EvilMonkey

At least he is one Democrat in favor of drilling.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) I hate you for posting that. My eyes will never be the same.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) When push comes to shove, as long as what my elected's do behind closed doors is their business - provided it's legal. You're right, if you have a politician railing against one thing or another and then doing the very things he claims to despise - they have a right to be embarrassed. But this man is currently running for nothing. This man is currently not an elected official. And his private life should be just that, private. It holds about as much importance to you and me as Lindsay Lohan's drinking habits or sexuality. He may not be running for anything, but rumors are (or at least were) high for a cabinet position.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 7, 2008 -> 08:46 PM) Im really looking forward to Blowjobavichs cameras on the expressways to send tickets in the mail for speeding so the revenue can be used for more police on the south side. That's all Blago needs is a tactical unit under his control. The man belongs in jail, not running a state. And speeding cameras will not happen here. Thankfully, against state law, for now. However, if they ever do appear, they won't spend much time in an operable state.

I would have put this in the video thread, but the political content probably makes it a better fit here. "Nobody laughs about my ears. Not even the press is allowed to talk about my ears!"

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) November can't come soon enough... I'll agree with that!

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 7, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of. I hope I am one of those. If you feel the same, pass this on to your redneck friends. Ya'll know who ya' are. You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God' You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places. You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.' You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays. You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem. You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have. You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to. You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening. You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same. You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend. Just make sure the rednecks backing you up had either no beer or enough beer, otherwise a beer run just might interupt things. Always hated the term redneck, but most of the above fit me. Oh well.

Here, learn something about the Hadron Collider.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 5, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) Aside from that being a gross mischaracterization of the Killian/Bush guard service story and the subsequent forgery claims, it is an utterly illogical line of reasoning. Two journalists investigating two entirely different stories, and because one reporter runs with dubious documents that should have been better authenticated, that has bearing on the veracity of Suskind's story. . . how?? We've had 7+ years of people digging for stuff on Bush & Co., and all I am saying is that if this was really out there then, it would have been found out before now. The Rather bit was referenceing the rabit reporters angling to get Bush. There has been such a frenzy in the past that it has led to some supposedly good journalists to run with knowingly false information. Knowing that someone of Rather's previous stature can f***up so badly, how can people NOT be skeptical of stuff that 'comes out', especially the closer to an election it gets.

QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ Aug 5, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) I don't think this is a modern frenzy at all. I don't think this article, playing second-fiddle to the "hot bod mom with the missing tot" counts as a frenzy, and I think back to the days of yellow journalism, the muckrakers, etc. etc. and don't see anything at all "modern" about this. It's nothing new. Reporters report and investigate. That's their job. Always has been, always will be, and is now. If this was really out there, why did Rather have to make s*** up to report about? The point is, and you can say it about any politician in office now, the media has been digging for years. Something like this could not have been secret this long, and why does it always seem like the person that supposedly finds these thing always has an agenda and/or an axe to grind with whoever they find them out about?

To go off on sort of a tangent, is there anyone around who doesn't know that bringing huge amounts of cash thru an airport will most likely get it taken away?

VERy dark by me, lots of wind and rain. And thunder. Everyone is in the basement, just to be safe.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) Another one is to get suspended for intentionally hitting a batter for no apparent reason at all. Then you force some AAA rook to crap in his pants in the middle of a pennant race. Then he will pose against your replacement and not you. Yep, I guess that's an efficient way to do it. That was so far over the top is was Tex-like.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 02:05 AM) On my drive home from work just now, a car pulls alongside me and keeps pace, which of course makes me look over. 3 young whippersnappers are wearing Groucho Marx glasses and waving their arms around like idiots. Maybe I'm overtired but it made me laugh. I gave them the golf clap and they happily drove away. I hope the driver wasn't as intoxicated as the passengers seemed to be. Did you say the secret word?

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 04:29 PM) So guys like Thome, Griffey, Konerko should have gotten beaned a couple of times? Because those players. They don't pose. Their slowness at getting out of the box just confuses you momentarily. And posing after a Hr should get you knocked down or hit, not the next batter. Hitting 2 Hr in a row should also have your feet moving out of the box, if nothing than to just stop you from being so comfortable in the box. And there are a few batters the Sox face that they should just consider either hitting from pitch one or walking, either one would be better than what they usually do to us.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 3, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) Now that's funny. And, pathetic, whoever came up with it. You forgot 'frightening'. Especially with those eyes of hers.

Nice play by Swisher in a crappy game.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 3, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) With them up 9, you can bet someone is getting drilled for us. First batter up turns to the catcher and says 'if i get beaned, i hit you with the bat. go tell your pitcher'.

