Lobowolf

Hmmmm this *sounds* like an anti-American shot, but today's loss only drops them to 1-3. Why hedge? The Bills are a truly pathetic 0-5.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... So you're saying the NATO decision is consistent with the researchers' position that "occupation may sometimes be necessary"?

Consider discarding winners, too, if it won't bring your loser count up to 4.

It is true that tax cuts do stimulate the economy so that the government does not lose 100% of the revenue that you'd calculate by straight arithmetic. And those effects have been looked at pretty carefully by both conservative and liberal economists. Given tax rates under 50%, the government will actually get back from 15 cents to 25 cents of each tax cut dollar, so the actual loss is only 75 cents to 85 cents. The liberals tend to argue that the government gets back only 15 cents on the dollar, and conservatives argue for the full 25 cents. Fools argue that the government gets back $1.10. I'm not sure whether you're saying 1) "from a practical and historical position, tax revenues don't rise when you cut rates," or 2) "from a logical position, tax revenues can't rise when you cut tax rates". It sounds as if you're saying 2), which Rodney was responding to, and which this follow-up doesn't really address. There's no theoretical reason tax revenues couldn't increase as a result of cuts to tax rates. That's like saying that a person who thinks you can increase revenue by dropping the price on a product is foolish. If the increased productivity results on that lower rate being applied on a larger base, than receipts can increase, just like if you sell more units of product X with a lower price, then revenue can go up. Rodney's example illustrates this from a theoretical standpoint - lowering the tax rate from 100% to 75% would increase revenues, because there wouldn't be economic activity if the tax rate was 100%. If your point all along was #1, above, then please ignore this post. Certainly, from a practical standpoint, that may not be relevant in the context of our current tax rates, i.e. it may only happen at rates that far exceed even the maximum tax rate today; my only point is that it's not inherently logically ridiculous to think that a decrease in rate may result in an increase in revenues (analogous to the pricing example; it's all about elasticity).

No more dishonest than the increased spending proposals (from both sides) that can't be afforded. Even during a budget surplus, budget items that are annual experiences (e.g. hiring a chauffeur as opposed to buying a car) are just as irresponsible; in the inevitable eventual cyclic down turn, those expenditures remain on the budget just as if the surplus still existed.

4♣

Apparently...and getting a check for working full-time is a free lunch.

But that's where you tried it! Perhaps, "...don't try this at the club!"

A very underrated one. Alvin Lee is a great guitarist. Best known for "I'd Love to Change the World."

It reminds me of some of those 3-3 fits I've played in when each partner thinks that a 4-3 wouldn't be so bad.

As a side note, if I have this hand, I'm not letting partner out at 3♠, with or without the double.

http://www.lightlife.com/product_detail.js...peh_smokystrips Just add lettuce & tomato

Strongly disagree with your prediction for football vis a vis baseball. Football is pretty much THE spectator sport in the USA, and AFAIK has been pretty been on a consistent, long-term upswing for a long time (since the days it was #2 to baseball, which was quite a while ago). Moreover, the crackdown on steroids in baseball is working to re-normalize the longball numbers, which isn't good for fan interest (though I think it's a good thing, I realize I'm in the minority; the fans want to see a bazillion homers). That being said, it may happen in the short-mid term, as there's a very good chance we're going to see a work stoppage in the NFL next year, which will hurt the sport.

I dont think Americans will watch more soccer until the players are more interested in playing than in play acting. FTFY cf. Jeter, Derek

Single variant, pecan pie. Top to bottom, cake > pie.

I'm pretty "eh" about Affleck as an actor; he's kind of hit/miss IMO ("The Town" being a hit). As a director, I've liked him a lot twice (The Town, and Gone Baby Gone, his only efforts so far).

The Town. I'd been looking forward to this one from the trailer, and it didn't disappoint. Good crime drama...atmospheric and well acted, every character believable. Sort of "The Departed" meets "Point Break."

Take heart...you still have the best magician/long snapper in the business. Go Jon!

All I know is, one of 'em was Gerry Rafferty. And if you've seen "Reservoir Dogs," you have an eternal mental connection every time you hear "Stuck in the Middle."

"Other"

That's a great idea, that concentration thing. But less from the numbers than the fact that one is much more within one's personal control than the other. I know that I'm a lot less likely to die in a car accident than from being struck by lightning; I still make it a point not to golf in the rain. ? I thought the post meant we should not care until 1 out of 300 are hurt.....by terror then we should be more careful. Maybe it was meant to show how successful the War on Terror has been. Perhaps a War on Cardiac Disease can reduce the risk to that of dying in a terrorist attack.

That's a great idea, that concentration thing. But less from the numbers than the fact that one is much more within one's personal control than the other. I know that I'm a lot less likely to die in a car accident than from being struck by lightning; I still make it a point not to golf in the rain.

How about 1-hit wonders? Aberlour10 wins in a landslide and I hope you get off the dl in the minimum time. Molly Hatchet "Flirting with Disaster" has a play. The Headpins, "Don't it make you feel" is really cheesy but appeals to me. I must protest...Molly Hatchet charted numerous times. Great band.

But if one hand is much stronger than the other, and the other hand is much more distributional than the first, then "all else" isn't equal.

Happy 2♣ bidder here. It's been my bid of choice in this situation for quite a while, and it hasn't cost too many 4-4 heart fits, though as Adam points out, that's a possibility. Reverse Flannery cuts the possibility down even more (it was very rare, in my experience, before I took up RF, though). If 4th suit is GF, your heart misses (in conjunction with RF) are pretty much down to those times when partner's hand specifically 1) includes 4 hearts (obv.), 2) has exactly invitational strength, and 3) you don't have enough to accept the invite. It's a rare parlay.