NoCalMike

I am mostly referring to when he was tagging with Sabu. On the weekly show when they would do promos and RVD was just throwing out zingers like the ones you posted. Basically taking credit for everything to the point of pissing Sabu off, but saying the right thing to calm Sabu down at the last minute.

The promo itself was gold, but the way it ended was dumb. If anything they should have had Taz react the opposite way, tease the heyman choke out and instead turn and choke out Vince and defect to the alliance.

Ok, so The Giants look like they lock up the #5 seed, while the #6 seed is up for grabs between Minnesota, Washington and New Orleans. So from what I have read thus far, Washington loses tonight and they are eliminated, at the same they also hold their own destiny, if they win out they are in. I think New Orleans gets the tie-breaker at 9-7 though, so Washington has to win out to get in.

Well at the moment, everything is going the way the Redskins would like.... Giants losing Saints losing and on top of that if Green Bay loses it could cause an already T.O.-less Cowboys team to rest it's starters against the Redskins next week in Washington. I will be very upset if the Redskins don't somehow find a way to win tonight.

Well a lot of electronics equipment is becoming more computer friendly, sticking all sorts of ports on them just in case.... So there isn't a conversion adapter available? Oh well...

Here is a pic of my sound card from the back of the computer..... You can see what ports I am currently using for the computer speakers, so I have a set of three, which I believe is a digital version of the one I am currently using(which is analog) and some other type of port on there(the "gold" plated one) My options remaining on my receiver are either the standard Y/R/W hookup or a Digital Coaxial port..........Is there an adapter out there to make this connection/conversion possible? Or is there a different sound card I would need to get that actually has a digital coaxial output? Any help is appreciated!!!

Play should be there, but I heard Kid is grounded. Maybe he will sneak out and go through some zany adventures on the way over, just to make it in time for when the house party really starts poppin'

The guest list for my UFC House party is going to be the biggest gathering since UFC 71....no MMA fighters or famous people will be attending, so I doubt anyone cares....

His first MMA fight was boring. He took the guy down and basically laid on him to death.......and the fight continued like that for it's entirety.

So....Washington@Minnesota. Hard game to pick. I'll just throw this out there because I am at work and don't have time to type much... Redskins 24 Vikings 14

The perfect TV size for my living room kind of changes depending on how we set up the furniture around it. Right now the TV/entertainment center is facing outward from a corner of the room, in front of two windows(that way there is never sunlight glare overkill). The recliner is what you would sit in to get a straight on view, while the couches are on either side of the tv, but are still pretty much a straight on view. Our TV's size is 46" and anything bigger for where the TV is, we would have to scoot the stand out more or it would be hitting the walls(well coming very close to) and then we would have to scoot all the furniture back to not be sucking radiation into our eyeballs. Now if we changed the setup of our room ENTIRELY, there is space to have a bigger TV, but we like feel the way the setup is currently, looks the best and if we re-arranged everything, then it would be merely in order to fit a bigger tv into the room.

I actually had free passes to this for an advanced screening, but my stepdaughter's end of the season soccer party was the same night......so yeah you can figure out which event I was attending.....lol.

I have a PS3, and will have the Wii setup online sometime during the weekend after Christmas. I am down for it as long as I qualify with matching systems/games.

Also, it's not as if the Nuri al-Maliki government is doing a damn thing to help us. Part of me just leans towards getting out and just letting these guys duke it out on their own turf but the problem is that leaves us in a major PR disaster that will allow terrorists to claim yet another victory over U.S. forces. Either way, we're going to lose in some respect unless the people elected to Iraqi's government are willing to take the reigns of their country and make the necessary compromises. Well really it is for the Iraqis themselves to figure out. Also, the terrorists have nothing to do with Iraqi insurgents, they are two completely seperate entitities. Just because U.S. forces leave Iraq doesn't mean that all of the sudden Al Qaeda wins. Al Qaeda hasn't won anything in the first place. They are a tiny percentage of what is going on in Iraq, most respected organizations quote Al Qaeda at it's peak in Iraq causing about a little under 5% of the casualties. The war in Iraq is not for America to win or lose, it is a false premise. The War in Iraq is for the Iraqis to come to a conclusion to. U.S. forces are there trying to police the situation and act as a buffer.(Not to mention give cover and protection to the building of permanent bases and other projects, but that discussion is for another time) Al Qaeda is there just to kill everybody that doesn't like what they have to say, so in essence the U.S. Military is taking fire from three sides. However make no mistake, the small number of Al Qaeda is not going to take out the Iraqi forces who thus far have been willing to defend their homeland under dire circumstances.

