Um, a cold is caused by a virus so there's nothing going to the ER or any physician or clinic could do to treat you. You suck it up and wait for it to run its course. And a scraped knee you should be able to use common sense and say to yourself: "clean and disinfect the wound and then cover with some type of bandage." That wasn't too hard was it?

The only thing that democrats do is complain and point blame, so sounds like a job right up their alley...

I'm a conservative, voted against BHO, and I wouldn't vote for Palin for President. First, I don't like quitters, and the way she quit her governorship, that's not a characteristic I want from my president. Second, I don't think we really need a president to talk to America or other world leaders with stories about the way things are done in Alaska. She was a bad choice for VP and she's a bad choice for the top spot.

One of Carter's biggest problems was that he was an idiot president and has left nothing of a legacy.

They're democrats. All they do is sink to lower levels.

Where have I been? We're out of a recession? Unemployment numbers have returned to normal? We've reduced our deficit and no longer owe our grandchildren to China? Wow...that's news to me. I'm gonna get my Barack Obama voting fingers ready in 2012 if that's all true...

If students want to waste their money and their education updating their facebook status, let them. For those of you that think what's going on in rows ahead of you is distracting: START SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW. Problem solved.

Let the students devalue their own education. When they enter the real world and realize they wasted their time in college, they'll realize their mistake. If what goes on in rows ahead of you distracts you, then move to the front row. Problem solved.

If they have the money to afford a laptop to go sit in a government building and get online, then they have the money to pay for internet at their home. There are plenty of ways to get online (public libraries for example) if you lack a home internet connection or a computer at home. No need to get all federal government facilities wired with free public wifi.

And who's to say that even if we change the antropogenic behavior that it will result in a reversal of the climate change? If there is a damage being done, who's to say that we know for sure that these policies will fix the problem? If there's no guarantee that reversal is even possible, why spend all the money and change our lifestyle to try and prevent it? The money would be better spent preparing ourselves for the impending doom and gloom rather than trying to prevent it.

The last time I checked, when the geocentric model of the universe came under attack, it was the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that supported the geocentric model and was lockstep behind that theory of how our universe was organized. It wasn't until people went AGAINST the common scientific consensus that the theory changed, and even then, those that went against the scientific consensus faced massive amounts of animosity and hardship for their viewpoints. My point being: science is not and should not ever be done by consensus. As soon as you get scientists getting together saying "this is what's happening, don't question it", you've thrown out the scientific method and the idea of scientific skepticism. I don't care how many scientists say that "global warming is occuring." Great, let them take that standpoint. But it's ludicrous that the idea that the scientific "consensus" being challenged should be anything other than embraced by the scientific community. Let the skeptics make their claims. There's no need to argue with them or try and silence them if there's no evidence to support their theories. But I see the opposite happening. I see climatologists being basically excommunicated from the scientific community for failing to fall lockstep behind the dogma of human-caused global warming. I see meteorologists that have been fired because they have not fully support the idea of global climate change. I see peer-reviewed journals failing to publish contradicting articles because the "peers" believe what they wrote contradicts the ideas in which they have invested so much of their careers. I see vehement personal attacks against anyone that dare question the ideology (near religion) of global climate change. The question never gets asked: hmm...what incentive would these scientists have in order to so strongly support their viewpoint and try and silence their critics?

It's also interesting to note that all of the previous temperature increases in the earth's history have also been marked by drastic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I doubt there were any big oil company throwing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago, so it begs the question: is the atmospheric CO2 increases that we're seeing now causing the warming, or are they a result of the warming? We read that CO2 increases are causing the warming, but who's to say that the warming couldn't be causing the release of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere? The correlation between increased CO2 and temperature increases does NOT denote CAUSALITY.

Yeah, because internet access is a RIGHT and the government should be spending our taxpayers money to make sure everyone should be able to get online. The government has no place doing this.

It was probably an old irradiator used to treat cancer.

UPS doesn't accept radioactive materials. Neither does DHL.