EvilMonkey

Max baucus has sex with a woman whom he helps to get 'promoted'. I wonder if someone who also couldhave been eligible for that position would have legal grounds to sue over not getting it? if i didn't get a promotion because my competition was screwing someone with influence, I would sure be pissed. The rallying cry could be "He got head, she got ahead!"

Get financing arranged somewhere else first, if possible. Never tell them what your 'ranage' is for monthly payments. Always negotiate sale price, seperate of trade in. AFTER you get sales price, then talk financing. If they ask to look at your trade in before they give you a dollar amount, get your keys back before you start talking any sales figures. if not, you will find them talking a long time to get back to you. Walk if you don't like what you hear at any time. Come prepared with dealer costs from online, and a reasonable idea of the dealer trade in value of your car. And this may sound like one you wouldn't forget, but drive the car first if you have to order it or get it from a different lot. You can drive a similar model to see if you like the general feel of the car, but make sure you drive the one you will be purchasing before you sign anything. And in fairness to the dealers, remember, they DO need to make a profit. It just doesn't have to be as huge as they would like.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 11:41 AM) Ladies and Gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States of America, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitloc...ate-afghanistan "And the expectation that we expect both the Pakistanis to step up. " I think he needs more than 2 of them to step up.

The university in question's CRUs recognized by your beloved 'consensus' as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. And from their own website, "Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. " If they are the ones SUPPLYING the data sets to the other groups, then everything is potentially wrong. From readings in their emails, they had a close-knit group that peer-reviewed each other so no dissention could be had. They also claim that their data could be swapped with data from NASA and have the same results. Well, no s***, if you hard code the modelling program that way, you can put in anything you want and still get your desired answer. While I have not studied their code, as it is beyond me, I have read analysis from people who do know code that said it was a clusterf*** waiting to happen. Oh, and NASA numbers show that "global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity". A big problem here is that many of the groups that have done climate change modellling, etc, have relied on the data sets and moddeling programs provided by UEA. Many others are not revealing their data sources. Someone who has nothign to gain from this either way should be reproducing this work from the beginning. The CRU's have too much research money riding on it to give an unbiased answer. And with their livelyhoods at stake, you are a fool if you believe that they wouldn't fudge the numbers. The UN has too much at stake as they see this as an opportunity to fleece the major powers and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations, as if it is our fault they live in deserts and have tinpot dictators steal what little they have and kill them for it. China, India and Brazil plan on holding the "rich" nations hostage at the Copenhagen conferences if they have to have restrictions placed on them and fail to penalize the "rich". "Rich countries should be ready to contribute funds for stopping the process of forest degradation including the one in Amazon valley in Brazil and also invest in the process of creating new forests. " How China and India are still considered developing nations is beyond me. South America already wants US to pay THEM to NOT chop down the rainforest. So, who could do it? I don't know. But whoever does it, it has to be completely transparent and reproducable by any other scientist before the wolrd should be thrown into chaos for the new world religion. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/h...sd06oct97_1.htm http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/c...how/5279771.cms

Cimate change data dumped. Soare we just supposed to take thier word for it, and change the entire world's economy on their say so? At the very least this calls for a global effort to reconstruct the raw data with the utmost transparancy to keep politics out of it, and stop the data manipulation so no more fake 'hockey sticks' show up. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) I really don't know if the healthcare companies can survive taking on millions of new customers. God knows the banks didn't when the government ushered bunches of money into them. When those 'millions of new customers' use of 50x in benefits vs the price capped premiums they will have to pay, then you will have to wonder how they will survive. For all your demonization of insurance, their profit margins were lower than several other major industries, much lower. But I guess 'profits' is a dirty word to liberals.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) I assume you had to pay to get your trash picked up, right? Yes, and it was less for me to throw it away. Less cost and much less hassle.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) But as far as recycling paper, there's no reason not to do that. At the risk of sounding like a superliberal hippie, we kill lots of trees for no reason, just so we can have a mailbox full of circulars we won't even read, so at least we could put that trash to use somehow. I think recycling electronics is really underrated though. The material is already there, already harvested and refined, etc. and it's really easy to just use it again in some new product. When i still owned my print shop, it was harder than you might thnk to recycle the paper. most of the recycling companies wanted to charge me to haul it away, and wanted me to have space to leave a semi trailer until it is full. Didn't have any space for that, and no way I am paying someone to take my paper so they can recycle it and make money. i brought some home and dumped in the recycle bins by the school, and dumped some paper in the recycle bins around the shop, but that was a hassle, big time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) In about 3 years, we better be at least on the path towards a balanced budget by the end of what will hopefully be his 2nd term (if we're not, that means you guys successfully blocked health care reform). Health care reform will not balance the budget.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 05:47 AM) Emails fall under the open records act and regarding all the examples you cited would be acquired legally through a document request. So, awesome righteous indignation once again! (edit: except for the latter, unless it was a criminal investigation...etc) And everytime emails have been printed, they were acquired legally, or were done on gov't computers/accts, giving them a claim to publish. While this is a thin gray line, here is the NYT posting about Palin's hacked email account, including a link to the website that has the emails and such. Sure they didn't print them, but hey, look over here, there they are! I don't believe these were ever meant to be made public. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09...ails&st=cse

