NoCalMike

Well I just registered there the other day cause someone at work told me about it. It is basically a website that offers MMA fantasy. With "fake money" you can bet on the fights, who will win, and then even how they will win/what round/ko/decision etc etc..... I was wondering if anyone on here would be interested in making a TSM league on there, if there is enough interest I will start one for us ASAP... If we hurry soon enough we can get it started before Saturday to use UFC 82 as our first event..... If there is already a league on there for us, then erase this message and send me the link to join....lol.

Well if there is room for me I will join, even though I am late to the game.....my username is "nocalmike" Thanks. EDIT: Oh, and if I am joined up in time, I am picking Hendo.

Well all indications/rumors point to Kimbo Slice vs. Ken Shamrock if Shamrock wins his upcoming fight for Elite XC. Now, for the MMA hardcore fan, the match is a little bit fluffy because Shamrock really has no business taking heavyweight punches to the face anymore, let alone even fighting after all the punishment he has taken over the years, and then Kimbo Slice will has his second fight in a row where he beats down a "big name" that was over the hill and possibly going through the motions for a pay day.........but............ To the casual MMA fans, Kimbo Slice vs. Ken Shamrock on CBS would be motherfucking huge!!! This is great news for the world of MMA. EDIT: Oh, and it's not like Elite XC doesn't have a pretty fucking good roster of fighters to display. Add that to getting nationalized television exposure.....WOW.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far? No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now. That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it? Decisions, decisions. I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation? Experience is worthless if it doesn't provide you with good judgement. For example, John McCain's experience told him it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obama's experience told him it was a bad idea. McCain may have more experience, but Obama has better judgement. Obama was a state senator at the time, hardly in the position to know enough about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to pass judgment one way or the other 5 years later when hindsight is 20/20. I doubt he was getting briefings on that matter or had any access to information about it that the people in the HR and Senate had. And if he had been in the Senate at the time, he may have voted for it anyway despite partisan politics since some democrats that did vote for the Resolution given the intelligence reports that were presented to them at the time. He's fooling a lot of casual voters with his "I did not vote for the Iraq war" crap, which isn't a lie but only because he wasn't eligible to vote for it. Most people who have been pulled into his following probably have no idea he was in the Illinois State Senate in 2003 or probably think that state senators had some say in the war. So if I am voting for Obama because he is fooling me, then at least I have the excuse of being fooled, however you are voting for McCain who really isn't fooling anyone with his poor judgement on the war from the beginning and flip-flopping on key issues, so what exactly is your excuse? Oh and I love this notion that he was "hardly in any position to know enough about....etc" Fuck that noise, plenty of people were opposing the potential invasion during the run up to Iraq and being quite vocal about it, not to mention other nations, and all the protesting the actual citizens of America were doing that was going largely ignored by the media because they were too busy cheerleading for the "with us or against us" administration. All this utter bullshit about "everyone was for the war in 2002, and now they are trying to monday morning QB" is just more revisionist history trying to be peddled. There were people damn angry with what was about to go down, but they were being attacked and labeled "unamerican" "terrorist sympathizers" "soft on terror" etc etc etc.....

Funny stuff....

I think the general consensus on Lloyd as a Redskins was that he was a lazy player that didn't want to have to earn his spot on the WR corps. In San Francisco he was the #1 by default cause everyone else sucked. As Redskins he was competing against Moss and Randal El for catches, which means he had to work and prove himself more in training camp and practice, and he didn't like it. Now me personally, I think Lloyd kind of got shafted a little bit and felt he was very capable as a #2. However I am not part of the coaching staff, and hey his numbers as part of the Redskins speak for themselves, especially that the Skins could sign waiver wire guys that seemed to immediately show the ability to come in and be effective, yet Lloyd never found his groove. Lloyd is the type of WR that could dissapear from the league or have a comeback year in 2007. It is up to him.

