NoCalMike

My gawd, if Katie Couric can make you look like a dolt....

From pasted article HAHAHA. Seriously McCain, how is an hour of debating going to get in the way of you "rescuing America"

For a wedding gift last year someone got us "Mr Coffee's Tea Maker" It was the best gift I ever got. It brews a half gallon of tea in about ten minutes. I have been drinking so much tea it aint even funny. My current favs are Rasberry and Green Mint tea. I love the stuff. I also like Chai but haven't brewed it yet with my teamaker, but I kinda consider Chai Tea a hybrid if only because it is best w/milk IMO.

I had Carls Jr tonight and lemme tell you what, that Banana 'Nilla shake is the bomb. I never had a chance to try the captain crunch one and now it is gone(at least in stores around here) but tasting the Banana Nilla shake has probably made up for it.

I dunno. I like them both but I think each guy suits the style of the band better for his respective era. I dunno how Corpsegrinder is doing now, but if you have the Live Cannabalism DVD, he used to really struggle when singing Barnes-era Corpse songs. He wasn't very good at the deep growls and grunts, but he blew Barnes away at the faster, speedier deliveries. So really, I think each guy has their strength and weaknesses and they both were a good fit for their respective era in Cannibal Corpse.

....The Anal Cunt song?

Well even being a diehard Skins isn't enough to pick them this week. I think the Skins could make a closer game then people think, the game in Dallas last season they had two chances for game winning drives in the fourth quarter. Their defense had no answer for Owens though but that was also right when Sean Taylor went down to an injury, Landry was a rookie and wasn't trusted enough by coaches to be put at FS(which he is now playing) and they used Reed Daughty at FS. I also thinK Springs was hurt but I can't be sure. The Skins have been pretty successful shutting down Marion Barber everytime they play, but that just means he is due for a breakout game against the Skins eventually, and this could be THE GAME for that seeing that it is an NFC East showdown early in the season. If this game was a few more weeks into the season in which I could more accurately judge the Redskins as a team, I might have had the nerve to predict an upset, but I will go with my head this time and predict... Dallas 31 Redskins 21

Well I guess you'd have to take a big percentage of the "90% of black people" out because a huge portion are always voting democratic ANYWAY, regardless of the race of the candidate. Of course there are going to be some new black voters that are coming out to vote for Obama based soley on race, no one is disputing that, but to me it is much more alarming that lifetime democrats aren't voting for Obama based on any difference in policy issues, rather based on his race and/or stereotypes associated with Obama's race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/ And hey, maybe McCain would have 20% more votes if it weren't for party prejudice. Do you know there are some people who will not vote for another party's candidate no matter what? Holy shit, you're a moron. People CHOOSE their party, can switch parties, and there are difference between them. People who'd vote for someone or not vote for someone just because of their party are basing that decision on a choice the candidate made about who they want to be associated with. People cannot CHOOSE their race, switch races, and there are no fundamental differences between them except superficial differences in outward appearance. What race you are says nothing about your fundamental values, who you will associate with politically, or your values. For you to equate the two is an acknowledgment of some pretty fundamental ignorance on your part. You missed my point. How many people will vote for their party's candidate running for any office just because they represent the party that they are affiliated with, completely ignoring everything everything else about the candidates except for the fact that they share the same political party. Just because a person is a member of your political party is a pathetic reason to vote for someone, just like basing your vote on race is. "Im not gonna vote for Obama because he's black (and Im white)" is essentially the same as "Im not gonna vote for Z because hes X party (and Im Y Party)". Now if people of a party go out and vote for a member of their party after doing research about both candidates, thats fine with me. But I have a feeling that a small to decent sized percentage of voters only go and "pull the lever" for people who are of their party taking nothing else into consideration. Well then what does that say about the power of true racism when lifetime democratic voters aren't going to vote for Obama because of his race?

I didn't want to post the same article in two threads, so lets just say I hope this study http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc gets picked up and covered more by the corporate media and possibly referenced during the debates, because there were plenty of people saying this sort of thing back when the media and republicans were out there pushing the "Surge is working, you liberals were wrong all along" rhetoric.

Oh Geez....there still is an occupation going on in Iraq right? And the Surge is WORKING......right....RIGHT? According to this study, ermm, NO!!! Ethnic cleansing, not surge, key to drop in Iraq violence - study http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday. The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed. Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence. "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement. "Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict. Some 2 million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq, while 2 million more have sought refuge in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Previously religiously mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad became homogenized Sunni or Shi'ite Muslim enclaves. The study, published in the journal Environment and Planning A, provides more evidence of ethnic conflict in Iraq, which peaked just before U.S. President George W. Bush ordered the deployment of about 30,000 extra U.S. troops. The extent to which the troop build-up helped halt Iraq's slide into sectarian civil war has been debated, particularly in the United States, with supporters of the surge saying it was the main contributing factor, and others arguing it was simply one of a number of factors. "Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved," Agnew's team wrote in their report. Agnew's team used publicly available infrared night imagery from a weather satellite operated by the U.S. Air Force. "The overall night light signature of Baghdad since the U.S. invasion appears to have increased between 2003 and 2006 and then declined dramatically from 20 March 2006 through 16 December 2007," their report said. They said the night lights of Shi'ite-dominated Sadr City remained constant, as did lights in the Green Zone government and diplomatic compound in central Baghdad. Lights increased in the eastern New Baghdad district, another Shi'ite enclave. Satellite studies have also been used to help document forced relocations in Myanmar and ethnic cleansing in Uganda. (Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Ross Colvin)

It seemed like McCain was just trying to play up the "media hates me" utter bullshite cherade because it is a rallying cry of the far-right in this country. It's all the medias fault, ALWAYS!!! I like how McCain never hated the media until 2008.

