EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) Willy Taveras stole 5 bases in one game last season, and didn't score a run. Thats an ally-op from Kalapse. Sounds more like an inditement of his teammates instead of a negative against him.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008...es-too-fat.html In related news, heterosexual men continue being blamed for pushing impossible standards of beauty upon women, causing them shame and anguish and eating disorders, despite the fact the rail-thin-is-in fashion industry is dominated by women and gay men, with the occasional one-in-five straight photographer who thanks Jesus every day that he ignored his parents' suggestion he go into accounting or dentistry. .

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) Remember that story about the Indian naval vessel destroying a Pirate "mother ship". Yeah, about that... oops? Not quite. if it was controlled by the pirates, then I guess it cold still be considered a pirate vessel, epsecially if they were on it and armed. "The vessel continued its threatening calls and subsequently fired upon INS Tabar," the ministry said. The Indian frigate returned fire, setting the pirate ship ablaze and setting off explosions on board, the statement said." Fair game for return fire.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 09:57 AM) It was the best in awhile. And, WTF Heroes, why must you torment me like this??? Why???????? Got damn I love that show. WHY WON'T MOHINDER DIE!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 07:20 AM) I can't wait.....90 minutes of vic Mackey goodness (badness). Bittersweet moment as it's all over tomorrow. Discussion afterwards here?????? I'll be somewhere near the Ozarks when it airs, won't be able to see it until tomorrow morning. Having sis-in-law tape it for me and Mike since it will be on while we are driving. I stillthink there is an outside chance that the secret service blows them all away. You never know, it could happen.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet). The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are. The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice." Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding. So all they had to do was let them register, and then fail to provide them with same sex dates as their software wasn't designed for that, and all would be fine? If the software decided that 'John' was compatible with 'Jane' and sent him that info, or decided that eh didn't match anyone and told him that, could they still have been sued?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:57 PM) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That looks good. I forgot to add Turducken as a choice. Here is the bacon-wrapped version. http://bacontoday.com/turbaconducken-turdu...apped-in-bacon/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 06:37 PM) No. The other 29 shouldn't read things like this. Yeah, let the other 29 remain ignorant and lock themselves into bad deals. I agree.

As a (former) business owner that relied heavily on direct mail for advertising, this pisses me off. Those customers paid the postage for the mail to be delivered, not thrown away. The post office owes alot of businesses some money back. Sorry bro, I go with criminal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it). So maybe they shouldhave just taken their money and tried to hook him up with women. It sucks that they caved in and didn't take it to trial.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 09:12 AM) I assume its because eharmony is an internet site that makes money for its hosts. This places it in "interstate commerce" and distinguishes it from a true private, non-profit like the Scouts. There also may be isses under the various telecommunications laws. As to the argument that they have "their own" dating sites, "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago. Not defending, just responding. So a straight guy could go sue a gay hookup site if they refused to hook him up with a woman?

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 05:50 PM) My car was pretty much totalled last night,no injuries and have no idea how there wasnt except for god lookin down on me.Crossing my fingers that my car can be salvaged.The idiot turned left right in front of me on a green light at an intersection and there was nothing I could do.I knocked him up on two wheels sideways(dont know how he didnt flip his pickup truck) then he took off and left the scene.Car accidents are so traumatic I still havent calmed down from it. Glad no one was hurt. I had my car totaled a few months back as well. Wasn't a problem getting back in the car, however i was very shaken when the very first time out in the 'new' replacement car, the exact scenereo alost repeated itself and I narrowly avoided getting rear ended a second time. Did they catch the guy?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) Man, that's the stuff right there. For the past 2 years I've described any potential package for Jenks as having to be a "King's ransom" and that deal is pretty damn close. I could live with that.

