Controlled Chaos

A man goes into an adult entertainment shop and asks the assistant for an inflatable doll. "Would you like male of female?" "Female, please." "Would you like Black, or White?" "White, please." "Would you like Christian or Muslim?" This question confused the man . . . and he replied, "What has the religion got to do with it? It's an inflatable doll!" "Well," explained the assistant, "The Muslim one blows itself up!"

Ahh....I'm usually not one to gloat...but after seeing the world series and sox pride DVD, I must say my remarks from this thread were right on the money. The battle with Cleveland was beneficial to the sox and they rode that momentum to the promise land!!! Blessing in disguise?? Sep 15, 2005 -> 07:37 AM Losing a few games here can be a blessing in disguise. For us fans...NO...we want it done and over with....But for the players....well a little extra competition can't hurt. If this goes down to the wire, the battle with Cleveland will be very similar to a playoff series. I prefer that for the players, over clinching and taking it easy for the last 10 games. I want the team fired up and playing games knowing they are all must win. I want that 'Win or Die Trying' not to just be some marketing ploy, but an attitude for the Sox to emulate. Mentally that is where they need to be. Every game will count here towards the end...and I think it's good for them. I'm not worried about them being well rested for the playoffs. Adrenaline will pull these guys through. I'm worried about the mind set it takes for a team to win it all. If they can get in that mindset before the playoffs instead of trying to turn it on right after they start...it can be a huge advantage. Teams that are there every year know how to turn it up a notch....Yankees, Braves etc...Teams like the Sox need the competition. I think that's why wild card teams have been pretty successful. Bottom line...yeah this is stressful for us, but it could be worth it in the end. Reply - Blessing in disguise?? I'm not calling you a 'dark cloud' or 'not a fan' and I'm not talking about anything from March. I'm talking about battling at the end of the season to get prepared for the playoffs and how it can benefit the Sox. If the Sox take 4 or 5 from the best team in the AL since April 22nd....then that will be a huge lift mentally. That's my point. The fact that it is this close now...makes them mentally prepared. Do you really believe the Sox can't beat Cleveland?? Do you think Cleveland is that superior to the Sox? I believe the Sox can beat Cleveland and I believe they will. Then the momentum will be with us....right when we need it to be. Not in July....Not in August, but in October!! Who gives a s*** about the 15 game lead...you don't get points for winning the division by a sizeable margin. Will your confidence rise if they take the series with Cleveland? If they stop a team that has been the best in baseball since the allstar break, will you then be excited about their postseason chances? I hope so, cause it's gonna be a helluva ride and I'd hate for any Sox fan to miss it cause they were worried about how we played in August. f*** August...it's over. Screw the 15 game lead...it's gone. We have a battle in front of us. I don't know about you, but I never though it was gonna be easy anyway. Lets win this f***in battle now and take the momentum right to the world series!! Reply - Blessing in disguise?? The point of my post is that yeah we need to work on some things, but it's good to have this challenge in front of us. Cause if they face this challenge head on and overcome it, they will be in a good postion to roll. Now yes I understand to overcome it, our starting pitching has to get back to where they were and our defense has to pick it up. But these are not unreasonable expectations. It's not like I'm expecting them to do something that have never done...They can do it and they need to do it. I don't believe we need a strikeout starting pitcher. With a guy on first and one out..I'd much rather have a ground ball pitcher on the mound then a pitcher that feels he needs to blow guys away to get out of the jam. Reply - Blessing in disguise?? Exactly....and in my opinion, there's something to be said about playing in a tight race. In the last 3 years, 4 out of the 6 teams in the world series were wild card teams and in all 3 the wild card team won it. Now the Sox don't have to be a wild card team, but if they have the same kind of intensity that a wild card team has at the end, it can be beneficial.

Anyone have a link to this pic??????????

Thanks!! I did find that one, but it didn't say champions anywhere on it, so I figured there was another one I was missing. Thanks!!

IVR Cheat Sheet IVRs ("interactive voice response") are the annoying computers that answer phones. They can sometimes be useful (check flight status etc), but consumers should be able to decide when they want to speak with a human, simply by pressing 0. For example, what if the consumer is: a senior citizen who does not ever want to talk with computers. someone hard of hearing or in a noisy environment or on a bad cell phone connection, where communication with a computer is always more difficult than talking with an actual human. someone driving a car who does not want to go back and forth between listening to prompts and pushing buttons. someone who knows the IVR system will not help with their current question. Some IVRs require you first enter your account or social security number. This is also stupid: many times after punching in your account number, the human who finally answers asks you to repeat it anyway! what if I don't yet have an account number? what if I don't have my account number handy? what if my question has nothing to do with my account?

Ok I have these two hats, but I wanted the same style hat for the ALDS. Did they ever make one?? I could have sworn I saw it somewhere, back when we won the division series, but I can't find it anywhere now. Maybe I'm losing it and New Era didn't make the hat...Please Help!!!

