K-9

Getting bowled over is the only thing Wilson is good at. He is late in recognizing coverage far more often than not and if he has instincts, I'd like to know when. He's made a living off of a couple nice INTs, a couple decent run stops, and being an eloquent nice guy. But he SUCKS as a SS and NOTHING he does from this point forward will convince me otherwise. I watched every thing he's done since his debut in the Dallas Monday nighter so some year ago. And as nice as his pick 6 was in that game, he made AT LEAST a half dozen bone headed plays that helped Romo pick us apart and win the game. He's never improved in my estimation and he's actually regressed the last two seasons. Again, his one or two nice plays notwithstanding. GO BILLS!!!

Believe what you will. Neither of us will have ANY problems posting dozens of links to support our points of view. So be it. It's water through the damn and whatever other metaphor for old news nobody can do anything about. Kerry lost. Their job was done. But where the phuck were these 250 paragons of truth for the interceding 35 some odd years? As to the bold text, I've had it with your sanctimonious, condescending, and hypocritical admonishments.

It's a perfect combination of both. When you put (mostly) average talent in poor positions to succeed, it's ugly every time. Wanny needs to go. But we still need 3 starting NFL caliber LBs, an NFL starting caliber S, and one more starting caliber CB. None of our guys in those positions, save Gilmore and Byrd, would start for most NFL teams at the moment. Bradham should improve, Shepp just ain't fast or instinctive enough, and Barnett has reached his ceiling. 'Nuff said about A Williams and George Wilson has NEVER been a good SS. GO BILLS!!!

1.) The majority of the 250 swiftboat veteran signatories to that letter did not serve at the same time or in the same place as John Kerry. 2.) Of all the veterans who served with John Kerry aboard his boat, only one signed the letter and he was NOT present when Kerry earned his medals. All the others members of his crew said he earned his medals and several campaigned with him, and several more claim the accusations against Kerry are all lies. 3.) While none of the signatories was aboard his boat when he earned his medals, the one who was present in the area when he earned his Silver Star, praised Kerry's tactics and said he earned it. 4.) Two weeks before the swiftboat veterans' letter was made public, Kerry posted over 100 pages of his military record on his website and made his military medical records available for inspection.

I was a disciple of peak oil for a long time. I am still amazed at Hubbert's uncanny prediction of the US peak oil curve as well. I fully appreciate that oil, like all natural resources, is finite. And I can't wait for the day that nobody will ever need oil as an energy source. God knows that as the entire world's economy became based on fossil fuels over the last century, that oil companies have dictated geo-political outcomes worldwide. But I've also come to understand that peak oil isn't so much about what's left in the ground as it is about the ability to extract it from the ground fast enough to meet demand AND deliver it in sufficient quantities. Advances in technology have extended the life of wells that just 5 years ago would have been considered at their peak. Peak oil is more about oil production than it is about oil depletion. And the question of delivery mechanisms is critical to the equation. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical when it comes to the oil companies. But I think they've been exploiting peak oil for the sake of getting access to all those new fields you mention. And I don't trust them, OPEC, or any connected industry expert to give us an accurate idea about just how much oil is left to extract worldwide. They are all robbing the same train, they are the most secretive industry on the planet, and they manipulate information like it's going out of style.

Gluts (and shortages for that matter) are usually relatively short term issues. But I just don't buy the Peak Oil myth anymore.

The US exports crude oil, gasoline (and diesel), and natural gas.

Oil is fungible all right. Both as a resource and a political issue. Why don't Obama and Romney or anyone else in leadership positions around the world ever mention the fact that there is a GLUT of oil in the market at present because DEMAND is not decreasing supplies fast enough AND YET prices continue to rise in seeming defiance of good old market dynamics? Why is it that nobody ever mentions the other two OPERATIONAL Keystone pipelines from Canada to the US and always harp on the one that HASN'T been approved....YET?