Well that looked pretty cool. can you imagine seeing somethig like that after there was a terrorist threat of some kind? people would be freaking out, big time.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) Then if you want consistency, then you wanted the Uncle Tom and House n***** talk to continue? If the new behavior is to continue, then it should be applauded, not jeered and criticized. But right now you are basically pointing to a good thing and trying to make it look bad. So I go back to my statement that a toned down Al Sharpton will make some people unhappy. It takes away a target for their attacks. So no you really don't want it to continue. You want him to revive it so you can call him a hypocrite and post ten links. NO, ideally I would like for him to dosappear. If it continues, then that is likely to happen. I am just putting this out there. Is he really a changed man? If so, that would be a good thing. If he is just doing this because now the 'house negro' is one of his own, then he is a hypocrite. Which is it? That's all I want to know. His behavior now is new territory. We all know his history, now we see the current. Where will the future be? Hopefully off of cable news shows and out of the newspapers.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) And some people, evidently you, will be unhappy and disappointed with Sharpton's toned down, less radical rhetoric. I like it. And when Michael Steele becomes head of the RNC and Sharpton or Jessie refers to HIM as a 'house negro' or an 'uncle Tom', what then? I just want consistency. If this 'toned down' Al is the future, great! That puts his fearmongering side out of commission. I want to see him then continue with this new approach when Steele does something he doesn't approve of.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) Obama promised change. Obama supporters bought into the change. Some will applaud, some will jeer. America! Well, I guess Sharpton 'changed' his mind about the use of 'house negro'.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) I'll take your Wal-Mart and raise you the UAW. AND just about every teachers union out there. And SEIU. The guy running that acts like he is Tony Soprano.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) AD, why do you waste your time on Al Sharpton? I didn't realize you were a fan. Oh no, not a fan in any way. I despise him and what he does. I just ran across that this morning somewhere else and found it humorous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Please, name one who was threatened with expulsion. You miss the point. Why do they get a secret vote, when they want to take it away from employees? What are they afraid of? Being ostracized like Joe? Having committee assignments taken away from them if they didn't vote for Waxman?

Before Obama, Al was pretty vocal against blacks in power, especially Colin Powell and Condi Rice.Al got this question at a speech at Tennessee State University in Nashville: "Rev. Al Sharpton, Do you believe that political leaders such as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are viewed as "house negroes" by other African Americans, by going along with the President against their beliefs?" Here was his response then: NOW, after Obama, Al Sharpton is outraged that Al-Qaeda would dare call Barack Obama or anyone a "house negro": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3U2IZfxCV0 Another case of do as I say, not as I do. My only hope in an Obama victory was that the professional race-baiters like Al and jessie would go away. I wonder how long until they petition congress and Obama for a bailout?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) Yeah, because there were so many people threatening to expel Democrats from the caucus and leave them unemployed if they didn't vote a certain way...totally comparable. You do realize that you just made my point. Unless there WAS a threat to those that voted the wrong way on Waxman, why the need for a secret vote? Whereas with unionization, there is a very real threat to those that don't vote the right way so they NEED the secret vote. yet dems don't want them to have that. I guess 'do as I say, not as I do' applies here.

Funny how a secret ballot rtoo remove Dingall is good enough for the dems, but they want so bad to do away with the secret ballot for workers regarding unions. Just sayin.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) There were a lot of people in the business world in the early 80s that said the same thing about their typewriters. And in the early 80's, if typewriters and the ribbons were suddenly to go up is cost by 500% or more because of government regulations, it wouldhave hurt business in the short and mid term. Would it have hastened the coming of computers? Probably not, as they came about pretty damn fast without government intervention. It's not all or nothing. Drill, AND create new sources. And don't kill coal before you have the new souces online, either.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 12:12 PM) it's actually a fun game to play. Ballot #1= Franken Ballot #2= McCain Ballot #3= Invalid Ballot #4= Franken Ballot #5= Franken (no other circle filled in for that race) Ballot #6= Invalid Ballot #7= Invalid Ballot #8= Franken Ballot #9= Barkley Ballot #10= Barklet Ballot #11= Invalid The problem is intent vs following the f***ing instructions. You fill in 2 ovals, no vote. If you want to let the ones with a dot slide, I can see that, but in case like #4, where the whole dot is filled in, I don't care if he wrote a damn thesis as to why no Coleman, he filled in two ovals, it should be invalid. I notice you didn't apply the same logic on #4 to #11, where they clearly crossed out Frankins name. If #4 is good, then so should be #11. In reality, they should both be tossed. Ballot #1= Franken Ballot #2= McCain Ballot #3= Invalid Ballot #4= Invalid Ballot #5= Franken Ballot #6= Invalid Ballot #7= Invalid (i am torn on this one, how much is just a slip of the pen, how much is being a dumbass who can't follow directions?) Ballot #8= Franken Ballot #9= Barkley Ballot #10= Barkley Ballot #11= Invalid