EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 03:19 AM) LOL!!! Oh my God that looks friggin' GREAT! It could be a double bill with Shaun Of The Dead! I just saw that one last weekend! I liked it! Wife did not.

A hammer would work wonders. I share your hate for computers, on most days. I had my whole work network just shut down today for no reason. I had to shut everything down and restart piece by piece. And I know NOTHING about networks. But I had to get it started in an hour to finish a job on time. Somehow, I got it restarted. No idea how to fix yours, but I wish you luck.

http://www.thesouthwillriseagain-themovie....iler_embed.html

I'm all for having to show ID to vote. Contrary to the popular liberal belief, just about everybody of voting age has an id. You can't get into a bar without id, can't write a check without id, can't get on an airplane without id and so on. There are also provisions in several states to subsidize state idcards for those who "can't afford the $20". So if the id's are free, do you still have a problem with them?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US. That's some speechifyin! http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm If Bush would have made a comparable speech in the UN, you would be one of the first to decry his 'Cowboy ways'. Bush mentions 'axis of evil', and all hell breaks loose about his reckless rhetoric will only lead to an escalation of tensions. Chavez talks the same, he gets accolades and probably an invite to the French embassy.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) I am REALLY hoping Obama runs. He is one fo the last hhopes we have as a country right now. When is Obama going to tour the ancestrial homeo fhis mother? I guess there is no political capital to be had touring Kansas and letting black voters know you are half white.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) I don't know as much about Byrd to be honest. I'll take your word for it. Plus, if he was secretly holding this bill back, he is pretty much automatically scummy in my book. Half his damn state is named after him. Robert Byrd Bridge, Robert Bird Parek, etc. If it wasn't for Stevens, nobody would even be close to him. They both stay overtime at the feeding trough.

QUOTE(Damen @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 05:15 AM) Actually, it's not that uncommon. There have been a number of articles I've seen in the past year detailing a certain congressman's corruption (like Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney) where their party affiliation is never brought up. So you know, it works both ways. Yes, it can, and has, worked both ways. But I don't reacall anytime hearing about Ney and not hearing the word 'Republican" shortly afterwards. Google Bob Ney http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101701918.html 2nd paragrapgh mentions ® http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/15/ney...ship/index.html second paragraph says 'Republican' http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/...in2012370.shtml 2nd paragraph has ® http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213927,00.html Even Fox news has it in the second paragraph http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080700078.html Opening words ® http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=58497&r=0 second paragraph http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/15/ney...tion/index.html again, opening line. I tried to stay away from blogs, these were just the news stories on the first 3 pages of google. And Rex, there is no fake outrage here (at least by me), just disgust at politics in general, and this one in specific.

I think Billy could do the job fine. Seriously. He IS an eloquent speaker (when he isn't wagging his finger while lying in the face of the nation). However, I think that he may either 1) go anti-US on his first opportunity to 'prove' that he can be 'fair', or 2) decide something 'fairly' that happens to favor the US and have all hell break loose with the tinpot dictators crying foul.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 04:41 AM) so what? How is this newsworthy? You have a white Democrat running against a black Republican and Quasi Mfume, or however you spell that name. You have staffers making racial comments and jokes. Do you hear Jessie Jackson screaming in the background? Because if those comments came from Daley in regards to Jessie Jr., you couldn't pry him away from TV cameras with a tank. Where is the black outrage over this? The silence alone is newsworthy.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 03:03 AM) It's bad journalism, and most likely an oversight honestly. . I call bulls*** on that. It is commomplaceto put the party affiliation, such as ® or (D) after the names at least the first time they appear in the story. If there was 'oversight', it got past the reporter, and copy editior. And they were 'honest' about it? Calling her a junior staffer isn't quite true. They declined to identify her. The blog entries appeared on "Road Diaries of the Persuasionatrix," http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/pol...-home-headlines (sorry, don't know how to make those neat, little links). Here is a link to her blog. http://politics.wizbangblog.com/docs/Persu...gust%202006.htm Quotes from her own blog. "There are definite perks to starting as senior staff. I show up and everyone listens, I don't have to do the majority of the grunt work or obnoxious calls. I have interns for that." Now, this doesn't imply that she is head of campaigns or anything, but senior staff sure sounds quite different that junior staffer. But yes, he did the right thing and fired her. I just read that her name is Ursula Gruber, a Chicago native who was recently hired by the Cardin campaign, although not sure on the accuracy of that.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/16/D8K6BS8GA.html Almost masterfull how they could write the whole story and not once use the word DEMOCRAT.

http://www.observer.com/20060918/20060918_...fftherecord.asp Sounds to me like teaching them to obstruct justice by destroying and/or conceling evidence.

