Rob E Dangerously

You have a source for that? (and for the Mondale claim too)

and I just had the idea of a Zombie movie that would use "Alive" (POD) during one part of it. Just imagine it.

for some reason, "Wood Shop" cracks me up too.

I think there's some kinky bondage sex involved with that Marney. Yeah.

No offense to Senator Kerry. I just don't like him very much. So, let's go off to Open Secrets. Top contributors to Kerry's campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/co...0245&cycle=2004 Skadden, Arps et al (law firm) - $99,800 Piper Rudnick (business law firm) - $71,500 Citigroup (We know what this is, right?) - $71,500 And.. Mintz Levin (more lawyers) - $64,705 Goldman Sachs - $62,600 And here's GS news.. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_560099,0002.htm Robins, Kaplan et al (law firm) - $62,600 Among the other notables on that list Morgan Stanley Time Warner And why did I note what I did on GS and Citigroup? because Kerry is now openly anti-offshore and presumably anti-Enron. At the very least, if Kerry is taking money from people doing what he detests, it's another flip for him. There's tons of other stuff to try and sink Kerry before the convention. I'd prefer that happen before Kerry's the nominee.

The asshole should hold out and go off to defend his "Heavyweight title"

The spending never stops in the Bush presidency. #1 - Anybody expecting the UN to get this paid off by 2034? (Note: it can be easily forgiven too, ya know). Feel free to mention one time where the UN repaid a loan. #2 - If the UN risked irrelevance last year, why is Bush now paying for renovations? Seems like a bit of a flip. (You mean the UN doesn't have money to do that? So Bush has to spend some more to help them out) "According to the article, the total amount that the UN will pay us is $2.5 billion. Of course, since we are part of the UN, we have to contribute to paying off the loan, our share will total $265 million. (Funny what you learn when you actually read the article.)" Bush sure is doing a hell of a job of pissing all over his base, isn't he? Under the assumption that Conservatives wouldn't dare stay home or vote against him.

Poor, sweet Saddam Hussein. Hey, Saddam's still an asshole. It's just that if you're living there, you'd take whatever means you could to try and make him look a bit worse to the Americans (well, without getting yourself killed in a dungeon) There's not much to suggest some sort of thing like that. It's just that nobody really knows what the hell went on with the movements around sites that were being inspected. Now, if something does get discovered. I'll reserve a reaction for when it happens instead of guaranteeing one now. (It wouldn't be too stunning if weapons were either not ready to be used, or if the Iraqis weren't able to figure out how to use them) Yeah.. (whatever happened to those cargo boats anyways? just asking)

I didn't expect anything more from Lennox. What a fucking asshole.

Ignoring the fact that the US (and the UN, I think) were asking Iraq to prove a negative, which isn't too possible. (To prove that they didn't have something). And also prove their destruction (i'm sure there's guidelines on proving that, like inviting a UN person to watch it, or videotaping it). I'd say Iraq was a clusterfuck. They denied alot of that, and there were some movements of supposed stuff. Wouldn't stun me if some Iraqis wanting to try and get Saddam out would try to create an impression of concealment. Maybe there was some concealing. But, as of yet, there's not been any finds. Especially not up to the level of stuff expected. Especially since there was a vibe of 'we know they have this for sure'. (I also speculated that if the Iraqis had any WMDs to use, they'd fuck it up anyways. They'd probably give the dangerous stuff to the guys who were less likely to surrender to CNN trucks though)

so much for his plan of wearing a nipple-exposing shirt like Hammer did in WCW

You're right, it's all part of a secret plot run by the Illuminati, which George W. Bush happens to be a member of. Don't tell anyone I told you that. I've got some protection due to my involvement with the Knights Templar, but those Skull & Bones buggers can be real assholes about leaked information. Bush is the biggest tease ever. How many terror scares has this been now? (kidding again)

Would Bernie Williams work at third base?