Swiftboating has become a generic pejorative term for mudslinging in political campaigns. Needless to say we have a lot to disagree about concerning the 250 swiftboat veterans who signed that letter in 2004. I was researching what happens in the case of an electoral tie after I read PA's post. Apparently, the House decides who the presidential winner is and the Senate decides the VP. Can you imagine a Romney/Biden administration?

Holy crap! I never even considered that but it's certainly a very real possibility. But I've maintained the fix is in for a couple years now. Too many efforts in states across the country attempting to curtail voter turnouts have me convinced. And while the courts have struck down many of these efforts, I worry about what we might see on election day at some of the polls. This has been a concerted effort unlike anything in the past. And as batschit crazy and delusional as I may sound, there is precedent. I NEVER thought what occurred in 2000, the last time I voted Republican BTW, could happen in this country. I won't go into it for the sake of avoiding unnecessary debate, but suffice to say I think our election laws need an overhaul.

Did you read the link contained in the story? It's the Herman Cain story. All the Obama story seems to do is take the accusations from that story, change the gender of the people making the charge, and voila! So now Obama is a homosexual, Kenyan born Muslim? Got it. Remember when Clinton murdered Vince Foster? I'm sure in the year that has elapsed since these guys "came forward" they have been offed as well. One has to really mine the depths to find crap like this. Oh yeah, I just heard the Romney campaign has welcomed Jerome Corsi to travel with them as part of the traveling press. I'm sure he'll work hard to legitimize as many of these kinds of accusations as possible.

I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm referring to the various studies and analyses generated by right leaning organizations that came out immediately after the TPC analysis was released. And the right certainly WOULD and DOES disagree. Didn't mean to raise your hackles. I think it's fair to question the bias of everyone, especially organizations like the Brookings Institute and the Urban Center. But this study of Romney's plan was conducted by three economists, two of which worked for George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. They know their work is going to be scrutinized and I think they take honest measures to filter out as much of their personal biases as possible. It's worth noting also that during the primaries, the Romney campaign itself referred to the TPC as "objective, third-party analyses." Several media outlets referenced this quote from a 'talking points memo' article but I can't seem to upload the direct link to post it here. I first saw it in the same Washington Post article by Ezra Klein. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/02/nine-takeaways-on-romneys-tax-plan/

Thanks for the links. I'll have to read them and get back on my impressions after having a chance to discuss them with a few folks, particularly Rosen's analysis. But something tells me even without looking that they are high on assumptions regarding a certain amount of growth. Wanna-be elites and those with ADD? There is no end to your level of class around here. How about some more spiffy gifs like The Joker?

That's the idea, mutually assured economic destruction as a deterrent. But as GoDD pointed out, if China can realize higher gains in pegging it's assets to another currency in the future, all bets are off. They certainly seem to be hedging their bets as they are on a spending spree of natural resources the world over. I doubt that's because they foresee stable American markets to keep selling to in the future.

No worries on the resentment issue. Sometimes two-dimensional type on a monitor doesn't translate in these partisan debates. Just a couple points: 1.) The weak dollar is directly attributable to Fed policy. In short, the Fed has been printing money and flooding the market place with dollars since the Reagan administration and in each administration since. It increased printing of money exponentially during Bush II, especially in his second term and that's carried right on through to the Obama administration. Here's my point: no president can be held accountable for Fed policy as it's monetary decisions don't have to be approved by the President or anyone in the legislature. It's powers are derived by laws passed by Congress and the Fed is subject to congressional oversight only. In summary, the weak dollar is a result of flooding the marketplace with greenbacks, which is determined by Fed policy, which are not in the purview of the President. 2.) I'm not sure that "US oil production/demand" can be separated in the equation of "global" oil supply and demand. Heck, the US is also an oil "exporter." Anyway, US oil production, from both private and public land, is at it's highest since 1996 so again, lack of "domestic" output can't be a contributor to higher prices. So the question boils down to oil production on "public lands" (public 'lands' includes off shore) It was up in Obama's first two years and down in 2011 due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. But compared to Bush's last three years, production on public lands was way up and, while Romney was correct in citing a 14% dip last year, it was cherry picked. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-oil-production-down-14-percent-ye/