So, the NYT reports on the climate email situation, and has this to say about it.... Really? Is that all it takes? Because I am sure there are many emails, pictures and conversations that they have printed in the past, especially ones making politicians look bad, that weren't intended for the public eye. If the emails contained plans for how the US was going to invade Cuba, I am sure they would have printed them. Or detailing an illicit affair involving a married Senator. Or converstions between auto execs about how they are conspiring to do somethign nefarious. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/...ons-on-display/

The cost of Democrat Mary Landrieu's vote on health care? $100 million dollars. And 2 pages to say what could be said in one word. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/t...-care-vote.html

Sons still needs to answer what happened to the bodies that were in the burned down porn studio. Did they die, or did the guy with 2 fingers pull Darby out and they are holed up somewhere? Otherwise they have done well in tying things together.

That's pretty funny, regardless of how it happened.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 07:46 AM) So they had an editorialist write a pro-union piece and now the times management, which is probably far, far removed from that, must only hire union workers. Another amazing post. You write that as if it was one, and only one, pro-union piece that has ever graced the pages of the NYT. How silly.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) Yeah, a newspaper allowing dissenting opinions to be published. That's terrible. Thankfully, proper conservative newspapers would not allow dissenting opinions to be published. Tex, if the paper had an editorialist write an editorial AGAINST unions, THAT would be a dissenting opinion.

Why? Because it's cheaper! I recall them not having a very positive editorial when Boing decided to give jobs to their non-union plant in South Carolina instead of the union one in Washington. Too funny. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business...times.html?_r=1

yes, indeed.

For some people, yes. For some, no. Sounds a little like he is tyring to justify his job profession somewhat. People got along before all the psychbabble crap. As for the original question itself, as long as I knew for sure that was the guy that did it, I would want him killed.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) And if he would have gone earlier you would have berated him for abandoning his duty in an effort to be photographed as the first "african-american" (who knows why you're so obsessed with that term). You would have said it was a cheap publicity stunt. We need to make sure you are never in the same room as AHB. You are like the exact same person but in reverse. The world would explode: matter meets anti-matter. FWIW, I thought his speech at Fort Hood was nice. At least the transcript I just read was.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) And if he would have gone earlier you would have berated him for abandoning his duty in an effort to be photographed as the first "african-american" (who knows why you're so obsessed with that term). You would have said it was a cheap publicity stunt. We need to make sure you are never in the same room as AHB. You are like the exact same person but in reverse. The world would explode: matter meets anti-matter. Soxy, 'abandoning his duty'? Just what was he doing instead of being there? Was he in intense peace talks with the PLO and Israel? Was he hammering out the details of some new job-saving bill? Really, what was so important that he couldn't be there?

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) I imagine that it is easier to meet with dead soldiers families when those soldiers weren't killed in such a tragic non-combat zone sense. This shooting is a media circus--adding a president (regardless of race) to that mix would only seem exploitative. it IS an Army base, they do have gates and guards, would be easy to keep the press away, if they wanted to. Sure, they would be camped outside the gates, but that doesn't mean he needs to go hunting for the cameras. A quick visit could have and should have been arranged, without a gaggle of media along.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) Somehow I have the feeling that no matter how he handled this you would have found a reason to criticize. Possibly. But he needs to be there regardless of which party he is in, so more likely as long as he wasn't whoring out the situation for his perpetual campaign machine, I would have just kept quiet and not said a thing. There ARE posts here about Obama or about his policies/actions that I don't respond to. And I know I even complimented him on one post because I got a few messages afterwards asking me if I felt ok, I just can't remember what it was.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) Yes, because the photogs do such a great job of staying away when politely asked. There is a difference between photogs being there, and him having his entourage around to photograph the historic moment of the first african american president doing . Bush met with families of dead soldiers when the bodies came back to America without photographers capturing every moment of it, why can't Obama?

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) In today's political climate, if he left immediately, he would have been accused of using this tragedy to promote himself. And it is tough to really complain, Bush went through it and of course Clinton's second term was all about him "wagging the dog". What we need to bring the nation together is a major event. It will not be something good, because there will be fights over credit, etc. It will be some huge national threat so that we put aside petty political b.s. The last time we were together as a nation was 9-11. For about 3 days, then we started playing the blame game and it hasn't stopped. If he left immediately, took about 1000 reporters with him and made the speech all about how this was a tragic occasion and somehow relates it all back to him being the first african-american president and turned everythign into a photo-op, then yes, you are correct. If he would have went and told the photogs to just stay away, not so much. Did I hear right that instead of going there, he went to Camp David for a few days instead? Just asking.