I do agree, however now that we are down to a single HD-brand of disc, that means their main competitor will be regular DVD, which costs $5-15 less per DVD. If this keeps blu-ray from truely taking off, then I would expect the price of blu-ray discs to start dropping because if in order for blu-ray related products/accessories to sell, people will have to agree that blu-ray discs are affordable in the first place. I was looking at Wal-Mart.com the other day and there was a good amount of Blu-ray discs available for $19 which is a standard price for a lot of regular dvds. I hope the tend continues at a more rapid pace.... Also, as a new(er) owner of a blu-ray player another side effect is that I am not really buying regular DVDs anymore because the bigger I grow my DVD collection the more I will have to potentially have to replace. I don't plan on replacing 90% of my regular DVDs anyway, but movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard, I would be willing to upgrade to Blu-Ray, but not at the current price. The current price of the Die Hard trilogy on Blu-Ray is $109.00 FUCK. 90 bucks for all 4 die hard movies on Amazon. I've found that Amazon.com has some really great deals on Blu-Ray so far. And I actually ended up getting a PS3 after I got my 1080p LCD as soon as I heard that HD-DVD was going down and the thing that has impressed me most about it is the media streaming options. You set up DLNA through Windows Media Player (might only be for the Vista version of WMP, not sure if XP supports it) and you can stream all your photos, music, and videos to the tv in real time. It even works for more 'exotic' codecs like XVID (for all your TV show pirating needs... if you're unethical and down with that of course...) which is something that I thought there's no way in hell that Sony would do. I'm actually so impressed with the 'openness' of the PS3 so far. Only thing is, those are the bare bones editions of the films. When I upgrade I want the ultimate editions, just formatted in blu-ray. If you don't mind bare bones editions though, then yeah that is a good deal. Of course, the ultimate edition trilogy is out of print anyhow, so that deal you posted above might be the best current available thing, but I have a funny feeling they will re-release the Ultimate editions on blu-ray. Not that I am the pickiest DVD buyer but the Die Hard Ultamite edition trilogy is a really cool set.

McCain, Obama tilt over al-Qaida in Iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_...xPrfzBElxph24cA By LIBBY QUAID and TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 1 minute ago TYLER, Texas - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama's view of al-Qaida in Iraq, and the Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there. The rapid-fire, long-distance exchange Wednesday underscored that the two consider each other likely general election rivals, even though the Democratic contest remains unresolved. McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq." "I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable," Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus. "But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. ... They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001." Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place." While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was "tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future." Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama taunted: "All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq." McCain said he had not watched Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate but was told of Obama's response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war. Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he "would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be — air, ground or both. Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq. "And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida." He said that withdrawing troops would be "waving the white flag." In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained "lots of different hypothetical assessments." For years, McCain has urged sending more troops into Iraq, even before President Bush adopted such a strategy about a year ago. "I knew enough from talking to the men and women who are serving that this new strategy was what we needed, and I'm telling you, it is succeeding," McCain said. "So what needs to happen, we need to continue this strategy. It should be General Petraeus' recommendation, not that of a politician running for higher office, as to when and how we withdraw." He was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. As he began a swing through President Bush's home state, which holds a presidential primary election on Tuesday, McCain made sure to play up a line he always uses: "I also think it might be nice for President Bush to get a little credit that there's not been another attack on the United States of America," he said to applause. Both Obama and Clinton campaigned in Ohio on Wednesday. Obama was heading later in the day for at least three days of campaigning in Texas. ------------------------------------------------------------- It has begun. *grabs popcorn*

Was the guy a cabaret singer? If so, then the movie you saw was "Calvaire." Yep that's it, thanks.

I do agree, however now that we are down to a single HD-brand of disc, that means their main competitor will be regular DVD, which costs $5-15 less per DVD. If this keeps blu-ray from truely taking off, then I would expect the price of blu-ray discs to start dropping because if in order for blu-ray related products/accessories to sell, people will have to agree that blu-ray discs are affordable in the first place. I was looking at Wal-Mart.com the other day and there was a good amount of Blu-ray discs available for $19 which is a standard price for a lot of regular dvds. I hope the tend continues at a more rapid pace.... Also, as a new(er) owner of a blu-ray player another side effect is that I am not really buying regular DVDs anymore because the bigger I grow my DVD collection the more I will have to potentially have to replace. I don't plan on replacing 90% of my regular DVDs anyway, but movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard, I would be willing to upgrade to Blu-Ray, but not at the current price. The current price of the Die Hard trilogy on Blu-Ray is $109.00 FUCK.

