yyz28

Did that Cat just get Tazered? ...and no, leave Thunderstruk alone.

That's GREAT news!!!

You can't argue the information presented, so instead of going after the person who made the statements or the statements themselves, you attack the service who choose to run the story? C'mon, if you have a point to make, please make it, and try and do so without trying to discredit the story because of where it ran. ...this is just another in a long line of stories that throw all of the "evidence" that you base the rest of your post on into question, and many of those stories didn't have to be dug for. ...which hasn't happened yet. A large part of the scientific community are questioning the evidence. ...including some who once were ball carrying members of the "Global Warming" Team. Since the debate isn't over and the facts aren't all in, and as more research is done on what "facts" we do have we find more and more holes, perhaps it is time to slow down and engage in some REAL science, and do so without a pre-conceived notion of what the results should be. ...more and more flaws being found daily. For example, a big story yesterday is how unreliable the temperature readings at weather stations are. Issues with calibration, no mention of the fact that many weather stations that used to be in rural areas are now surrounded by development. Weather stations that were built on the outskirts of airports that now have hot jet exhaust blown on them as the airport has expanded, weather stations that aren't in the same place they were when they started being recorded, etc. First of all, I'd like to see you back this up, because this simply isn't true. Second of all, any scientist who, despite the evidence that is coming out almost daily about the flaws in the data upon which many conclusions have been drawn on keep coming out, doesn't take a moment of pause to investigate the new information - isn't really a scientist at all, so a group that they belong do doesn't really draw much water with me. Science, like justice, should always be blind, and should not be conducted with the thought "this is what answer we WANT to see" because somehow, that's the answer that will show up. These SAME Scientific Society's and Scientists were telling us 25-30 years ago the planet was cooling at an exponential rate, and that we'd be sitting on an ice cube by the mid 90's. ...they are the same people that called it global warming for the past 15 years that we needed to worry about Global Warming. ...now they've changed it to "Climate Change" because in truth they don't know what the hell is going on, so they needed to change the language to keep them from looking like a bunch of folks with Agendas instead of Scientists the next time they changed their mind. ...and to believe that MAN though the production of CARBON can change the climate on this planet is just full-on absurdity. Human activity is results in CO2 emissions, which is the big bad pollutant these folks are harping on and that we may, through technology have some way to combat. CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Some of this occurs naturally, and was in place LOOOOOOOOOONG before we started building factories and cars. I've used this example before, but here it is again - Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere. ...and the idea that we have the POWER to cut CO2 in half (I don't mean CO2 emissions, I mean the actual CO2 in the atmosphere) is insanity itself.

...look, I'm agnostic, so I have no real dog in the Religion hunt, but I must say, the article sort of blows its own credibility out of the water when its headline is "Texas Education Board Is Trying to Infuse Schoolbooks with Ultraconservative Ideology"... ...and one of the quotes they use to back up this assertion is "...But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles..." How is that statement NOT true. ...or how is it ultraconservative? ...and what does ANY of this have to do with International Diplomacy? Stealth Thread Hijack, perhaps?

...somewhat off topic, but did it bother anyone that the federal government bought airtime during the Super Bowl to advertise the Census?

WAAAAASSAAAAAAAAAAUP?!?! was pure genius.

OH, yeah... I forgot that one. That one was great!

Yeah, I think I'm with you on that one... ...the Green Police Audi ad gets my honorable mention.

Wow... That's how you welcome him to the program and our School!

Kram's the best... ...but soccer still sucks. J/K bro! LOL!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-cafeteria-celebrates-black-history-month-with-fried-chicken-special/ If it weren't real, it wouldn't be funny. I'm REALLY going to enjoy sitting back and seeing who just lets this one go, and who gets all pissed off at this one. ROTFLMAO!

I agree 100%. Great post.

Nice Job, Cam! Congrats!

This is GREAT! I'm glad he's come here to play!

Was there football? I only saw titty.

This is a good clean Hockey thread. Why drag Tony Romo into it? Quoner is right on, except to say Hicks Sucks... not that I'm asserting he doesn't, in fact, suck, but that I don't think we have enough information to determine if he "sucks" or not. Historically, he has been a good owner and I believe has a good core in the clubhouse for this team. However, his financial troubles with the Rangers and the Stars has made it hard for him to fund either team properly. Now that it appears that his issues with the Rangers are behind him he can focus his attention and revenue on the Stars. Will he do what he has to do in order to make the team a success again, and thus a revenue generator, or will he simply allow this team to exist at the level it does today because he's unwilling to take a risk? We'll know by this time next year if he's serious, or if he does, in fact, "suck". I've been to 5 games myself with 2 left to go to (my partners and I get season tickets and split 'em up) and aside from the Detroit game that we actually won, they have all be yawners. I'm hoping the pulse the team shows is still there after the Olympic break so the last two games I have this season aren't boring as 4 of the first 5 were. GO STARS!!!

I'm glad he had the option to do what he felt was best for his health. I hope he Tort reform IS an important part of the solution for what ails our health care system, yet it isn't a part of the Reform Package being considered and promoted by President Obama and the Congress. It is a pretty major oversight, in my opinion. Good find, Rick.

