NoCalMike

Oh and the crowd favorite, "Middle finger in Da Air Ya'll"

"I'm Angry" "I Hate My Mom" "I Hate My Dad" "Kill Stuff" "Fuck You" Don't forget the always classic, "Stop Bullying Me" & "Slap Upside Da Head"

Some of my favorite beers besides Guiness(which seems to be a house favorite on the smartmarks board, and rightfully so)..... Dark Heiniken Pete's Wicked NewCastle St. Pauli Girl Sam Adams Sam Adam Hefwiezen(Limited) And for cheaper nights...(like tonight) 40 oz. Mickeys MGD Miller High Life

Not suprising that Bush didn't support this......

I didn't mean to imply Rice was not intelligent. When you said, "Brilliant" I didn't know you were referring to GPA, or grades in college. I thought you were just using it as an adjective to describe her overall. As far as Bush goes, well I will stand by the opinion I hold of him not being very intelligent, and he does a lot to show it on a daily basis.

how the hell do you layer drinks? Whenever I try they just end up mixing together........is there some special technique? Someone told me pouring the liqour over the back of a spoon helps.

Natty-Ice is wretched.

I have built a collection up of hard alcohol, by looking for bargains in the big outlet beverage stores. You can usually by gift sets of various alcohols which incude the liter bottle, a souvinier glass, and a little stir spoon, for cheaper then it would cost just for the bottle of alcohol from a grocery store. I just bought a Liter of Cinnamon Vodka for $5 from the liquour store. It was that cheap because I guess Stoli is discontinuing that size for the cinnamon stuff, so they are trying to clear the shelves of it. I personally have no use for Cinnamon vodka, but my girlfriend and her friends in their skimpy clothes will get plenty of play out of it, hehehehehe. Lately, I have been taking the cheap road, and every friday after work I pick up two 40oz's of Mickeys from the liquor store. When I was younger I would drink harder alcohol like it was beer, but as I am getting older I almost don't feel right spending $25 on a bottle of liquor and just plastering my way through it in one night, I mean sure it gets you drunk, but then it is gone and it is another $20+ you have to spend. Now I mostly drink beer, and slowly build up my hard alcohol collection, and will have a drink or two to SUPPLEMENT my beer. I try to save the hard alcohol for special occassions, like the midnight horror movie film festivals they have downtown

plenty of non-baseball stars throw out first picthes in pivotal games. Did you hear the crowd's reaction to Ali? Sure sounded like they wanted him to be there....

Neither did I, someone hook up the link......... Oh yeah and the Raven skits were SUPPOSED to set up a Raven/Piper program, but it got nixed.

Well considering Powell has no bearing on social issues or influence in those type of matters.

umm, ok whatever you say.

WWE 24/7? I thought it was also going to include the WCW and ECW catalogs that WWE now owns!?!

I'd agree that the democrats aren't doing enough to put Minorities in prominent positions, and paying just too much lip service without follow through, but that is something both parties are guilty, however the democrats are tagged for it moreso since they claim they sympathize with minorities more. The presidential race is treated like a horse race though and neither candidate will put a black face on his ticket if they think it will hurt the vote count, they both know that there is still a huge number of folks in this country(not the majority, but still a big amount)that will simply NOT vote for an african american. I keep hearing Colin Powel's name thrown around, but besides homeland security & "the war on terrorism"(and even that is questionable considering his flip flopping under tight pressure) Bush and Powell disagree on a LOT of social issues.

As far as the defintion of marriage, is it reasonable to believe that when it was originally defined, it might have been not such a friendly world to homosexuals in the first place? I mean when I hear people say, "the definition of marriage is one of the most fundamental structures of our country that we can't breach" I think of some other fundamental structures, that have since been deemed ridiculous, or racist, or discriminatory etc......so why is the right trying to hold onto the "fundamental definition of marriage," any different then those other instances......Times change, and ideoligies change, mostly for the better, and I just see the Gay Marriage issue as another one of those "hot-button issue" today" - "laughed at 50 years from" issues. To me it is inevitable that it will happen sometime, maybe not in the NEAR future, but eventually so.