Olivio is one ex-Sox I really hate. hated him when he was here, hate him more now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) Assuming you spent $4 a gallon, that's 100 gallons of gas, which means that ending the federal tax would save you $18 a month, if 2 things happened. First, money would have to be found somewhere else to pay for the transportation work that is paid for by the gas tax, which presumably means more debt, which eventually someone is going to have to pay back. Secondly, that assumes that when the price of gasoline drops $.20 a gallon, that somehow supply and demand break down, and people don't decide that they can buy more gas, pushing demand upwards and forcing the price back upwards. Just compared to another $1000 "thanks for voting for me" check, if you're buying 100 gallons of gas a month, it would take you nearly 5 years to recoup the amount in the Obama happy check. Not that it's a good idea, but that might give you some idea of how much profit the oil companies are raking in, if you could take enough money away from them to give those sorts of rebate checks. Oh, trust me, I kow the implications to the government tax-wide of a tax holiday, I was just askin'. But what about the people who don't drive? Do they get a check too? Should they get a check too? And just my opinion, but I think that with the prices as high as they are now for as long as they have been have made a significant shift in the way people (in general) will drive now and in the future, even if gas drops $.20 per gallon. if it drops $1 a gallon, that may be another story.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 3, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) Ok, I have a few moments to type put a very general points as to why I'd rather see a $1000 rebate rather than a gas tax holiday. Let's start with the very basic: $1000 > $30-50. That's the simple point. A gas tax holiday will gave you less than a tank of gas depending on the type of car you drive. Let's break it down a little more. As had been pointed out many times, a gas tax holiday drains the highway fund. Want another bridge collapse? well, then I would think giving the fund LESS money is a very bad idea. Yes, automobile gas is stinging families with moderate to low incomes. But, the problem is much broader. Electricity costs are rising. Natural gas prices are high. So, if we are going to lift the tax on auto gas, then lift it on electricity and natural gas. Even THEN it probably isnt much more a few hundred dollars (maybe more over the winter). Once again, $1000 > $30-50. A $1000 refund will have a big impact on saving the economy than 10 cups of coffee at Starbucks. Wouldn't a gas tax holiday help those that drive the most, the most? Why should everyone get a $1000 check? My wife works out of the house, should she get a check? I spent $400 on gas last month, I could save alot. How about the people who live in the city and take a bus or walk to work? They don't really need the gas 'releif', do they? Just asking.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 09:19 AM) How about the first article here? Where was the balance? No mention of anyone other then Edwards. No wait, they also dragged Obama's name into it. Of course he's a Dem and Fox News would never think to mention a GOP or miss a chance to link Obama to a scandle. Edwards is 'current'. He is (was) connected to Obama as a potential running mate. He was at the time rumored to be considered for a cabinet post. His connection to the campaign is RELEVANT, at least to mention it. What does Newt have to do with Edwards f***ing another woman? Nothing, except just another way to try and diffuse the stain of Edwards by dumping some Repubs in the story as well.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 09:00 AM) Actually they took an article about one Republican, McCain and all his failed marriages and dragged all these Dems into it. Why? Edwards isn't even in the race. Damn vast right wing conspiracy. They probably held the article waiting for a Dem to be in the news (An Enquirer Article at that!). Pretty careful disguise I think. They knew they needed to continue the liberal media slant and by finding a Dem to attack they could also mention McCain and not be accused. Sneaky. Actually isn't this what you always want? Balanced? Find someone from the opposing party and show they too do the same stuff? When it's a GOP, you always point to Dems that do it too. Let's do the twist, like we did last summer. The article is what it is. That's fine then. When the next article about ted Stevens comes out right around election time, i look forward to it also mentioning all the dirty Democrats as well, including those that have yet to retire like Jefferson.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 07:01 AM) I think that the story was about *what was written*, which is about a string of politicians who have failed in their marriages. And that seems like a very good story idea. It is not a Dem or Rep problem, actually it is something that happens throughout society. Even though it takes 14 paragraphs to mention anyone other than Edwards? Yeah, it was just an article about politicians in general who have failed their marraiges. That's bull. The writer just found a way to take a story that was about one politician, a Democrat, and twist it into something negative about the Republican candidate and positive for the Democratic candidate. There is no other way you can take that with the first 'other' politician mentioned in the bad being McCain, and him ending with Obama's 'picture perfect wife and kids'. And sure, he mentioned Bill, but that only furthur serves to diss Hillary, which the Obamaites hate anyway.

I don't mind the pitchers throwing balls, but can they at least be somewhere NEAR the plate so that the batter MIGHT actually even THINK about swinging at it? These pitches in the dirt are just terrible.