Ugh... Ok. Do some research. The Education outcome in China and India FAR out paces that of the education outcome in the United States. Statistics don't lie. People don't just come to America for education. The economics in both China and India are not as good as they are here, even when we're in the tank like we are now. ...and specifically in China, you can't live how you want to, raise the type of family you want, and the like. The political and economic situations in both countries can't be ignored to make an argument. You can't conclude that because people from those countries want to come here that means their education system is worse than ours - that logic doesn't even work. You need so badly to blame Republicans, you don't even get the point. First, the issue with Social Security isn't a result of high unemployment now. It is a problem because Presidents and Congresses of both parties since Social Security was created have pissed away the money being paid into the system to fund social programs and other government spending. ...and they have been doing this while KNOWING that in this Decade, the number of people paying into the system would be strained as the baby boomers started to need to use the system as they retired. You're so hard up to blame President Bush for everything that is wrong today, but two facts remain. In Late 2006 when you say the economy started to falter, DEMOCRATS gained control of Congress, the body of the government who actually HAS some impact on the economy, as they hold the purse strings and control the agencies that regulate business. ...and during President Bush's first term, he TRIED to do something about Social Security because this was coming, yet he was thwarted by members of congress in both parties. You may not have agreed with his method, but nobody bothers to give him credit for seeing the writing on the wall and trying to do something about it. Yes, fewer people working put less dollars in the system. I agree with that. So maybe this flip accelerated because of the bad economy, but even if we didn't have this recession, this same thing would have happened in 2013 or 2014, as it is inevitable - more people retiring, fewer children entering the workforce behind them, and the trust fund of money that had been paid in over the years is empty. Who do I blame? Government. Members of both parties. The politicians over the years who have allowed the Social Security Trust Fund to be spent like it's a rainy day fund for everything, and continuing to run deficits beyond even that raid. But in light of this fact, the response of the current government is to pour on more debt and spend even more money that we don't have, and to tax the living crap out of the folks that might invest and create new jobs? ...Again, I'm really tired of arguing the past. Blame Bush if it makes you feel better. ...but what the former President did doesn't make the economically illiterate moves of this President and his Congress right. ...as I was typing this, I got a message from a news feed in my e-mail that "House passes increase on debt limit by $1.9 trillion on a 217-212 vote". Your attack on yet another Republican ignores the fact that Reagan wasn't the only Governor of that State in the 70's and that there has been nothing but Democrat Governors and Democratically Controlled Legislators in that state since he was in power. You are so BLIND with hatred for a party, you can't see past the letter behind the name of the people in power to actually analyze the polices being made. Again, you show how little you know about California politics to place their current situation on a Governor who was in office 35 years ago. The issues in the state ARE long term, but they come from uncontrolled immigration, run away social spending and a court system that systematically thwarts the will of the voters in the state. ...the issues stem from the same issues we face as a nation, only they are further along in the process and they don't have a direct negative impact on everyone in the country. You're willing to place the blame for California on the shoulders of a man who has been out of power in that state for 30 years, yet you refuse to admit that the things the current president is doing could have negative ripple effects for Generations. You're willing to blame all of the ills of the world on George Bush, yet you fail (or refuse) to see how the current President and the current Congress are sending us RIGHT DOWN the same path California has taken to get them to the bad state they are in today. Perry cut the property tax rates that School Districts can impose via a Property Tax, so your statement isn't accurate. In many cities the local unit part of the property tax rate has dropped considerably during the past 3 years. For example, in McKinney, where I live, Total Local Unit (County, City and School District Combined) tax rates went from 2.93% in 2006 to 2.76% in 2007 to 2.43% in 2008 with a slight bump up in 2009 to 2.45%. So the governor's move in 2006 to drop the rate School Districts could tax (and to cap the increases they can make without legilative approval) have not caused property tax rates to go up. ...and McKinney isn't an isolated case. Medina's system hasn't been fully vetted, but if everyone, and not just the property owners, have to pay for education in this state, the burden of education and other funding will be borne by a larger group, and won't be such a hidden tax. (Most people pay their property taxes with their mortgage and don't pay much attention to it, just like they don't really pay attention to how much of their paycheck the Federal Governemnt confiscates each pay day). ANY system where the people have to see every time they are paying a tax is bound to create a more aware and in tune citizen. Any system where EVERYONE who is benefiting from the benefit of a tax also has to bear a portion of its cost is a good thing.