As if this needs to be repeated, but for those interested; http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080227/ts_al...mreligionethics Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam by Karin Zeitvogel 1 hour, 43 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence. The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism. It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington. "Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here. "The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said. "Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue." But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan. But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed. Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed. "Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said. Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed. The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps. "The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said. "Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington. Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?" "They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason. "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess. What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said. "Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito. The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed. "A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP. Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

When I worked for McDonalds in 96/97 I remember during the Monopoly promotion we would kind of look through the french fry packs to see what pieces were winning pieces, and then give them away to friends if they came in. I also was there for a beanie baby promotion. My normal shift was 7-3, but for that promotion they wanted to have me work the opening shift of 5-1pm because the place had a line of cars around the parking lot to get the limited edition beanie babies because back then they were a collectors item. There was a limit to five beanie babies at a time, meaning if you bought the value meal it came with one, and then you could purchase up to 4 more seperately. We would have these ladies just arguing with us about how they should be able to buy as much as they want, and when they finally gave up, they would just go to the drive-thru again and buy another value meal to get more beanie babies. Oh and we also had to give out certain ones on certain days, and the ladies would just erupt with anger because we weren't going to go to the back and find ones they didn't already have. I also worked there back when there was no limit to the 39cent cheeseburger promotion, people would come and order 100 at a time. Some were little league coaches, some were just freezing a bunch for future appetite. It was crazy as hell though..... Working for McDonalds provided me with a hell of a lot of funny memories, and I actually like the job itself. Hell if it paid well I might have considered staying there.

Or because Al Qaeda is who attacked us and not Iraq/Iran and it is more effective to keep blurring the line between reality and bush's fantasy land. I mean really, you just summed up Bush's foreign policy ever since 9/11 which is to claim anything troubling "Al Qaeda" and then claim anyone who isn't aligned with his strategy is "aiding the terrorists"

Both Hillary & Obama kind of dropped the ball yesterday when Tim Russert started blabbering about hypothetical situations concerning Iraq if we withdrawl our troops. I believe Russert said something along the lines of "If we withdrawl the troops and Al Qaeda comes back in and starts to take over again would you reserve the right to re-invade" This question was not only a hypothetical which has no business being asked, but it was another intellectually dishonest question in the first place, because Al Qaeda has never been in "control" of Iraq. It is a false premise. Reports and studies by independent groups have already come to the conclusion that at their PEAK Al Qaeda had/has only been responsible for 5% of the violence in Iraq, and it is actually Iraqi militias themselves that are the biggest threat in Iraq. You know, the guys who want us the hell out of their country. Now common knowledge says that if our military leaves, any type of alliance/agreement they had with Al Qaeda to drive us out would come to an end because we are gone. The Bush administration keeps trying to sell the Iraq conflict as some type of friendly alliance between Al Qaeda and "Other extremists" however the truth is, Iraqis are fighting to get us out of there, while Al Qaeda is just there taking advantage of the situation. Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda there anymore then we do, but right now the U.S. Military is a common target.(Not to mention all the different Iraqi factions that are at civil war with each other which is another scenario that catches our troops in the middle) This is why the simple explanation of "Us vs. Them" that Bush and his cronies have been trying to sell the american people is a bunch of bullshit and shows that a complex makeup in a region such as the middle east cannot be solved by the Bush/McCain strategy.