The same could be said about HBK's title shots. I agree

The Tajiri/Rhyno tag team could be a lot more fun if WWE gave a crap about them. They are one of the more refreshing things to watch on Raw, hell even if they split up and started a feud(which is *SO* WWE-core) it would still be fun, a little mid-card feud that means nothing, except good, entertaining matches.

Does the WWE even ponder that the fans may want to know why Triple H keeps getting rematches with Benoit for the title? I mean after 3 chances and failed attempts, Benoit should rightfully be moving onto something else...... As far as Smackdown, well yeah it's Smackdown, and Bradshaw as a long term champ would help explain the long term low ratings for Smackdown.

since you are here, did you get any email notice about me sending you a pay pal payment? I got an email confirmation sent to me saying I did.... ehh, I just got to work, client software server is down, I was bored....chalk this up as an "oops"

since you are here, did you get any email notice about me sending you a pay pal payment? I got an email confirmation sent to me saying I did....

So here is a question: Is this whole gay marriage thing the battle between redefining marriage as oppossed to redefining the Constitution? Cause on one case you have conservatives saying the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you have liberals saying that the Constitution says Equal rights for every american citizen. So either way, one "definition" is going to have to be changed somewhat. I just personally feel safer having it NOT be the constitution.

Zorin, again, if the US went after every tyrant out there, you'd gripe about that, too. -=Mike Hi, straw man.

Oh for christ's sake.........here we go again........ This time the target is federal courts Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House 34 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo! By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON - Unable to ban gay marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders. "When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on a near party-line vote of 21-13. Democrats objected, some strenuously. Rep. Maxine Waters of California called the legislation a political exercise, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, criticized it as "unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise." Even so, GOP officials said the measure likely would be on the House floor next week, and they expressed confidence it would pass. If so, it would mark a clear victory for gay marriage opponents, who suffered a decisive setback Wednesday in the Senate when the constitutional amendment fell a dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to advance. Within hours of the vote in which 48 senators voted to advance the measure and 50 to block it, President Bush (news - web sites) issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome but calling it a temporary setback. "Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added. "It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said. Bush wasn't the only one who seemed eager to extend an election-year debate over the issue. "We know now which senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November so will voters in every state," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This fight has just begun." Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the amendment, expressed little concern about political repercussions. "I think the discussion will continue to play out but I think they played their best hand today and couldn't even get a simple majority," she said of the Senate vote. Bush's public prodding alone assures the issue will persist into the fall, and Republican strategists have said they hope the issue can be put to use against Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. Kerry, D-Mass., skipped the Senate vote. He issued a statement renewing his opposition to the amendment and accusing Republicans of seeking to alter the constitution for political gain. "The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done," he said. Bush urged Congress last winter to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, but prospects have never been good that supporters could amass the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate needed to send the measure to the states for ratification. Most Democratic lawmakers oppose the proposal, and some conservative Republicans in both houses objected to stepping on terrain traditionally reserved for the states. The legislation advancing in the House is designed to address the concerns raised by GOP dissidents, and solidify Republican support. "This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Under the measure, federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction over federal legislation that gives states the right to decide whether to recognize same sex marriages. Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections. The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages. In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election. ----------------------------------------------------- Am I the only one sick to fucking death of the term, "Activist Judges" I mean just stfu already. Something tells me if a judge stood up and talked about his utter disdain and disgust for homosexuals and their behaivors, I don't think the right would be calling them "activist judges" I am not quite understanding this measure though, how in effect do you "strip a court the right to make a judgement" I mean can someone explain this to me? Cause if this is the case, couldn't you just strip them of the power to rule on other things as well?

the fact that this thing was shot down and pretty much laughed as was a good sign, but comments coming from supporters saying this isn't the last we have heard of this, and how the "struggle" will continue was saddening.

well, yeah!