PLEASE don't get me started on education. Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to sim ilarly improved student performance. Instead of simply increasing funding for public education, federal and state policymakers should implement education reforms designed to improve resource allocation and boost student performance. Given the significant increase in resources allocated to public education, politicians should consider whether government spending increases have led to improved student outcomes. This will help to determine whether future increases in education spending can be expected to yield tangible improvements for students, or if maintaining high property taxes on the property owners in the state for sake of "education" is really something we should be putting much weight on. A basic comparison of long-term spending trends with long-term measures of student academic achievement challenges the belief that spending is correlated with achievement. Compare real per-pupil expenditures with American students test scores on the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading examination from 1970 to 2004. While spending per pupil has more than doubled, reading scores have remained relatively flat. You'll find the attached chart interesting. High school graduation rates provide another historical barometer of American educational performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average freshman graduation rate for American public schools has remained relatively flat over time. In 1990–1991, the average graduation rate was 73.7 percent. By 2004–2005, the rate had increased modestly to 74.7.[13] How­ever, the most recent estimate for the 2005–2006 school year shows that the national freshman graduation rate has dipped to 73.4 percent.[14] A key focus of education reform efforts in recent decades has been to improve opportunities for disadvantaged students and to reduce the achievement gap between white students and ethnic minority children. Black and Hispanic students have improved test scores in both subjects across all student levels. However, the achievement gap persists, with black and Hispanic children still lagging behind their white peers despite decades of federal aid targeted at equalizing opportunities for all students. Similarly, in 2005–2006, the national high school graduation rate for white students (80.6 percent) remained significantly higher than the graduation rates of black students (59.1 percent) and Hispanic students (61.4 percent). We've been throwing more and more money at this for years, and despite the fact we spend more per capita on education than only 3 other nations on the planet (none of whom really compete with us at any level in the global economy - or chief competitors, Japan, China and India spend FAR less with much better outcomes) our education outcome remains stagnant, despite the massive increases in spending. I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion of what is wrong in California. California is FUBAR because it has far more obligations than it can possibly pay for. Californians are taxed at a higher rate than virtually any other population in the country. The problem is NOT that they don't have a large enough tax base or that the people aren't being taxed in the right way, the problem is that the number of producers are shrinking while the number of people who the government has to care for is increasing. In California, the balance of producers to users tipped the 50% mark years ago. As a nation, we are teetering at the same point in history for our country. 2010 will be the first time that the Social Security fund will not be able to meet Social Security obligations. ...yet we're jumping the deficit at an exponential rate, and doubling the debt in one shot. I don't want to debate who got us here. Fine, it was Bush - are you happy? ...but the answer, no matter how we got here, isn't to dig an EVEN BIGGER HOLE! We should not be following in the footsteps of California as a nation. ...yet we are. The lack of a property tax is the LEAST of California's problems.

I think the (real) stories about the Government and Activists putting the needs of a 1" long fish over the needs of people like is going on in California as I type this has tainted people against the thought of environmentalism. We all want to have clean water and air, but sacrificing the well being of people because of a fish is what taints the good intentions of the movement as a whole.

Don't confuse my dumping on the Global Warming Hoax for my willingness to pollute the environment. There is an awful big difference between the two. The Global Warming issue is beyond environmental protection. You're using an example of regulations placed (far too late in my opinion) on companies in this country that were willingly polluting the local water supply and air. This was stopped by and large in the 70's and 80's. We KNEW these actions were bad for the environment when they were going on. ...compare that to Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change (or whatever they are calling it this week to hide the fact they really don't know what is going on) and the two concepts don't belong in the same conversation. We don't know if we're actually having an impact on global tempuratures based on our actions. ...we COULD tell we were polluting the air and water making localized areas inhospitable in the example you site. Scientists and Politicians who are pushing Man Made Climate Change as a reality can't even seem to tell us straight if the planet is cooling or warming, but they are sure its our fault? ...and that cutting down on CO2 emissions when CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will actually impact the planet's natural climate cycles? That's the overwhelming evidence? Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere. You're right, there are a lot of people outside of America beating this same drum, using the same bad science, and interesting enough, most of them are pointing the finger at us and expecting us to lower our standard of living to theirs (or below) in order to fix this problem, which hasn't even been determined by the scientific community to actually be a problem, or be anything we can do anything about or that we had anything to do with it in the first place. ...and following that drumbeat of world opinion is one political party in this country. Like it or not, but this IS a political issue because instead of letting science actually discover the facts and determine what is really going on and why, we simply jump to the conclusion that our actions are impacting the climate. What arrogance to think we have that kind of power. ...I remember being told that Global cooling would wipe us out in 20 years back in the 70's. ...I remember being told that San Francisco, LA, Manhattan and Miami would be underwater by the year 2010 back in the 90's. ...and I remember that it was the same group of people with the same agenda spouting off that nonsense that are pushing this agenda today.

When a political party turns a scientific debate into fact and the leader of that party makes statements like he did in the state of the union address about global warming and then a political party takes the opportunity of a huge majority to push legislation that will impact everyone in the country based on what you define as a "scientific debate" it becomes pretty political in a big hurry. You keep hearing folks talk about the "overwhelming evidence that man-made climate change" exists, but as this thread has demonstrated, there isn't such a consensus. Climate change IS real, there is little doubt about that; its been happening since before man walked the planet... ...but what causes it and what impact we can have is certainly up for debate, and so long as the debate continues... it continues...

I totally agree. This is a GREAT hire for the program, and I think is an amazing pick and shows that RV and GB are serious about coming to the table with the funding and TD is serious about improving this program and isn't being a stubborn jackass about this like many predicted. This is a great day for the Mean Green Nation!

Yeah, we've had to do some things we didn't want to do either. It's really a shame, but unfortunately, it seems to be reality right now...