Honestly, I am actually shocked at the lax attitude a lot of people have regarding birth control . Most people use it "sometimes" or casually, like for example they take the pill but are pretty care free about missing a day here or there like it is still going to work properly. I think a bigger number of people then we think are not using birth control devices/methods properly. And no this isn't to say that birth control = 0 pregnancies, but it does greatly reduce the chance.

I would agree that the arguments themselves are getting old to listen to, however it is pretty dissapointing that the media is once again asleep at the wheel at pretty much going along with the simplistic notion that "less violence = surge is working" while there is no attempt whatsoever to get to the bottom of why there is a reduction in violence, or the fact that Iraq has been almost ethnically cleansed, or the fact that we are paying warlods and extremist leaders to lay down their weapons, all of which are activities that in the past, when dealing with other countries has always come back to do more harm then the short-term appearance of good. When the administration claims everything is fine because "Iraqis are returning to their homes" it doesn't take much research to see that a lot of countries that were once taking in displaced Iraqis under asylum have now stopped accepting visas and Iraqis have no choice but to return home. It seems as plain as day that the new goal in the war strategy is to get the violence as low as possible through the next election, so that the next President has to either continue this dumb strategy in order to merely keep the status quo of "Look, less violence" or do withdrawl the troops and deal with that entire seperate list of consequences. Mark my words, this war will be sold as a success leading up to the 2008 election. I am just curious how the media will handle it.

Nice to see the Democrats are right on top of this entire "Get out of Iraq" strategy that over 70% of the american public supports..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_...o/budget_battle House approves $70 billion more for war By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Ending dual spending battles with President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a $555 billion bill Wednesday that funds the Iraq war well into next year and government agencies through September. Bush was expected soon to sign the measure, which includes $70 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, after winning concessions from Democrats on Iraq policy and the budget. The bill, sent to the president after a 272-142 vote, funds 14 Cabinet departments and foreign aid for the budget year that began Oct. 1. Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. Seventy-eight House Democrats voted for the Iraq money, eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops in harm's way. But 141 Democrats voted against it. "This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war." Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said this week that the $70 billion for the wars means Democrats will not see a need to revisit the issue until May or June. Democrats tried to use war spending legislation to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy, chiefly by setting a withdrawal goal with dates such as Dec. 15, 2009. But Bush and Republicans held a powerful hand. They knew Democrats would not let money lapse for troops overseas. That allowed a Bush veto in May and GOP stalling tactics to determine the outcome. On the domestic budget, Bush's GOP allies were divided over whether the overall spending bill was a victory for their party in the long fight with Democrats over agency budgets. Conservatives and outside groups such as the Club for Growth, which seeks to elect lawmakers opposed to tax and spending increases, criticized the bill for having about $28 billion in domestic spending that topped Bush's budget and was paid for by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget and other maneuvers. Republican leaders acknowledged some excesses. But they said the measure could have cost a lot more if the GOP and the White House had not stood firm against more than $20 billion in additional domestic spending included in Democratic spending bills that passed last summer. "The fact is we got the number down to the baseline," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Boehner supported moves that effectively broke Bush's budget cap to provide record budget increases for veterans and to build a fence and provide additional security along the U.S.-Mexico border. But the amount of money at stake was relatively small in the context of an almost $3 trillion federal budget. That was especially true when compared with the more than $50 billion increase Bush sought for the Pentagon's regular budget; his 12 percent requested increase for foreign aid; and his almost $200 billion request for one year's worth of military and diplomatic activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. While disappointed on the Iraq money, Democrats said the spending bill smoothed the rough edges of the president's February budget plan. That proposal had sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cuts and program eliminations. For Democrats, just finishing the budget ended up as the driving goal. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of failing to enact the spending bills after criticizing then-majority Republicans for not doing so last year. The spending legislation affects virtually every part of the government other than the Defense Department's core programs. It would pay for food and toy safety inspections, NASA, the FBI, the Coast Guard, education, health research and national park operations, among many programs. It also contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers, at a cost of more than $7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that fights such projects. Democrats said the cost of earmarks was down more than 40 percent from 2006 levels and they touted disclosure rules that added greater transparency to the much-maligned earmarking process. The bill would raise the pay of federal civilian workers by 3.5 percent, extend farm subsidies the food stamp program until March 15 and eliminated money for a next generation nuclear warhead. It also would keep banks from entering the real estate business. But the White House succeeded in using veto threats to rid the bill of more contentious items such as ending a ban on U.S. aid to overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and easing financing of agricultural and medical sales to Cuba. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The republicans are having no problem at all continuing to run things as the minority party, not to mention without the support of the american people, really they must be laughing at the voters and the democrats simultaneously. Seems the Democrats are still afraid of being called out for "abandoning the troops in the field" even though that theory has been debunked over and over.