Ketchup and onions, that way people leave me alone.

I tripley feel your pain, having blown out both knees, my right one twice. Take care of them while you are young, because it only gets worse if you don't. I creak in the morning, stairs sound like bubble wrap popping with each bend of the knee, rain makes even walking hard to do, I can't sit for more than an hour at a time, every so often the right one just locks in the bent position for about 3 or 4 minutes and bowling is about the only "sport" I can do now (thankfully the left one didn't get hirt too bad, so I can still plant on it). Take care of those knees, and good luck at the doc.

In the upcoming Species 4, just think of all the alien sex you would get to see if they hired Ron Jeremy as the director! Porn star alien babes scewing every guy in sight so they can reproduce alien porn star babies!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) "Fake but accurate?" What is this, CBS & Dan Rather News? I fixed that for you, Rex.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 04:11 AM) Evil, as much as I like to report on government abusing their positions, I'm siding with Rex on this one. I think it was a reminder that they have a public trust that has to be upeld. Likewise, I would support the network stating that it is a public trust and that is why they are airing it commercial free and making it available for schools. IN other words, both can make the same statement to back their position. Now, I wonder how much of the point counterpoint on what is accurate and what isn't, is based on politics. Tex, I make no claims on its accuracy. I haven't seen it, and based on reports that appear even on 'conservative' blogs, there are some 'fake, but accurate' moments in it. But this IS a threat to change, or else.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 03:23 AM) First, I don't see a threat here. I see a reminder - which networks seem to get all too rarely - that the bandwidth that they utilize every day does not belong to them but to everyone. A threat to someone's license is more along the lines of what you saw with nipplegate, not the Reagans and not this letter. However, an argument may be made (and knowing slim to nothing about political advertising before an election - I don't know) that this special docudrama, because of the way it has been marketed may be an in-kind political contribution and possibly in violation of FCC/FEC guidelines towards political advertising within an election window. You should change your name to ostrich if you can't see that, since your head is obviously buried somewhere.

If I reply to this thread, will it ruins Brian's rep as thread killer? Good for the nurse. You do what you have to do to keep yourself safe. I am glad it works out in her favor.

What other ways would there be to punish them> Not saying this is wrong or right, just asking? If there were rules, and they didn't follow them, some sort of penalty needs to be handed out, but what is fair?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 08:23 PM) Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in. But should this same geologist be off spouting views about economic theory, or slavery, when they have nothing to do with advancing the field they are in? The guy in the story is a cold fusion specialist. What does 9-11 have to do with advancing any ideas in cold fusion?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) Here's the "veiled threat" from Senator Reid and a few others. And after reading that, did you NOT see a threat? Even you are not blind enough to miss the subtlty there. "Gee, what a nice network you have. It would be a shame if something happened to it" Almost like this came from the Sopranos. And this isn't the first time the Dems have threatened people with revocation of licenses. Remember Sinclair Broadcasting? Sinclair Broadcasting owns 62 local TV stations around the country. It planned to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on about 40 of them in October 2004. That would be right before the presidential election. But the Kerry campaign got wind of it and threatened Sinclair that its licenses might be in jeopardy if it aired the doc and Kerry happened to win. Words from the Dems on the Regan movie. "No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right. But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs." Hmm. Seems like the word Bush should be replaced with Clinton? This the Same Jamie Gorelick that was instrumental in creating that so-called wall between the FBI & CIA that helped to contribute to this mess? I wonder if she wants that part changed, too? You can argue about the timing all you want. I won't disagree, it seems a little odd. You can argue facts all you want, but it doesn't say 'a true story'. If people are too stupid to realize that, oh well. But you can't argue that threatening to revoke a license for political programming you disagree with is a good thing. Maybe Bush should have tried to yank CBS's license after Rathergate, and the 'fake but accurate' documents.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:11 PM) so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened? I was just gonna say that. Beat me to the punch!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit. The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses. How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11? How I would react is not the point. Stay on point and quit trying to bring in stray arguments. The point is that the Democrats are trying to extort ABC into changing or nor releasing the movie with the threat of removing thier license. That is just wrong, any way you look at it. So are you suggesting that if they took commercial breaks that it would be ok?