reddogblitz

We keep un-viable people alive every day in hospitals. Are people hooked up to feeding tubes, dialisys, and IVs viable? What about when they do heart surgery and take one's heart out. At that point are they still viable?

What about "speaking jive" in Airplane?

I have no idea what their record will be, but it will be 0-2 vs the Bills this year regardless who is under center.

A competitive team in '15/'16 that is between 10th and 12th is either VERY close to playoffs or in playoffs if #10. So you'd be OK and think we're "on course" if we do the same the following year? I think we need playoffs THIS YEAR, or my grade (B) goes down.

Anyone want to compare the state of the economy now vs the day Barack took office? I agree with Chef Jim however that president doesn't have all that much control of the economy just as a QB has little effect on how his team plays defense. Bill Clinton just squirreled out that the internet was exploding on the scene while he was in office for example. No, this is because Barack is a socialist.

Come on birddog1960, don't try to confuse us with facts.

I don't do hockey so I didn't submit a grade for the Sabres. For Bills I gave a B. First winning season in 10 years. Hiring Rex. It's a good start. Better than avg since we finished in the top 1/2 of the league. No playoffs, no A however.

What happened to the van?

Since he plays for the Jets, I hope he does fell his drug test.

A friend of mine was telling me that the NY Times story on the Clinton eMail thing has been debunked. So I did a little research. I found this article on Newsweek date July 24: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 One thing the author mentions I have not seen before. The first bolded part I'm not so sure about. I thought a big part of this was that since she used her own server this stuff wasn't captured. From a technical perspective I suppose this is possible somehow but not sure how. Part of Hillary's excuse was that she always copied in someone with a government account so it would be captured. (Except when she didn't want it captured of course.) The second bolded part I thought they were getting them from the 10 yard high stack of hard copy she had sent them. Did they only capture the ones that didn't involve planning Chelsea's wedding or her Mom's funeral? Why did she need to provide the emails if they already had them? I've been following this story in part because I have professional email, records, and document management experience and find it amazing the way the IT department in DC works. But this the first time I've heard this. Anyone else know anything about the 2 bolded parts above?

Not nearly as !@#$ed as we'll be if it comes down to Bush vs. Clinton.

True. Or both. My money's on both.

This my favorite one. The Hillary defender kept trying to dodge the real issue with "Colin Powell did it too.", " We're not email management experts", and my favorite which she asked twice, "I wonder how high it would be if we stacked 55,000 pieces of paper on top of each other?" Answer: 10 yards ( since this a football site I chose yards instead of feet. ). If she really wanted to know its not hard to figure out. A quick Yahoo search found this site by document management experts says 150 pages per inch. http://www.paper-scanning-services.com/how-much-paper-do-i-have.html 3rd grade math from there. I wonder how tall is the stack of the ones she DIDN'T turn over? Turning over email on hard copy is just another way to skirt the process. A dump of the emails from the server would contain the header information which would contain a lot more info about how the email was sent and its path through the internet. Electronic emails would also allow for quick searching. Better to make 'em have to scan 'em in and full text index 'em first buying more time and providing less information.

This whole thing has turned into a white herring. Bernie has the right idea on the perpetual war thing AND he hates this if you want to run for Prez you need to suck up to big donors and have a well endowed SUPER PAC thing as much as I do. Go Bernie!

Bernie > Hillary IMHO. But it's early.

Back to your go to argument I see. Name calling. Always worked in grammar school. No reason it shouldn't work on PPP either.

Good point in paragraph 1. Thanks.. Calling people names IS name calling no matter how you want to slice it. And a chicken $hit move to boot.

Anything in the last 70 years? I was responding to your idiotic statement that our military is not adequate due to under supply and sherpa's comment that it had happened many times. If yall can't come up with anything in the last 10 years or so that caused a failure or defeat, sort of calls your point into question. Name calling is always an effective strategy when you're typing out of your A$$ (again).

Like what? Seriously, can you tell me about a few of the many times when missions were failed or compromised due to faulty or under supplied equipment? The only one I can think of off the top of my head was Operation Eagle Claw, the failed Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980.

So says you.

Something wrong with the ole sarcasm meter DC? I was responding to KD's question. Your opinion is that it's not and that's cool. None of our military shortcomings have been due to the military or a lack of air craft carriers, but the Commander in Chief(s). Somehow I think we can limp by with the air craft carriers we have. As far as Commander in Chief, that's a whole other deal.

Chef Jim and I agree on something! This is one of my favorite Twilight Zones as well.

Define "adequate".

I'm going to agree to disagree on the bolded part. You have bought into this boogey man theory and I have not. Yes, there are dangers. If we get intel that a specific attack is in the works, yeah stop it. Someone does attack us and we wipe them off the map. But attack a country because it's leader might build a nuke someday and give it to a terrorist, not so much. Yes, I have seen the Navy slogan. Navy does a lot of good work. You do realize it's a marketing slogan to try to get people to sign up for the Navy, right?

No arguments here. But just because someone signs up for the military doesn't mean they should be deployed willy nilly in perpetual wars where we are not threatened. Leadership has the responsibility to use them wisely and only when needed IMHO. It's the Department of DEFENSE, not the Department of OFFENSE.