I have no love lost for Blackwater, however I don't see what alternative here was. It seems there was good effort to seperate the dogs first. The only other alternative was to shoot the dog in a non-fatal way, but since it is a dog, shooting it anywhere could be fatal.

The growing fan base. I have only been purchasing MMA PPVs at my house for a little over a year and the bigger shows are already drawing more party animal fans to my house then even the Wrestlemania cards did in the WWE's hey day. The small downside is that you get a lot of casual fans at first that are only interested in seeing vicious knockouts, but overall I have been pretty impressed at how most of the people I know go online and get pretty educated on the sport pretty fast. They all came to UFC 71 for the Main Event, and by about three shows later they were hyped for the entire cards, or at least most of the fights on the card. Not to mention how a growing fan base will also help out smaller promotions as well, as the demand will outpace what UFC on it's own can produce.

If the Redskins somehow sneak in with a wildcard position, then it would validate all the Joe Gibbs naysayers. One attribute for Joe Gibbs is that he has his team playing their best football in December. Even when they are not a particularly good team, they don't give up on him and they keep fighting. In 2005, the team was 5-6 and won out to make the playoffs. This season the team ended up 5-7, and is now 7-7, with two tough games ahead and while the odds are not in their favor, it would still be a pretty good job for the team to finish 9-7.

they have "what-a-burger" down there, which is kind of their version of In-&-Out burger.

If it turns out anything like the War on Drugs, then in 10 years I expect Christmas to be more widely available and a hell of a lot cheaper on my wallet.

Lieberman can support a Republican, but if he is going to, it would make more sense to find one that is not so conservative across the board. Maybe one like Guliani who at least has a history of some issues not falling in lock step with the conservative agenda. Lieberman supports the War in Iraq, we get it, but last time I checked there isn't really any Democrat besides Kusinich claiming that they are immediately withdrawing from Iraq anyway. Of course Lieberman also supports going to war with Iran, or at least taking a hard-line stance against them, but hey, Hillary Clinton voted for the Lieberman bill regarding Iran guards being labled a terrorist organization, so again, I don't see why Lieberman necessarily has to go outside the party for support. Add to this the fact that he has a pretty liberal voting record(well at least in the past) on most other issues, so it really boggles the mind why he would want someone like McCain as the President.

Get ready for humidity.....it sucks.

Any early previews of the Mario Kart game coming out for the wii? I saw some screen shots and it looks nice....I believe it comes out sometime in January '08 http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/mariok...ag=images;img;1