Nikki Reed wrote/co-wrote the movie, she was in the movie, she played the rebellious friend that taught the goodie-two-shoes the dark ways of the force. Evan Rachel Wood is the one dating Marylin Manson, she played the lead character.

but then according to that model, there's no such thing as bad dialogue, it's all just "different." different historical periods obviously have different standards for what makes good dialogue, but there's still a degree of appropriateness for the material. i think the harmony korine comparison is dead-on: they're both one-trick ponies masquerading as auteur writers, though cody seems more aware of her limitations and i don't think has any pretensions about being a great (or even a really good) writer. and i think 'kids' has probably done more harm to the collective indie consciousness of the 90s than anyone realizes. What about the chick who wrote the script for "thirteen" I mean when that movie came out a few years back it was hailed as the beginning of a great career considering how young she was. Now I dunno what the writer has done since and she might have a good and long writing career, and not to say the movie "thirteen" was bad, but honestly, how hard is it to write a script about a teenage girl that goes from a goodie-two-shoes to a rebelling bitch, but by the closing scene(s) she realizes how stupid she has been? I mean that isn't exactly hard subject material, to write about. Anyone who attended junior high and then transitioned to highschool could probably easily recite a similar script off the top of their head and come up with an equally as effective movie. Now of course I am exaggerating as not everyone would have the talent it takes to take a story and make it into a script/screenplay/movie but i hope you all get the point here.

I saw this one horror flick last year on dvd, not sure if it was french or not but it was definately european. It was about this guy that gets lost trying to take a shortcut through the woods in his car and he stumbles on an older odd couple. The flick got weirder as it went and the ending was downright bizarre, I mean just when you thought there was hope....lol. Anyways I can't for the life of me remember the name of it but it is worth checking out. I could talk more in depth if anyone is interested but I would have to use spoiler tags as I wouldn't want to give away too much of the plot/twist.

To me it's just a shame that once the ECW brand was brought back that Stevie Richards wasn't allowed to back to his ECW gimmick the way Dreamer and Sandman were, I mean Stevie was just as much an ECW original as them and his Dancin Stevie/Big Stevie Cool/Clueless putz gimmick was a riot which also showed off his skills on the mic. It's waaaay to late now as the "ECW" has pretty much been thrown out altogether of ECW.

Helping to get another Republican elected President isn't going to fix any of that. You're right, but neither is whining about Nader. If the Democrats just voted based on what they say in speeches I don't think it would be as big a problem.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I missed the sarcasm.....or not, I dunno but yeah Nevermind.

Well the problem is that the Democrats not having a backbone feeds into people thinking they are the same as republicans. Democrats might make great speeches about being against the current administrations policies, but lets see how the MAJORITY of them voted. They helped pass the Patriot Act and renwed, Bush's Tax Cuts, Voted for the war in the first place, keep voting for more funding, Domestic spying. They try and get a bill passed, Bush calls them obstructionists, and then they roll over like pigs in shit. Even since the whooping they put on conservatives in 2006, they are still rolling over afraid of how a vote will hurt their political career. I still can't figure out why the conservative talking heads complain about them so much because they pretty much go along with whatever Bush wants. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low. About the only thing they have put their money where their mouth is has been torture. Now, I don't agree with and will defend the Democrats on a lot of things, especially the "socialist, communist, terrorist-loving" accusations from the right, but the one thing I can't defend most of the time is the accusation that they don't have a backbone, and I think the past eight years if anything have supported that position.

So Dr. Silverman is now in the same looney-bin he had Conner commited to....haha. The show has taken some interesting turns and next week is the two hour season finale. I hope the show gets renewed if only for the fact that I hate when shows like this that have a unique idea for where the story/plot can go, and then we don't get to see how it turns out....well and the fact that I like the show...

That Megan girl is good-looking but she is a total bitch. She is the type of female that thinks she is owed something by everyone because she perceives herself as being hotter then everyone else. I won't lie, I think she is hot, but not hot enough to make up for that fucked up attitude/personality. With this being her fourth or fifth reality show, another loss and she is probably two steps from porn anyway.

Well the war is over, so let the price drop on blu-ray discs BEGIN.........<crickets>

Hopefully the pay for play is for added features/content and you are not actually paying for the ability to play against a buddy online.