The Cardinals looked decent against a medicore 49ers team(Mind you the 49ers had FIVE freakin turnovers in that game) and very good against a garbage Miami team. Washington at home. I'll take the Skins. 24-17

The Eagles looked like the better well oiled offense to me though. They used the modified WCO that they have been running under Reid for forever, using short plays to setup the bigger plays. They were getting all sorts of chunks of yards in every way thinkable. They simply fucked up in the fourth quarter and it cost them the game on something as simple as handing the ball off. The Cowboys seemed to live and die by the big play. Their running game was basically STUFFED at the line of scrimmage and it seemed like the Cowboys were playing a game of "chicken" basically saying, "If we run these deep routes on every other play, you might be able to defend it a couple of times, but eventually someone will break open" The Cowboys have a ton of big play potential on every down, but they seem to lack the toughness that is needed to win consistently in december and come playoff time. Of course, Week 2 is way to early to make any type of decisive judgement, but that is the way they came off looking against a team that could match up with them pretty well.

It seems like Dallas ran that same route/play for Witten about five times in the second half and the Eagles repeatedly were not ready for it.

Well it also depends what quality of boxing matches are being put on the card.

Pathetic. Wow. Who knew all along it was those dang MUSLINS behind all of this......

Wow, that RNC clip reminds me of something I'd see in the movie Requiem for a Dream after the mom took a diet (speed) pill.

Yeah the Wolf thing is pretty despicable. Whether there is good reason or not for the Wolves to be hunted(population control) is an entire seperate issue in itself, however the aerial killings/huntings is surely not a very humane way to go about it and reeks of just giving in to the gun lobby to allow a bunch of savages to go out and kill stuff. Regarding McCain's thoughts on the Sex Ed thing, I really think McCain, Palin, and the majority of conservative pundits know DAMN WELL that the ad isn't referring to teaching sex ed to kids, but they figure that if it is repeated enough then by the time the election rolls around there will be so much doubt about it that it will sway some voters. This is exactly the dishonest type of politics that I am tired of. I heard the View interview(I have a walkman that picks up TV channel audio) and if I recall correctly Joy Behar basically called McCain out on that ad, and McCain said "It's not a lie" but then kind of hurrily skipped to the next topic without explaining himself.

Orphin or whatever it was called. It was an early PS2 game based on a japanese anime charatcer. It was an RPG hybrid. It got horrible reviews but I really enjoyed it.

Why does she need to 'address the press'? People are free to run their campaigns anyway they want to. She's doing an interview. Now it has to be a full blown press conference. I don't remember Lieberman or Cheney doing those in 2000 or Edwards in 04. There are four ways a reporter can do things: gotcha questions (pulled on Bush), tough but fair questions, out-of-bounds slime questions, or fluff. A press confrence would become gotcha attempt, no doubt about it. I really think the national press overrates their importantance to the political process. I've managed to stay informed and I watch football on sundays, not those dull chit-chat shows. Hell, I knew what was going on five days ago when my lights were out due to Gustav and all I had was local radio. Ok I didn't mean "address the press" moreso, take questions from the press. Thus far she has been repeating her jokes and one-liners on the campaign trail, which is fine for the red-meat speeches where you are preaching to the choir, but funny how she isn't getting the criticism of "Is she anything more then a good speech" and/or "She's just a celebrity/superstar with no substance" Instead the media is focusing on and leading it's coverage with sensationalistic topics that in the end, don't matter a worth a damn. Of course, why am I suprised?

UFC bought out Affliction?

The thing is the media is building up this Charlie Gibson interview like it is going to "set the record straight" when in reality these types of pre-taped interviews are usually 90% fluff pieces. Palin needs to address the press and take un-edited questioning. Whether you are a fan of hers or not, you must admit that ever since she has been announced as VP, she has been protected and very well hidden by the McCain campaign.

Well I think right now the media is turning this into Obama vs. Palin, which is deflecting all attention away from McCain. McCain is just sitting back and letting the media and Democrat strategists rail on Palin while the attention shifts away from him. I actually think Obama's camp needs to steer this campaign back towards the , "excuse me, remember McCain is the nominee and yes he is a continuation of 8 years of Bush" Leave it up to Biden to take care of Palin at the debates.

If "middle america" "small town folk" "real people" or whatever buzzword republicans like to use, are STILL willing to vote for the continuation of the policies of the last eight years thinking it is going to suddenly turn out any better for them this time around, then I am not really sure what is going to get them to stop voting republican. Honestly, I think the Democrats are going to get a higher turnout and THAT is the main factor that will win the election, and voter turnout/new voters are not really being accounted for in any of the polls that are coming out/changing daily. None of the talking heads seem to be talking about new voters and the Democrats seeming to be doing a better job getting new folks interested.