywaists, but it's entertaining enough so I'll just rely on you to keep me up to speed. And by the way, if you had read it yourself, you would know that this was not a study, it was the report from a two-day conference and discussion held at Rice University. The conference was sponsored by numerous oil companies. Some of the speakers did cite research that has been done. I didn't read and cross-reference all 131 pages, so I imagine some of that research has been done by these companies, but I don't know for sure. It's probably reasonable to assume that, but that's besides the point since you did already. As to the report, if it's irony you want to call it, then clearly irony is not one of your strong suits. You want irony? If we were to believe everything you say, then it's liberal ideals that are the root of all the world's evils. The fact that a conservative Republican-backed conglomerate like Halliburton is leading the push toward the very liberal concept of alternative, environmentally-conscious energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (foreign oil in particular) should be irony enough in your own mind to rattle that conservative conscience of yours. As for me, I find little irony in it. The report you so graciously provided eloquently spells out enough of our energy situation to dissolve any of the irony you seem to find in this. The reality is that we are headed for some tough times if we continue to depend so heavily on oil as we currently do. In order to transform this country from one that is so concentratedly oil-centric to one that is more diversified absolutely requires the contribution of those companies currently heavily invested in our energy infrastructure. We need to head in that direction, and those companies that refuse to jump in and contribute will be left behind. Irony? Not really. These companies know that they need to be involved in the process in order to maintain their roles as leaders in the energy industry, and so they can continue to be financially successful in this changing marketplace. Rather than being stunned into submission by the irony of it all, I'm sure the limp-wristed, er, I mean, liberal pantywaists are more likely welcoming with smiles the idea that Big Oil is beginning to sound serious about concepts that have long existed in the realm of the liberals...and heretofore dismissed as such.

Actually, the most likely major source for hydrogen production (if it indeed becomes more mainstream) would be natural gas. But you are right that production of hydrogen, with current technology, is dependent on fossil fuels. The current thinking is that renewable energy sources, as a source for hydrogen, is still 30-50 years away.

So let me get this straight... The limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals are, in fact, liberals (at least some of them) because they support the transition from an oil-centric economy to one based on more environmentally-friendly energy sources, potentially slowing global warming while at the same time further diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Baker Institute for Foreign Policy sponsors (along with, interestingly, the support of some guy named Dr. Trash, the poor guy) an academic conference at Rice University which, principally, addresses the need for new technologies that can aid the development of cheaper, more efficient, and environmentally sound energy supplies, which would potentially slow global warming while at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I may be reading this incorrectly, but your interpretation of this is that the limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals should be shocked into embarassment that such a humiliating thing could possibly happen? Or, perhaps, could it be that some firm-wristed, titanium-spined anti-liberals are coming around to the idea that some limp-wristed linguini-spined liberal-supported causes are actually not so satanic after all?

Ding ding ding! We have a weiner.

Must have just been sacked

I would have loved to see him crush RJ a few times. Hey, speaking of RJ, why wasn't he on that list? He had to be the worst FA ever.

Haven't you been around here long enough now to already know the answer to that?

Believe him, too. He knows.

Alvin Harper should have topped that list, much less made it. That's a real oversight. Too bad RJ wasn't a FA acquisition, then he could take his rightful place as well...

I hear Todd Collins might be available....

I would hope any backup QB would be that kind of backup....

Negatory

Doesn't this belong in that "worst 3 words" thread??

We used to live across the street from the family. I grew up with his kid, Tom Jr. He was going to be a good running back until he tore up his knee. Damn, he's a funny guy, too. He used to have a picture of his dad sacking Joe Namath on his bedroom wall. Now that's something not every kid has! Too bad about his dad.

But that can't be...I mean, everybody here knows TD has an ego the size of Texas...

dude, where the hell did you hear that from? I remember my friends and I tossed that phrase around as teens to gross each other out. I have no idea where it came from and I've never heard anyone else use it.

Absolutely not. The one thing that I would fear is if they finally up and leave, and then manage to win a Super Bowl. That would suck. But, since that already happened to Cleveland, it wouldn't be quite as bad.

The only way we bring anyone in to be a 3rd WR is if he comes cheap. If Bradford comes cheap, I don't mind seeing if he can win the 3rd spot. Hell, whoever it is, if they come cheap, I'd be happy to see if they can win the spot.

True, but two years from now we may be asking ourselves how much do Fletcher and Adams have left in the tank, and will they be worth relatively large contracts as well? A lot of that will depend on who we have backing them up, and whether or not those people are anywhere near taking over the job. Also depends largely on if this Law rumor is true. If we sign Law, and he demonstrates the ability to get over this injury, that would probably mean the end of Clements here.

Did it shrink?

Your daughter's diaphragm

Those god damn dirty apes...

Uh, they've both won Super Bowls?

It's from a picture of our President's Best Friend, I think from Yahoo or something.

You're damn right, just because I ain't on staff doesn't mean I'm not as good as any of these schmoes at evaluating talent. And just how would you suggest keeping Mike Williams at RT and out of sight of our new LT? At least with my plan, we wouldn't have to worry about Mike's phat contract OR any further teammate meals.