As much as he insisted that "the numbers add up" the other night, they actually don't even come close. Even if he eliminated all deductions, it wouldn't come close to offsetting his proposed tax cuts. Here's something from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan group (although, since this doesn't cast his plan in a favorable light, the right would disagree). http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/

There has been a movement lately to forge a larger national focus on a broad spectrum of women's issues, particularly health related ones. Perhaps the most visible one is the coalition between Colorado and Texas known as COTEX. BA DA BING! BA DA BOOM! I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

Finally, Romney has agreed to share details of his tax plan. http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Read a good one from the shoutbox over on TSW: The Bills are still undefeated when giving up less than 45 points per game this season. That's priceless. GO BILLS!!!

I remember this rumor from a few years ago. And nutjob Glenn Beck got some mileage out of it. There is not one ounce of truth to this absurd notion. The only collateral for our national debt is the "full faith and credit of the United States government." Period. End of story. Touche, pretty lady.

You know Ghost, for all the crap you took over there, your thoughts on China were prophetic as things look to be shaping up. I agree the tipping point will be when China's gains in another currency outweigh it's losses in dollar holdings. But it cuts both ways in that there is a TON of foreign investment in China and they can't be reckless with those investors. Then again, I don't think Western companies, US companies included, would give two schits about going turncoat if those gains realized through the Yuan or whatever they end up pegging to prove to be so much more lucrative. Romney is living the Chinese dream as we speak. Has been since 1998. Maybe it's time for some radical protectionist measures. I honestly don't know anymore. Almost forgot to link this article. Like you said though, China is nothing if not patient. 5,000 years as an evolving society kind of forges that character trait. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/04/25/can-china-really-dump-the-dollar/

http://www.bloomberg...ace-demand.html http://www.forbes.co...falling-dollar/ http://www.forbes.co...ice-per-barrel/ There are numerous other articles on the subjects as well. It's not a function of the dollar weakening vs. the currency values of oil producing countries but rather the fact that the price of oil is pegged to the dollar internationally. Not to digress, but if that ever changes, the crap is really gonna hit the fan. There are rumblings of Iran and China threatening to do that and, while I think it's just rumblings simply because China holds so many US dollars in investments, it serves notice. As to speculation, it's a market factor across all commodities and always has been. That is not a liberal bogeyman and I resent your attempt to pigeon hole my attempt to cite speculation as a contributing factor to higher prices as such. A good recent example is the refinery fire in California. Speculation of supply shortages as a result produced a spike in prices the next day. Same with the political strife in Syria. Hell, the entire Middle East for that matter. Now that I've given a global perspective on my viewpoint on the issue, would you be so kind as to bolster your own opinion upthread that Obama's "vilification" of the oil industry and "constriction" of supplies has directly impacted gas prices in the US other than in a speculative manner? If US production has increased during his term, how could that constrict supply?

What was worse: banks giving out loans to unqualified buyers or banks betting on those borrowers to fail? I'm betting it's my "upthread assertion" you're referring to. So I will attempt to clarify. I never said gas prices were not affected by supply and demand. What I said was that in the absence of increased demand or lower supply, there has to be a reason for higher prices. Supply has outstripped demand this year. Why haven't we seen a corresponding drop at the pump given that dynamic. The major driver of higher gas prices at the moment is the weak US dollar and speculation. You can make of that what you will. But you can't dismiss them as major factors in the equation. Especially when supply and demand dynamics would indicate a drop in prices.

While higher employment would mean higher demand for gasoline and a subsequent price increase, supplies have been outstripping demand this year and the reason we don't see a corresponding decline based on those two market dynamics is simply because the major drivers currently are the weakened US dollar and speculation in the market place.

What is your point? You would be better served by looking at Fed policies over the last 40 years vs. trying to conflate presidential policies with rising gas prices, which is what nearly every item on the list you linked is attached to.