papasmurfbell

I totally agree. There are people who are under the impression that if we cut forign aid we will close the budget shortfall not understanding what the real number are.

Remember what day it is.

But many parts of teh govt are being paid by the Koch's and other patro-chemical people to say it isn't real. You can't have alegit discussion when you have some that refuse to agree that the sky is blue and water is wet.

Actually foriegn aid accounts for basically nothing. Not saying I agree with paying it but it would be like finding a quarter on the ground during the day.

I was looking more at Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had not wasted the trillions we have there we would have good roads schools and so much more.

Then it was not needed. It is poor business.

Imagine if we didn't start wars for no reason. How much money would we have to fix our problems?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/01/derek-carr-says-his-browns-workout-went-exactly-how-he-wanted/ Translation: I did poorly so they wont touch me.

So will you refuse to move no matter what?

Those don't seem to have excercized much.

100% true. Cute and talented is a great combo.

What was the difference between the saint 2012 and 2010 and 2013?

He inherited not just the team but also the FO that kept getting him talent.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/padres-ball-girl-makes-play-of-the-night-to-save-dodgers-fan-from-possible-doom-154855029.html

It isn't even the the below .500 season. It is the nepotism, bad game mang, and other things he does that are mind numbingly stupid.

I put those 2 in with the squirrels named Switzer, Seifert, and Chucky. You have to remember that most of his time he was in 3 rivers and they cast off their talent very fast.

Thats the problem they basically find the acorn once and then they starve to death.

The saying was proved by both. "Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut."

For all the losses, however, the network evening news remains an extraordinarily popular news source for Americans. More than four times as many people watched the three network evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC during the dinner hour than watched the highest-rated shows on the three cable news channels (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) during prime time. And more than twice as many people watch the lowest-rated broadcast evening news program (CBS Evening News) than watch the highest-rated cable news program (The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News). [Pew Research Center, accessed 4/12/12] Sunday Shows Help Set Scope Of Official Debate In Washington. The Sunday shows occupy a singular place in the American media landscape. Their audience of a combined 9 million or so viewers includes virtually the entire journo-political establishment. The discussions held on the shows frequently determine the scope of official debate in Washington, legitimizing some views and -- by nature of their absence -- marginalizing others. [Media Matters, March 2007] Methodology This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, on four Sunday morning talk shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and three nightly news programs (ABC World News,CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News). Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday, but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript and/or or a definitive statement about climate change). Timestamps were acquired from Media Matters' internal video archive and were applied generously. For instance, if a segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. For those segments not available in our archive, we estimated the length of the segment based on its word count. The following chart displays the coverage included in our study: How can a show really talk about climate change when they don't have it with scientists? Would you have a debate about heart surgery with politicians and celebrities? One issue is that there are so few scientists that don't believe in it that they really can't have a debate do they will look like they are taking a side and they don't want to be accused of that.

It is argued this way here because our govt is for sale to the highest bidder. The Koch's have their think tanks put out what a couple of scientists think and then that report is shown. The Purchased reps hold it up as proof that it is not man made. Then you have CNN and other like then saying one side says this the other that like they have equal validity. So the lay person doesn't know what to believe. http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/04/16/study-climate-coverage-plummets-on-broadcast-ne/184103

I agree. They both suck and have similar results.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/03/27/washington-redskins-orginal-americans-gary-edwards-inspector-general/6983217/

You do realize weather and climate are not the same thing?

Also as the ice melts and you get rocks they will absorb heat.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/31/jets-could-be-saving-up-for-a-run-at-chris-johnson/