so.. if you throw ricin and birds eat it.. do they explode? j/k

The Yankees can try a new defense. Three infielders. Three outfielders. One guy to try catching/stopping stuff hit between those areas.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm "Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution? Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right? I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married — that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere? The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive. How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights? Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do." and here we go.. "The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government. Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now, where's the right to privacy? It is clearly in those two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution." but, that's just one point of view.. it was countering the Santorium POV on 'lack of sodomy laws -> man/dog marriage' statement. and that's writing new law? just asking. If i've been paying attention, it seems there's a bit of room to move on banning PBAs while keeping it constitutional. Anybody remember if they passed it and got it signed this year? I know they're considering it again. and which laws has the Supreme Court passed? (note: overturning laws does not equal passing laws)

Here's the defensive spectrum.. [ - - 1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C - - ] Players generally move right to left on it. What are some moves that you're expecting? Soriano started at shortstop and moved to second, and may move to center field.

#1 - So, in the long run, everybody was duped into thinking Iraq had WMDs. In this massive intelligence failure, who's the people who really pushed this idea. I'm not exactly expecting anybody to be revealed in an investigation as the main advocates of this. Although, would you say there's some ulterior motive among the more devoted believers of this? I'm not suggesting anything, it's just a question. Would it be plausible that some people would seek a regime change and go to these measures to insure it? #2 - So, if Bush had known the truth at the time of invasion. He could have still moved into Iraq. (Although with a more legitimate motive). As opposed to passing responsibility to somebody else? He can take responsibility for something in his power. The decision to go to war in Iraq was in his power. He is responsible for that decision no matter what. Instead of taking responsibility for the decision, it's being passed to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. "I make the decision to invade Iraq with what turned out to be false information. It's regrettable that such a thing happened and I take responsibility for my decision." If it makes anybody feel better, the M/W definations for 'lie' are "1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression" It'd be hard to determine if he had intent to decieve. But, he did create a false/misleading impression. Or false "1 : not genuine <false documents> <false teeth> 2 a : intentionally untrue <false testimony> b : adjusted or made so as to deceive <false scales> <a trunk with a false bottom> c : intended or tending to mislead <a false promise> 3 : not true <false concepts> 4 a : not faithful or loyal : TREACHEROUS <a false friend> b : lacking naturalness or sincerity <false sympathy> 5 a : not essential or permanent -- used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance <a false ceiling> 6 : inaccurate in pitch <a false note> 7 a : based on mistaken ideas <false pride> b : inconsistent with the facts <a false position> <a false sense of security> 8 : threateningly sudden or deceptive <don't make a false move>" I'd that definations 1, 2 and 7 fit what happened. Although, some of them paint it as being intentional. There's a vast difference here. He's responsible for his decisions made with faulty intelligence. But, that doesn't really come close to anything with 9/11. There probably isn't much evidence suggesting Bush made any decisions that ended up causing that to occur. I'd consider that irrelevant. But, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the 'new course' for the thread instead of Bush and WMDs and Iraq.

Some people don't see the Twins winning their own division

hey.. this is the History Channel. They could have said that the Nazis killed Kennedy with a V2.

#1: when Bush was coming into office, I heard people mention that he'd be able to surround himself with good people, and it's make up for any lack of skill he might have at that moment. So, I guess that never quite worked out for him. As for making a decision based on wrong information. He did it. And he should take responsibility for it. Not any of this 'lousy information' stuff. Bush was elected to restore intregity and character in the White House, remember? Can you read minds? So, does having the wrong information make the decision-maker immune from responsibility? Or, should he take the responsibility, instead of passing the buck?

Just a thought.. We know the meaning of the term 'The Buck stops here', right? for those unfamiliar.. "The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else." Now, while option 2 is probably true. Under the ideal of that slogan, the responsibility for decisions belongs to the President, no matter what intelligence he was given. He's responsible for making the decision no matter what. No passing of blame onto intelligence reports.

Uh huh Mike. It's not like Roe v. Wade struck down laws against Abortion. Nah. It's not that simple. Nope. To strike down laws, they just made more laws. It's not like the fact that you can't have laws banning something, which makes it legal, would be enough. Instead, the court somehow passed new laws. Any laws you care to cite as being invented by the USSC via the Roe v Wade decision? or in the case of this?

I just went out and voted for Edwards. Any comments/thoughts on how tonight will go primary-wise?

Is it just me or does anybody else think the primary system should be scrapped and replaced with national primaries?