Big Ol' Smitty

How does that matter? It's from the era when this was taking place and it's about the topic at hand. http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20...09-050626-3922r Furthermore, the second part of the report, scuttled by Roberts, was supposed to address "whether the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4530810

I wish Em would just go ahead and put 50 out of his misery. He is embarassing. On the other hand, his new video game looks fun.

Yep, I think that's pretty much guaranteed in fantasy football.

Betcha I can disprove this. He got caught in a lie just the other day... Bush, 9/03 whitehouse.gov 2/04 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/ And then this...he knew all about Rove's actions back when he was saying these things. 10/05 http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html The "presidential counselor" was trying to make Bush look good for chastising Turdblossom Rove, but he/she ended up exposing a big fat lie.

Well that clears that up then. I don't know if it's lying so much as what I would call biased research. The Administration just wanted to go to war so intensely that they refused to acknowledge any evidence that contradicted their pre-existing views. I tend to be less harsh on the Administration over the WMD snafu than the complete bullshit that was the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. A fucking *majority* of Americans thought that Iraq was involved with 9/11 when the war began.

Some have claimed that the Administration put pressure on the intelligence gathering process to produce the "right" results. The second half of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on intel failures was supposed to investigate this, but chairman Pat Roberts simply called it off.

NBA players also have to market themselves. AI's image has worked out quite well for him financially (shoe deals, video game covers, etc.), and he is one the most popular players in the league, consistently selling out the arena in Philly despite being on a pretty mediocre team. I think if, say, in the 80s, Larry Bird had showed up to games wearing t-shirt, jeans, and work boots (I don't know what he did wear) the media and fans would have fawned over it, like "hey look at this regular, average Joe...he's so *blue collar*!" Just like they fawned over how we worked on a garbage truck. But Stern has to market toward where the money is. And the money is with all of the surly old curmudgeons who are afraid of baggy jeans. Stern already tried to market a "hip-hop" league and I guess that was unsuccesful. Here's some more background on this image turnaround: 6 Jun 2005 Sporting News http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/sean-d...y/20050606.html

Here's a bunch of player comments on the dress code. I think Wally Z made a good point.

Pac-Man has leprosy

Dammit! I suck at computers.

This thread title gets me every time.

You can still argue. (nobody cares anymore though)

They have to wear a suit on the bench. And Jason Williams is white *chocolate*, not just regular white.

Damn straight.

HOT HOT HOT HOT HOT

About 2 months ago, did you ever think you'd be saying this?

*clears throat*

me>all thread closed

shit!

Depends. Would you consider yourself "the man"? DP can get pretty silly politically, but the music is fucking sweet. DP got that crazy shit, we keep it crunk up John Blazed and shit

He did a good job making his mugshot not look mugshotty.

whew, thank goodness

Whose jersey is consistently the best selling? AI <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, it's Shaq. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My bad, I thought AI was tops for some reason. Maybe he was at one point. I know Kobe was #1 for a while. But Shaq is also a flamboyant dresser, if not gangsta.

I was really just arguing a hypothetical. I never criticized Christians, I don't know what made you think that. I never said that Christians were stuck up or easily offended. I didn't even say that they "should" be offended by the pledge. I just suggested that, technically, given your take on the meaning of "Under God" in the pledge, that it amounted to taking the name of God in vain. I guess this bothers you. You're confusing an attack on the entanglement of government and religion with an attack on Christianity. I disagree with your whole premise, anyway--that the phrase "Under God" is not an endorsement of religion.