Murtha's got it wrong: We're winning in Iraq December 27, 2005 BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN Advertisement Five weeks ago a wave of hysteria swept through Washington. Suddenly the Washington establishment became convinced that the war in Iraq was lost. This conviction was sparked off by the speech of Rep. John Murtha, a crusty former Marine usually described as a conservative Democrat, who declared that U.S. policy in Iraq was "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion" and called for "immediate redeployment" of U.S. troops. The speech was like a match on a bonfire. Murtha was the lead story in newspapers and on network news programs. He was echoed first by columnists and, after a cautious period of watching the reaction, by his fellow Democrats. News analysts on all sides stressed the vital significance of what Murtha had said. From the extreme left, Alex Cockburn confided that Murtha was merely retailing what four-star Pentagon generals believed to be the grim reality of failure in Iraq. On the right, Rod Dreher of National Review Online warned the GOP that this speech could be "a Cronkite moment" when the U.S. people decisively turned against the Iraq venture like the Tet offensive in Vietnam that Walter Cronkite famously (and, by the way, falsely) proclaimed to be an American defeat. What had happened to provoke this general outburst of pessimism? Nothing on the ground in Iraq suggested a sudden turn to defeat. Indeed, attacks on U.S. troops had been declining. To be sure, murders of "softer targets" such as Iraqi civilians and policemen were continuing -- but they had not increased sharply. The political news was actually favorable: The once-dominant Sunni minority apparently intended to participate in the (then forthcoming) elections. Even Sunni insurgent leaders were turning against the "foreign" al-Qaida terrorists in their midst. And we now know that when Iraq's election was held only days later, there was a larger turnout (70 percent) than is usually the case in the United States itself. Indeed, any dispassionate assessment of Iraq after three years of the liberation-cum-occupation must be far more favorable than not. Compare it to previous guerrilla wars and insurgencies at this point: 1. In the Malayan communist "emergency" -- generally regarded as one of the most successful post-war anti-guerrilla campaigns -- the British were losing after three years and had to revamp their entire strategy. (They did so successfully.) 2. In Vietnam, the three-year mid-point saw the Viet Cong's Tet offensive -- a U.S. victory obscured by defeatist anti-war reporting that led to a U.S. collapse on the home front and eventually to the destruction of America's Vietnamese allies. 3. In Iraq, the United States has midwifed a democratic political system, protected its citizens as they voted in three free elections, handed over sovereign power to an independent Iraqi government, and is now gradually reducing its military assistance to the civil power as Iraqi military and police forces replace Americans in maintaining order. Were there serious mistakes in the last three years? Of course. Serious mistakes are inevitable in such major enterprises as war and revolution. Are there still major problems to be overcome? Naturally, since the establishment of democratic institutions -- difficult in ideal conditions such as the collapse of Soviet power in eastern Europe -- is doubly so in the aftermath of war and revolution. But are we -- the U.S. armed forces and our Iraqi allies -- winning? I put that question to a friend in the Army reserve, just returned from a year in the Sunni Triangle. He is a level-headed and sober observer, a historian by profession, who was working directly with Iraqis in tasks directly related to fighting the insurgency. His reply was unqualified: "Of course we are winning. We know it. The Iraqis know it. And al-Qaida knows it. The only people who apparently don't know it live in Washington." If Iraq did not explain Washington's hysteria, what did? Well, one clue lies in how the speech was reported. Murtha was generally described as being a conservative Democrat and a supporter of the Iraq war. That description was essential to the prominence of the story. An anti-war speech from a pro-war conservative was a far stronger sign that America's support for the war was cracking than another criticism of Bush on Iraq from another partisan Democrat would have been. But Murtha is a partisan Democrat. And just how moderate is he? As Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out, Murtha is a close associate of left-liberal Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, whose campaign for the leadership he had managed. As for being pro-war, Murtha had been anti-war for more than two years since calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in September 2003. So the initial reporting distorted and exaggerated the significance of Murtha's intervention, the media's first reactions largely amplified those exaggerations, and Washington's subsequent hysteria suggested to the world, including al-Qaida and the Sunni insurgents, that the United States was about to cut and run in Iraq. This panic attack was eventually sedated by a number of factors -- the success of the Iraqi elections, the Bush administration's fight-back (that included five major speeches from the president), a poll conducted by a (presumably horrified) BBC showing most Iraqis were optimistic about their future, and the reaction of many U.S. troops who rejected Murtha's grim account of their situation. For now a calmer attitude on Iraq prevails. But the Murtha episode was significant nonetheless. The sudden upsurge of support for U.S. withdrawal that he evoked took place at precisely the point that the United States was making important political and military gains. It showed fear certainly -- not fear of defeat, however, but fear of victory. In other words, many Democrats, their media allies, and others in the permanent Washington establishment are defeatist. A defeatist is not just someone who thinks his side will lose. Sometimes a prediction of defeat is realistic. A defeatist is someone who, at some level, expects to lose, even wants to lose, seeing a quagmire in every oasis. His dissent is therefore tainted. We are not supposed, of course, to criticize such dissent. No, we have to call it patriotism.

Anti-Christmas votes Last week, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas. The vote was 401-22 in favor of the resolution (5 voted "present"); below are the representatives that voted "nay." Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Lois Capps (D-CA) Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) Diana DeGette (D-CO) Jane Harman (D-CA) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) Michael Honda (D-CA) Barbara Lee (D-CA) John Lewis (D-GA) Jim McDermott (D-WA) George Miller (D-CA) Gwen Moore (D-WI) James Moran (D-VA) Donald Payne (D-NJ) Bobby Rush (D-IL) Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) Bobby Scott (D-VA) Fortney Stark (D-CA) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Robert Wexler (D-FL) Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

HAHA

Happy Birthday Peeps!!!!!!!!!!

Hey the Olympics are in February!!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) Wow. Now we are paying British newspapers to print positive stories? Keep rooting for us to fail....

RIP

Why the war against Wal-Mart? Michael M. Bates Chicago aldermen are taking a break from whatever it is they usually do to save the city’s populace from a fate that’s apparently at least as bad as death. They’re fighting to keep Wal-Mart from defiling the toddlin’ town. Aiding them in this valiant struggle are labor unions. The president of the Chicago Federation of Labor outlined a terrifying scenario for the Chicago Sun-Times: "Once this first Wal-Mart comes, you’ll see two more pop up quick and, within a year, you'll probably see 10 of ‘em. This is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of labor." What he should have said is that Wal-Mart is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of union labor. Almost 90% of American workers don’t belong to a union. Their Public Enemy No. 1 possibly, just possibly, might not be a giant retailer offering a large selection of merchandise at good prices. Who knows? There may even be a union member or two who wouldn’t mind saving a few bucks. Opening a Wal-Mart means jobs and plenty of them. Many of them would be at entry-level positions, which are so badly needed in the inner city. But they’re not union jobs. It must be an alderman’s sacred duty to protect Chicago’s unemployed from the humiliation of earning less than what union bosses dictate. Those who would have been hired by Wal-Mart may be impoverished. They may be dependent on public assistance of one kind or another. They may have to ask for help from relatives and friends. But, thanks to Chicago’s city council, they’re able to hold their heads high and proudly proclaim, "No, I don’t have a job, but if I did, it’d pay union scale." One of the aldermen blocking the proposal to build a Wal-Mart told the Chicago Tribune, "I’m here for union labor." How very comforting. Can you spell "lapdog", boys and girls? Not to be overlooked are the millions of dollars in tax revenue that a Wal-Mart or two would bring to the city’s coffers. Certainly Chicago has a reputation for fiscal prudence. It’s renowned for having absolutely no fraud, waste, mismanagement or kickbacks. Still, I’m sure that city officials would have found a way to spend all that additional revenue. Wal-Mart seems to aggravate the heck out of some liberals, and it’s not just the company’s non-union policy. There are other problems. John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said a few weeks ago that Wal-Marts "drive me crazy" because "they destroy communities." The same week in a Los Angeles debate, her husband also disclosed his revulsion for the retailer: "And you've got companies like Wal-Mart . . . that hire part-time people, that have actually advertised to come and work, so they won't do their health care." Not all of us are as wealthy as the Kerrys, who own five multimillion-dollar homes. We weren’t raised in an affluence that permitted shopping at the most exclusive and expensive stores. There is, I suspect, an element of elitism in some of the opposition to Wal-Mart. I recently heard from a reader critical of a column I wrote about Costco executives giving large contributions to defeat President Bush. Wal-Mart wasn’t even mentioned in the column, yet the reader wrote how the store "pays miniscule wages, offers lousy health benefits, and stabs consumers with voodoo pricing," whatever that is. What particularly interested me was the way he finished his communication: "I'll stick with Costco, you go ahead and fill your double-wide with Wal-Mart crap." For those of you not familiar with the James Carville School of Deprecating Remarks, the double-wide reference is a suggestion I live in a trailer. Again, there seems to be some snobbery at work in all the Wal-Mart loathing. Is it because the stores provide decent goods at affordable prices to the great unwashed, thereby improving their living standards even to the point of having some of the same conveniences as their betters? Perhaps a reason is the chain has a policy of not selling CDs with sexually explicit lyrics. Maybe the irritation is the senior citizens hired to be greeters. Wal-Mart sells religious literature, even Bibles. Possibly that’s an annoyance. Or is it because Wal-Mart is a prime example of how free enterprise can benefit millions of Americans, including the more than one million who work there? Capitalism can just be so unbridled sometimes. _____________________________ I didn't know much about this whole walmart thing when they were first pushing for stores in those areas...so when I started reading articles that people didn't want them I was like...huh?? It will create a ton of jobs in a community that needs work. People can buy their essentials at discount prices. It will create tax revenue for the city. I just didn't get the whole wal mart is bad thing. All entry level jobs are minimum wage. Then I saw these comments and I didn't have to wonder anymore where the people were getting their ideas from. With leaders and role models like this, it's no wonder the area is still the way it is.... "I think we have to get away from the mentality that we're just glad to get a job," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger. "We've got to stop accepting crumbs as if it's the only thing we're meant to eat. A slave job is a slave job." "I'm for jobs in this community, but I have an insult level," said state Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago). "People need a livable wage. As an African-American woman, I once worked for $1 an hour. I'm not talking about what I don't know." Glad to get a job, isn't a bad mentality it's a good one...a positive one. You are developing a skill...you can eventually move forward with that skill. If you want to talk about being insulted...take it as an insult to be sitting on your ass at home collecting welfare. That's insulting!! It isn't insulting to be working. If you're making minimum wage and also getting help from the government, that's what its there for, but if you want to really feel insulted then just stay home and collect welfare. Do you think the areas in Chicago are better off now? Hundereds of jobs that would have been created are gone!! Is it better to sit home and collect welfare than to work for your own money on a job, where you can possibly move up and maybe get off of government assistance for good?

Dems: We're losing the war and our economy stinks Dec 22, 2005 by Larry Elder Democrats believe the "insurgents" are winning in Iraq. The "idea that we're gonna win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. When asked, do you agree with Dean's statement, 59 percent of Democrats say yes. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans disagree. When asked if "setting a deadline to withdraw from Iraq would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America," only 22 percent of Democrats agreed, with nearly 70 percent of Republicans believing a premature withdrawal would make things worse. The Iraqis, apparently, failed to get the e-mail. According to a recent ABC News poll taken in Iraq, 70 percent of Iraqis say their own lives are "good," and 69 percent expect things in the country overall to improve in the next year. What about the security situation? More than 60 percent feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up from 40 percent in June 2004. And what about Iraq's Anbar region, the troubled area that includes Ramadi and Fallujah? Even there, Iraqis seem more optimistic than before. Nearly 60 percent of Anbar residents believe the latest elections will lead to a stable government. On Dec. 15, 2005, about 11 million Iraqis voted for a permanent government. Even the Sunnis, who sat out in the past, turned up to vote this time. Democrats think the economy is in a recession. Forty-three percent of Americans, according to a recent American Research Group poll, said the economy was in a recession. While this poll did not break up responses by party line, rest assured the negative outlook comes from the Democratic Party. Only 7 percent of Democrats approve of the way Bush is handling the economy, versus 74 percent of Republicans. But, a recession? Most economists define a recession as three consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. Yet for the last 10 quarters, the economy grew at an average of more than 3 percent, with the latest quarter coming in at 4.3 percent. Inflation and interest rates remain low, with homeownership at an all-time high. Consumer confidence is up. Many businesses and corporations expect to increase hiring next year, anticipate more growth and remain optimistic about the future. Unemployment, coming in at 5 percent, remains lower than the average unemployment rate during the '70s, '80s and '90s. Democrats consider President Bush "racially insensitive," if not downright racist. According to a Time poll conducted shortly after Katrina, 54 percent of Democrats believe race and income level played a part in the hurricane response, compared to 17 percent of Republicans. The government's sluggish response to Katrina hurt Bush's standing with blacks. Now only 2 percent of blacks approve of the president's performance. "George Bush doesn't care about black people," said rapper Kanye West during a nationally televised Hurricane Katrina relief effort. CNN's Jack Cafferty also whipped out the race card, "Despite the many angles of this tragedy, and Lord knows there've been a lot of 'em in New Orleans, there is a great big elephant in the living room that the media seems content to ignore -- that would be, until now. . . . [W]e in the media are ignoring the fact that almost all of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor." CNN's Wolf Blitzer concurred," . . . o many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black . . . " New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, whose befuddled response to Katrina likely cost lives, said, "The more I think about it, definitely race played into this." Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went even further. He speculated that someone intentionally blew up the levee to flood the black area: "I heard from a reliable source who saw a 25-foot-deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry." But what about the facts? A just-released report by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals found whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city. Yet blacks make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Again, whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. Orleans Parish, which sustained substantial damage, was 28 percent white and 67 percent black. But the devastation included neighboring parishes and Mississippi counties that were overwhelmingly white. Those hardest hit -- besides Orleans Parish -- were St. Bernard Parish (88 percent white, 8 percent black), Jefferson Parish (70 percent white, 23 percent black), Plaquemines Parish (70 percent white, 23 percent black), St. Tammany Parish (87 percent white, 10 percent black), Hancock County (90 percent white, 7 percent black), Harrison County (73 percent white, 21 percent black), and Jackson County (75 percent white, 21 percent black). Good news, Democrats. We've established that A) the Iraqis appear optimistic, B) our economy remains strong (even if you refuse to give a little credit to Bush's tax cuts), and C) our president is not a racist. Happy New Year.

Does Walmart pay below minimum wage? | | | | | | | | | | V ok then...so what's the problem again?

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:43 PM) .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05. 06 .07 .08 .09 .1 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .2 .21 ....... .9 .91 .92 .93 .94 .95 .96 .97 .98 .99 1.0 .08 is the Illinois limit. This man was ALL THE WAY at .90....that is a s*** load of alcohol. If that makes sense, than 1.0 mean 1% of his blood is contaminated with alcohol. 1/2% is lethal so this man was just loaded beyond belief. I got arrested at Indiana Beach, at the tender age of 17. I had a .12. Being under 18 my parents had to drive to Indiana from Chicago at 11:00 at night to pick me up from the police station. THAT was a fun ride home!!!

Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities? by William Anderson In a recent poll on the CNN website, viewers were asked the "poll" question of whether or not they believed that Wal-Mart stores were "good" for the "community." Perhaps it is not surprising that a large majority answered "no." Now, this by itself does not mean much, since these online "polls" are not scientific and reflect only the views of the moment by people who choose to participate. What is more significant, however, was the anti-Wal-Mart content of a speech recently given by Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry's wife and an influential person in her own right. Speaking at a Democratic Party rally, Mrs. Kerry declared that "Wal-Mart destroys communities." Indeed, Wal-Mart bashing is in vogue. Whether one journeys to the sight of Sojourners Magazine or reads even mainstream news publications, the charges against Wal-Mart abound. According to the consensus of the critics, Wal-Mart is guilty of the following: Paying low wages to workers, and generally abusing them. Intimidating shoppers by having them "greeted" by an elderly person at the door. (As one writer said, the real purpose of that greeter is to let shoppers know that they are being watched.) Putting small stores out of business, as shoppers stop patronizing the little "mom-and-pop" boutiques for the big box, thus "destroying" the look of "Main Street" in small towns and cities. Purchasing low-priced goods from abroad, which puts American workers out of jobs. Contributing to that allegedly harmful disease known as "consumerism," in which Americans are constantly purchasing goods that the Wal-Mart critics insist that they really don't need. As the bumper sticker of one of my faculty colleagues proclaims: "Mal-Wart: The Source of Cheap Crap." Of course, what really bugs the critics is that people choose to shop at Wal-Mart instead of the places where they would want people to spend their money. (Activists on both left and right often will invoke the name of the "people" when their real goal is to restrict the choices of those "people.") Yet, while up front I question the real motives of the Wal-Mart haters, it still behooves us to answer the charges using economic logic, since many of the arguments against this chain store also appeal to economics. In a recent article, "Always Low Wages," Brian Bolton declares that Jesus would not shop at Wal-Mart, since the company's employee pay scale is not up to Sojourners' standards. Furthermore, he all but declares it a "sin" for Christians to patronize the store because it imports cheap goods made by people who make even less money than Wal-Mart employees. As Bolton writes, "lower prices equal lower wages." Nearly all of us would accept higher payment for our services, and Wal-Mart employees are no exception. Yet, that condition alone hardly makes a company's pay scales illegitimate, as Bolton and other critics contend. If my employer were to double my pay tomorrow (which is highly doubtful), I doubt I would object, although I'm sure that most of my colleagues would see the event in a different light. That Frostburg State University does not make that offer to me does not make my current salary illicit, nor does it make my employer the second coming of Silas Marner. The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say. No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances. At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers. Now, my personal observations hardly constitute proof that Bolton and the other Wal-Mart critics are wrong, but unless they can repudiate the opportunity cost argument, they have ground upon which to stand. Wal-Mart is not engaged in a grand conspiracy to push down wages in any given market, and twisted logic cannot prove otherwise. For example, Bolton writes that part of the problem faced by recent striking union grocery store workers in Southern California was that Wal-Mart super centers in the area paid lower wages, which placed pressure on the other grocery stores. Thus, he reasons, it was Wal-Mart that ultimately kept workers from receiving "just wages" for their work. No doubt, Bolton can appeal to the anti-capitalist mentality of many people, but his work stands economic logic upon its head. By paying lower wages, Wal-Mart makes grocery stores like Vons and other places that pay union scale more attractive to workers (although labor unions do not exactly welcome some potential employees with open arms). The success of Wal-Mart does not have to do with the pay scale of its employees, but rather with the perception by consumers that the store will have the goods they want at an affordable price. Bolton claims that Wal-Mart can charge lower prices and still be profitable because it pays its employees less than do other companies. As anyone with even cursory training in Austrian Economics knows, such an argument is false. As Murray Rothbard points out in Man, Economy, and State, economic profit exists because of temporarily underpriced factors of production. Over time, as the owners recognize their position, they will either refuse to sell their factors at current prices and look to other options, or accept the current price because the opportunity costs of selling to other buyers may be higher than they wish to incur. If it is the latter, then one cannot say that these particular factors are even underpriced, as their owners are not able or willing to do what is necessary to gain higher prices for their employment. In places like Southern California, where there are numerous employment opportunities, to say that workers are "forced" to work at Wal-Mart for "slave wages" is ridiculous. As noted before, the fact that workers there would be willing to accept higher pay is not evidence that they are enslaved. That they would prefer more to less simply means that they are normal, purposeful human beings. One can easily dismiss the charge about the "greeter" at the door—unless one truly is intimidated by the presence of a diminutive 60-year-old grandmother. (What I have found is that if I select merchandise and actually pay for it, then no one there bothers me at all. If activists are upset that Wal-Mart does not like individuals to steal goods from their shelves, then they are advocating theft, and one does not have to pay attention to their arguments at all.) The "Wal-Mart destroys the community" charge, however, needs more attention. It goes as such: Wal-Mart enters a geographical area, and people stop shopping at little stores in order to patronize Wal-Mart. The mom-and-pop stores go out of business, the community is left with boarded-up buildings, and people must leave the small businesses and accept lower wages at Wal-Mart. Thus, while a shiny new store full of inexpensive goods is in the locality, in real terms, most everyone actually is poorer. Again, these kinds of arguments appeal to many people. For example, all of us have heard of the theoretical owner of the small, independent hardware store who had to close his shop when Wal-Mart or Home Depot moved into his community, then suffer the indignity of having to go to work at the very place that put him on the streets. The former owner has a lower income than before, which is held up as proof that the "big boys" create and expand poverty. A few items need to be put in order. First, no one forced the hardware owner to close his shop; he closed it because it was not profitable enough for him to keep it open. If the new chain store meant that many of his former customers had abandoned him, that is not the fault of the new store. Instead, consumers faced with choices and lower prices that they had not previously enjoyed freely chose to patronize the new store. Second, while the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained. Third, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at the new chain store, it is almost guaranteed that their pay will be higher than before and they will enjoy new benefits that most likely had not been available to them previously. Third, the presence of Wal-Mart means local consumers will pay lower prices for goods than before, and also will benefit by having a wider array of available items than they had previously. (And they save on time by being able to stay under one roof while shopping for different items.) Whatever the reason, we can safely assume that consumers in that particular locality are exercising their free choices, choices that they perceive will make them better off than they were before the store existed. Activists may not like their reasoning, but that is irrelevant to our analysis. Having dealt with the "Wal-Mart" creates poverty argument, we now turn to the more nebulous claim that the chain store "destroys" communities. Now, I have never seen a place that has been severely damaged or "destroyed" by Wal-Mart. (I have seen places that have had their quality of life spoiled by rent controls, "urban renewal," and other statist interventions that so-called activists have championed, but that is another story for another time. Suffice it to say that activists are unhappy that individuals freely choose to shop at Wal-Mart, and they want to restrict their choices in the name of "community.") In fact, I would like to make a reverse argument; Wal-Mart and stores like it add to the quality of life in large and small communities because they provide consumer choices that otherwise would not be available. Take the area near Cumberland, Maryland, where I live, for example. Cumberland is something of a time warp, a place that 50 years ago was a manufacturing center and was the second-largest city in Maryland. Today, most of the large factories are long shut down and the population is less than half of Cumberland's heyday numbers. Furthermore, the area has a relatively high unemployment rate and many jobs do not pay very well. The presence of Wal-Mart and Lowe's (a large hardware store), along with some large grocery chains, however, means that people here can stretch their incomes farther than we would if those stores did not exist. If they suddenly were to pull out, one can be assured that our quality of life here would not improve in their absence. Furthermore, the fact that Wal-Mart and other large stores are willing to locate in smaller and poorer communities also makes these areas more attractive for people who wish to live here but do not want to have to give up all of the amenities of living in a larger city. Others on this page and elsewhere have dealt with the charge that Wal-Mart destroys American jobs by purchasing goods from abroad, where the goods often are manufactured in what activists call "oppressive" conditions. (In fact, Sojourners elsewhere has openly stated that Third World peoples should simply be supported by American aid, and that the West should do all it can to make sure that the economies of these poor nations do not grow, all in the name of environmentalism. In other words, none of us are poor enough to satisfy the anti-Wal-Mart activists whose real goal is to eviscerate our own standards of living and "turn back the clock" to an era when life expectancy was lower and people generally were more deprived.) The last objection—that Wal-Mart helps create "mindless" consumerism—is easily refuted by Austrian economics. The very basis of human action is purposeful behavior; to call human action "mindless" is absurd. Consumers at Wal-Mart and other chain stores are not zombies walking aimlessly through the building with glassy stares. They are human beings with needs and desires who perceive that at least some of those desires can be fulfilled through the use of goods purchased at Wal-Mart. In a free society, activists would have to try to convince other individuals to change their buying habits via persuasion and voluntary action. Yet, the very history of "progressivist" activism in this country tells us a story of people who use the state to force others to do what they would not do given free choices. Yesterday, Microsoft was in their crosshairs; today, it is Wal-Mart, and tomorrow, some other hapless firm will be declared guilty of providing customers choices that they had not enjoyed before. A great sin, indeed.

We all know conservatives don't get to play in Hollywood unless they go at it on their own. Here are a couple of articles that I found interesting, with regards to that topic. I think the future holds change though. Just as the nation doesn't have to depend on the MSM anymore for the news. I also think we won't have to depend on Hollywood for our movies. Hollywood's New War Effort: Terrorism Chic Aug 10, 2005 by Jason Apuzzo Slow to awaken after the 9/11 attacks, Hollywood has finally come around to contributing what it can in the War on Terror: namely, glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy. Hard to believe? Here's the pitch: with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power. Here are just a few films already in the pipeline: - "V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner. - "Munich." Steven Spielberg directs this film about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic terror attacks that killed eleven Israeli athletes. "Munich"'s screenplay is written by playwrite Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"), who has been quoted as saying: "I think the founding of the state of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity ... I wish modern Israel hadn¹t been born." The film focuses on the crisis of conscience undergone by Israeli commandos tasked with killing PLO terrorists - rather than on the barbarity of the terrorists themselves. - "Untitled Oliver Stone 9/11 Project." Paramount will distribute Oliver Stone's new film recounting the rescue of two Port Authority officers after the 9/11 attacks. The film will star Nicholas Cage and Maggie Gyllenhaal - who recently suggested that America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As for Stone, he had this to say only a month after 9/11: "This attack was pure chaos, and chaos is energy. All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood, and seemed frightening, like madmen." "Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on. "The Scorpion's Gate." Sony has optioned former terrorism-czar Richard Clarke's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians colluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering - this time by launching a global nuclear war. "The Chancellor Manuscript." Paramount reworks Robert Ludlum¹s 1977 thriller into an anti-Patriot Act star vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio. Here's the film's screenwriter, Michael Seitzman: "We live in this crazy post-Patriot Act environment where Benjamin Franklin¹s warning that 'those that give up essential liberties for temporary security don¹t deserve either one' are being ignored, so the subject matter seemed ripe." "No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West. "American Dreamz." This 'satire' from Universal Pictures deals with Pakistani suicide bombers out to kill the US president. The film stars Hugh Grant, Richard Dreyfuss, Willem Dafoe and Mandy Moore. According to writer-director Paul Weitz ("American Pie"), "The film is a comic examination of ... cultural obsessions" like the War on Terror "and how they can anaesthetise us to the actual issues of our day." "Terminus." Set in the Middle East of the future, this Warner Brothers film depicts a 'disillusioned' war correspondent covering an 'insurgency' he decides he must support. The producer, Basil Iwanyk, says: "It deals head on with what some call insurgency, what some call guerilla warfare and what some call freedom fighting." "Jarhead." This Universal release, starring Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal, deals with the 'dehumanization' of Marine trainees prior to and during the 1991 Gulf War. Based on Andrew Swofford's notorious and questionable memoirs of the same name. The above list, incidentally, should not be taken as comprehensive. For example, Paramount also has projects in the works about a 'reformed' al-Qaeda operative, and about the victim of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Little about these projects has been made public. One thing should be obvious from this list: left-wing agitprop filmmaking is no longer the purview of desperate, 'indie' filmmakers with shaky camcorders and maxed-out credit cards. The films listed above are being made by large, multi-national corporations - and will feature sophisticated, expensive marketing campaigns with A-list stars. Imagine Leni Riefenstahl cross-promoting "Triumph of the Will" with People Magazine covers and E! Channel specials. That's more or less what Hollywood has in mind. Hollywood has shifted strategies in its opposition to the War on Terror. No longer content to let clumsy, uncouth documentarians like Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald conduct its foreign policy, Tinseltown is rolling out big guns like Harrison Ford and Leo DiCaprio and George Clooney - complete with their p.r. firms, dazzling smiles, and easy charm. It's imperative for conservatives to shift strategies, as well. It will no longer be sufficient for outraged conservatives to storm talk radio, the Internet or Fox News with the idea of verbally 'rebutting' these movies like dour lawyers in a courtroom. When these films arrive, with their star-power, swelling soundtracks and digital effects, they'll hit the public with the force of a hurricane - and there'll be no obvious butt of derision like Michael Moore for talking-head conservatives to target. These filmmakers and their movies will be much more polished, subtle - and insidious. And these films will be more dangerous than "Fahrenheit 9/11" because their strategy will be to entertain. The proper 'response' for this sort of thing is simple, if complex in execution. At some point conservatives need to raise capital, pick up cameras and start making movies of their own - much like Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." And conservatives should do this not simply to 'rebut' the other side, but to add depth and imagination to what has become a wasteland of popular entertainment. Most Hollywood insiders - even liberals - agree that Hollywood is in a creative depression. More conservative voices can only help what has become a bleak situation for the town, both artistically and financially. Movies are a powerful force in shaping the imagination of our culture, and in defining how history is remembered. It will be a great shame if all we leave behind from this vital period in American history is a shoddy trail of "Syriana"s, "V For Vendetta"s or "American Dreamz" - rather than a "Casablanca" or a "Notorious." But conservatives obviously can't wait for Hollywood to do that for them - they're going to have to do it themselves. ________________________________________________________ Where Conservative Film is Now Oct 7, 2005 by Jason Apuzzo Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Twenty months after Mel Gibson's "The Passion" took the nation's box office by storm, what progress have conservatives actually made in challenging liberal hegemony in Hollywood? Is it any easier today for a conservative-themed film to make its way down the studio pipeline than it was in early 2004? The answer to this question must be a resounding 'no.' Based on projects recently greenlit by the major studios - including a host of films openly dismissive of the War on Terror - one might argue that Hollywood is drifting even further left than it was in 2004, when films like "Fahrenheit 9/11," "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Manchurian Candidate" were released. Forthcoming studio films like "V For Vendetta," "Syriana" or even Steven Spielberg's "Munich" appear to question both the efficacy and the legitimacy of our current struggle against terrorism. Frustrating as this may be, however, none of this should be cause for despair. If the studio system remains largely a vehicle for the liberal worldview, conservatives are nonetheless making a new niche for themselves in the world of independent filmmaking. This is hardly surprising. Take the example of "The Passion." Because it came packaged with a star actor (Jim Caviezel) and star director (Mel Gibson), many people forget that "The Passion" was an independent film, financed by Gibson himself. "The Passion" was spurned by major studio distributors until it was acquired by independent distributor Newmarket Films - which no longer even exists, having been absorbed into the Time-Warner empire. Lacking Gibson's fame and fortune, most conservative filmmakers face even more serious finance and distribution challenges. What they lack in resources, however, these new filmmakers make up with vision, feistiness, and a hunger for truth. As co-director of the upcoming Liberty Film Festival (October 21-23 in West Hollywood), I've had the chance to watch countless films submitted by conservative filmmakers from around the country and around the world. A few trends were obvious: working on low budgets, conservatives are taking to documentaries like fishes to water - and are also embracing digital technology at a faster rate than mainstream Hollywood. First-time filmmakers Nina May and Tricia Erickson, for example, wanted to tell the story of how many black Americans found their home in the Republican Party in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, all the way down through the 1950's. To tell this largely forgotten story they interviewed black intellectuals like Shelby Steele, Deroy Murdock and Armstrong Williams - and important witnesses like Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, and Gloria Jackson, a descendant of Booker T. Washington. The resulting film, "Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution," tells an almost shocking tale of how the modern Democratic Party has worked to keep black Americans on a liberal 'plantation,' ignorant of their own history. Meanwhile another first-time filmmaker, Mercedes Maharis, decided to pick up a video camera and begin documenting the corrosive, demoralizing effect of illegal immigration on her border community of Cochise County, Arizona. Her film, "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border," vividly captures the tragedy of illegal border crossings for migrants and Americans alike. Neither abstract nor preachy, "Cochise County" simply depicts the sights and sounds of this ongoing crisis, even featuring footage of actual border crossings. Perhaps most novel, though, are the efforts of Marine Seargant Kc Wayland, another first-time filmmaker and an Iraq war veteran. Wayland's "365 Boots on the Ground" documents his year-long tour of duty in Iraq, from recruitment through deployment to his return home. This absorbing, first-person account (shot in part with a helmet-cam) shows the lives of Marines in Iraq, from their daily routines, to humorous and heartwarming encounters with Iraqis, to shocking outbreaks of terrorist violence. Films of this type are more true to the spirit of independent filmmaking than most studio-distributed 'independent' films of today. Some other examples among this new wave of documentaries include Ron Silver's sobering critique of the UN ("Broken Promises"), Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg's witty look at Canadian healthcare ("Dead Meat"), Evan Maloney's irreverent take on political correctness in academia ("Brainwashing 201"), and ProtestWarrior's Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton's political and spiritual odyssey through modern Israel, "Entering Zion." Still more encouraging, though, are developments overseas. For example, noted Kurdish/Iraqi filmmaker Jano Rosebiani recently sponsored the First Short Film Festival in free Iraq, after decades in which moviemaking had been suppressed under Saddam Hussein. Rosebiani paired young Kurdish and Iraqi filmmakers with trained professionals and digital technology to produce a series of anti-terror, pro-democratic short films presently touring Iraq. We'll be showing these films for the first time outside Iraq on October 22nd at the Liberty Film Festival. These sorts of independent, do-it-yourself developments are far more encouraging than any star-laden, expensive projects rumbling their way down the studio pipeline. Why? Although Hollywood is honeycombed with conservatives at all levels, most of these 'closeted' conservatives - having careers to protect and bills to pay - have little incentive to rock the boat. Having been rewarded by Hollywood for keeping their silence, very few such stars or executives are likely to become agents of change. Nor should conservatives expect that 'market forces' will press Hollywood to change its prevailing ideology. Being owned by larger media conglomerates, most Hollywood studios can afford to lose astonishing amounts of money on left-leaning films without blinking an eye. For example, Oliver Stone's revisionist epic "Alexander" lost Warner Brothers untold millions of dollars; he was promptly rewarded with the first major studio film about 9/11. If conservatives want a voice in film, they'll have to claim it the way so many scrappy, low-budget filmmakers are doing it today: without budgets, without stars, with the prospect of only limited distribution - but with a consuming passion for the truth. Eventually - when the budgets, stars and distribution come - conservatives will be able to expand beyond documentary films and move into narratives. And then conservatives will have a major impact. Until then, they'll need to be truly 'independent,' resourceful and unafraid - which is what conservatism teaches us in the first place.

Ayanbadejo should have been in and I think Alex Brown as well. He is a f***in menace...I love watching him play and I think he is a better overall player than Ogunleye...

and I alwyas get a kick out of it when kids and old people are dancing at a wedding to this song. I'm like...do they know the lyrics?? Do they hear the guy say if it ain't tight enough you can stick it up my @ss!!!! It's probably one of the dirtiest songs ever written that everyone will get up and dance too... Strokin' When I start makin´ love I don´t just make love... I be strokin´ That´s what I be doin´, huh I be strokin´ I stroke it to the east And I stroke it to the west And I stroke it to the woman that I love the best I be strokin´ Let me ask you somethin´... What time of the day do you like to make love Have you ever made love just before breakfast Have you ever made love while you watched the late, late show Well, let me ask you this Have you ever made love on a couch Well, let me ask you this Have you ever made love on the back seat of a car I remember one time I made love on the back seat of a car And the police came and shined his light on me, and I said: ´I´m strokin´, that´s what I´m doin´, I be strokin´´ I stroke it to the east And I stroke it to the west And I stroke it to the woman that I love the best I be strokin´ Let me ask you something... How long has it been since you made love, huh? Did you make love yesterday Did you make love last week Did you make love last year Or maybe it might be that you plannin´ on makin´ love tonight But just remember, when you start making love You make it hard, long, soft, short And be strokin´ I be strokin´ I stroke it to the east And I stroke it to the west And I stroke it to the woman that I love the best, huh I be strokin´ Now when I start making love to my woman I don´t stop until I know she´s sas-ified And I can always tell when she gets sas-ified ´Cause when she gets sas-fied she start calling my name She´d say: ´Clarence Carter, Clarence Carter, Clarence Carter Clarence Carter, ooooh s***, Clarence Carter´ The other night I was strokin´ my woman And it got so good to her, you know what she told me Let me tell you what she told me, she said: ´Stroke it Clarence Carter, but don´t stroke so fast If my stuff ain´t tight enough, you can stick it up my...´ WOO! I be strokin´ Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I be strokin´ I stroke it to the east And I stroke it to the west And I stroke it to the woman that I love the best, huh I be strokin´ I be strokin´ Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I be strokin´, Yeah! I be strokin´ I stroke it to the north I stroke it to the south I stroke it everywhere I even stroke it with my... WOO! I be strokin´ I be strokin´ Ha! Ha! I be strokin´

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 06:40 PM) Championship game for me but have some decisions: QB (need 1): I had the worst luck with QB this year: Culpepper, Bulger and Leftwich all were my QBs at one point McNair vs. Miami (opponent has Drew Bennett) Garrard vs. Houston RB (need 1 to go with Cadillac) Moats vs. Arizona Edge vs. Seattle (limited carries for sure) Bettis vs. Cleveland Marion Barber vs. Carolina WR (need 1 to go with LFitz and Steve Smith) Derrick Mason vs. Minnesota Donte Stallworth vs. Detroit Defense (need 1) Patriots vs. NYJ Dolphins vs. Tenn Bucs vs. Atl Kicker (need 1) Vanderjagt vs. Seattle Akers vs. Arizona Rackers vs. Philly Tynes vs. San Diego The ones I am leaning towards are bolded. Any thoughts? I don't think you even need to think twice about any of your picks except kicker and that's just a crap shoot...Good Luck!!

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:41 AM) Can anyone tell me what playoff system is employed on your fantasy football league? I have a malcontent on my league who is going crazy because I had an 8 team playoff with no 1st week bye. He was the number one seed and lost to the 8 seed, and the guy is blowing a gasket calling the league unprofessional and such because it doesnt mimic the NFL close enough. Now keep in mind that this is a league that I paid for(60 bucks) and there is no entry fee, so there is no pot. Yet, we had a little mini-bet in the league through the year on rookie contributions, and the same guy won the only monetary award that my league had to offer, which was best buy certificates that i paid for. And I still get complaints. Well, we use a four team playoff system...ans it seems to work the best. It gives credit to the guys that have performed all year. I can see an 8 team playoff having a bye week, since you're letting almost all the teams make the playoffs, but tell that dude to chill. He knew the rules...He lost....tell him to get over it. It's hard to have a bye cause most leagues, and I don't know if yours is the case, but most leagues end their season this week. Since the last week is a total mess with teams resting their players. If you were to have a bye week , you have to have 3 weeks of playoffs. So either you're playing week 17, when who the hell knows who's starting, or you're starting your playoffs week 14 shrinking your season by one game. I'd say the best solution is go to a 4 team playoff next year, but either way this isn't even about money, so whats this guys problem...the fact still remains he got beat fair and square. Tell him to have a coke and a smile

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:17 AM) Wow, the World Champions don't get any respect, even from their own GM, after they won 99 games and went 11-1 against baseball's best in the playoffs. What an incredible statement. Yes....Fire Kenny!! He's doing a terrible job!! :headshake

shh Don't tell them I'm making fun.... Q: Why is Janet Reno better than the Secret Service? A: Because there are some things the Secret Service won't do to protect the President! ------------------------------------------- The old man was critically ill. Feeling that death was near, he called his lawyer. "I want to become a Democrat. Get me a change of registration form." "You can do it", the lawyer said, "But why? You'll be dead soon, why do you want to become a Democrat?" "That's my business! Get me the form!" Four days later, the old man got his registration changed. His lawyer was at his bedside making sure his bill would be paid. Suddenly the old man was racked with fits of coughing, and it was clear that this would be the end. Still curious, the lawyer leaned over and said, "Please, before it's too late, tell me why you wanted to become a Democrat so badly before you died?" In a faint whisper, as he breathed his last, the old man said: "One less Democrat". ------------------------------------------- Q: What do you get when you cross a pilgrim with a democrat? A: A god-fearing tax collector who gives thanks for what other people have. ------------------------------------------- In an article on Northern Ireland, the political party Sinn Fein was described as the political wing of the IRA. I guess that makes the Democratic Party the political wing of the IRS. ------------------------------------------- Q: What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a lawyer? A: Chelsea. ------------------------------------------- A Democrat and your mother-in-law are trapped in a burning building. You only have time to save one of them. Do you have lunch or go to a movie? ------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a catfish? A: One is an ugly, scum sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish. ------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat politician and a leech? A: A leech quits sucking your blood after you die. -------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a vampire? A: A vampire only sucks blood at night. -------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat on a Harley and a vacuum cleaner? A: The vacuum has the dirt bag on the inside. -------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead Democrat in the road? A: Vultures will eat the skunk. --------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a prostitute? A: The prostitute give value for the money she takes. ---------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a bucket of cow manure? A: The bucket. ---------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a trampoline? A: You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline.