rockpile Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? Why are there options for issues pertaining to Gays/Lebians, Children, Women, and even Animal Rights, but no selection for MEN's ISSUES? It's an outrage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You mean other than the technology doesn't exist to make it economically viable? Aye, but there's a reason why we don't have the technology. I have to think if we had made it a priority during these last two terms to find alternative energy sources we'd be in better position now to become marginally less dependent on oil. There's no way to know for sure, but I don't agree with the lack of emphasis we've put into alternative energy and the environment. Instead of stopping the gays from marrying and worrying about spying on our own citizens, we should be trying to make oil obsolete. Just a humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Please note: this is a gratuitous slam on Hillary. See. This is the difference between someone like Schumer and someone like Hillary. Given that what they're doing is pandering, Shumer has to meet with the NFL Commissioner to make points. All Hillary has to do is bring a former president into the discussion, and suddenly it's "screw this idea of working to earn voter support...I just need to go to a sold-out televised game, wear a hat, eat some chili with the old, decrepit dude who says he owns the place, get out of town in six hours and bada-bing...I have WNY sewn up." I'm far from liberal and admittedly I don't know anything about Schumer, but I can tell you one thing: he's obviously willing to work harder to keep the Bills in town, perceived or otherwise, than Hillary. Hillary cares about Hillary, not WNY. She's blowing everyone and everyone is letting her do it. The only difference between her and Monica Lewinsky is that Monica got some on her dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 BILLS WILL NEVER LEAVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Guys, i wouldn't get my hopes up about Chucky tremendously helping the Bills. First, he is simply an attention whore. The most dangerous place in Washington is in between Chuck Schumer and a video camera. The guy is doing it to get his face on television and that is it. He is not interested in helping the Bills. Second. The death tax is still lingering in the shadows. Even if adjustments are made to the shared revenue policy, the death tax is not going to be changed and we are still going to lose the team. I would love to see the Bills stay, but the liklihood of any of this happening are slim to none. The best thing fans can do is let their voice be heard to the media, and actually sell out some !@#$ing football games. Don't expect ole Chucky to carry your water for you, cause he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 No drilling in Alaska, and over-reaching environmental law that prevent new refineries from being built. Oil companies have been reducing their refinery capacity for years. The assault on ANWR is nothing more than a cheap attempt to gut environmental laws Do you *really* think that oil companies want to spend money on building refineries when it will have the effect of lowering the price of fuels? This is the kind of schit you get when you mix politics and football. Wasn't this thread about the Bills? Go argue about your sexual tendencies for animals and your love for the environment as well as your hatred for oil companies in PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Aye, but there's a reason why we don't have the technology. I have to think if we had made it a priority during these last two terms to find alternative energy sources we'd be in better position now to become marginally less dependent on oil. There's no way to know for sure, but I don't agree with the lack of emphasis we've put into alternative energy and the environment. Instead of stopping the gays from marrying and worrying about spying on our own citizens, we should be trying to make oil obsolete. Just a humble opinion. You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade. Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwbillsfan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade.Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. I will say that I would rather throw a half trillion dollars towards solar,wind,wave energy technologies than throwing it at an ill conceived,illegal, immoral war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I will say that I would rather throw a half trillion dollars towards solar,wind,wave energy technologies than throwing it at an ill conceived,illegal, immoral war. so would I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade.Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. Of course, by throwing oodles of money at the problem we came up with the atom bomb in under 5 years and sent men to the moon in under ten. Perhaps, throwing oodles of money at a problem to get it solved isn't so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? LOL, I just titled mine under "religion"!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts