Controlled Chaos

This is so sad.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2010 -> 08:07 AM) Yeah. I had to check the video to make sure also. Umm it was sarcasm. Turn your meters on.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 2, 2010 -> 07:56 AM) Not off today but I am on Monday. We will see who's jealous then. Ditto. Lets hope for the rain holds out.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Apr 1, 2010 -> 07:23 PM) They are a family of lawyers who position themselves to offend the highest amount of people. In political science there is something called the median voter theory. The idea is that the politician who positions themselves closest to the median voter's policy preferences will win. These folks are doing the opposite. They triangulate political views to find the most offensive. Liberals don't like them, conservatives don't like them, Christians don't like them, etc. In this case I imagine they were represented by someone in the organization and I imagine they will be keeping the legal fees. I am under the impression that they hope that people assault them or infringe on their first amendment rights so that they can sue. Need to find someone with nothing to lose. I would gladly pay a homeless person 50 bucks to go ape s*** on this group. Let them sue him for what he has. If he gets locked up for a while...he grabs 3 squares and I'm guessing gets treated pretty dam good because everyone would know why he's there. Everytime I see this group I am disgusted.

QUOTE (RyanPaleAndHosed @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) Hey, thanks! We actually didn't get to ask him many of the questions we wanted to. He just kind of took a topic and ran with it. For 45 minutes. He made a comment on his facebok status about you as well.

Best wishes to you and your family. Glad the Sox could put a smile on your face during such a difficult time.

Happy Birthday Kap!

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) as far as i'm concerned bobd can post anything with that sig and i won't say he's wrong. Cause it's sooooo right. I don't game and I've never been in this thread before. I came in here just because I saw bobd post and I wanted to watch his sig. There's just something about that chick.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) The name of the final episode of LOST: I see what they did there.

wow he is done.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) He forgot to tell you all that her best friend is her father. hahahaha

Bond Markets Reflect the True Cost of Obamacare Michael Barone Thursday, March 25, 2010 Not many people noticed amid the Democrats' struggle to jam their health care bill through the House, but in recent weeks U.S. Treasury bonds have lost their status as the world's safest investment. The numbers are pretty clear. In February, Bloomberg News reports, Berkshire Hathaway sold two-year bonds with an interest rate lower than that on two-year Treasuries. A company run by a 79-year-old investor is a better credit risk, the markets are telling us, than the U.S. government. Buffett's firm isn't the only one. Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and Lowe's have been borrowing money at cheaper rates than Uncle Sam. Democrats wary of voting for the health care bill may have been soothed by the Congressional Budget Office's report that it would reduce federal deficits over the next 10 years. But bond buyers know that the Democrats gamed the CBO system to get a good score. The realities, as former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin pointed out in The New York Times, are different. The real cost is disguised by the fact that the bill includes 10 years of revenue but only six years of spending. It includes $70 billion in premiums for long-term care that will have to be paid out later. It excludes $114 billion in discretionary spending needed to run the program. It includes nearly half a trillion dollars in unrealistic Medicare savings. Holtz-Eakins's bottom line: The bill will not lower deficits, but will raise them by $562 billion over 10 years. Treasury will have to borrow that money -- and probably pay much higher interest than it's paying now. Moreover, once the bill is fully in effect, the Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds points out, its expenses are likely to grow at least 7 percent a year -- significantly faster than revenues. At that rate, spending doubles every 10 years. No wonder that Moody's declared last week that the Treasury is "substantially" closer to losing its AAA bond rating. It's not only the federal government that is heading toward insolvency. State governments will have to spend more under the health care bill -- $735 million in Tennessee alone, according to Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen. And state governments are already facing a huge problem called pensions. The Pew Charitable Trusts estimates that state government pensions are underfunded by $450 billion. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Andrew Biggs argues in The Wall Street Journal that the real figure is over $3 trillion. The reason: State governments set aside cash to invest in pensions, but they typically assume that their investments will rise 8 percent a year indefinitely. They haven't been getting such high returns and are not likely to do so in the future. But they are under legal obligations, which courts won't allow them to escape, to pay the pensions. Retirees get paid off before bondholders, which means that states are going to have to pay more interest when they borrow. Back in the 1990s, Clinton adviser James Carville said that if he was reincarnated he would like to come back as the bond market -- "because you can intimidate everybody." Governments, like all organizations, need to borrow routinely. But investors won't lend unless they think they will be paid back. And they will demand higher interest rates as their loans become riskier. On Sunday, 219 House Democrats, soothed by their leaders' gaming of the CBO scoring process, voted in reckless disregard of what the bond market has been telling them. Some may share Speaker Nancy Pelosi's optimism that the government's looming fiscal disaster can be avoided by imposing a value-added tax -- in effect, a national sales tax. But, as we know from the experience of high-tax Western Europe and relatively low-tax America over the last three decades, higher taxes tend to retard economic growth. Lower economic growth means less revenue for government than in CBO projections. Less revenue means more borrowing -- and at some point lenders are going to call a halt. Barack Obama's project of transforming the United States into something like Western Europe is, according to the CBO, raising the national debt burden on the economy to World War II levels. I see train wrecks ahead -- as the bond market forces huge spending cuts or tax increases first on states and then on the federal government. It will make what happened in the House Sunday look pretty. Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Then let her go to PP if that's the law. The school offering assistance, transportation, doing it during in school hours seems to be violating something. This video is related to this story. Bachmadamus??

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) Great game last night real good defense. Buff is looking like a D man. Niemi was great his only flaw to me is that he seems to be laying face first flat on the ice a lot . He also has a really bad receding hair line. I like Sarah Kostok but the interview at he end of the game was painful. English as a second language does not make for a real good on ice after the game interview. Watching the game and thinking 4-4-2 since the olympic break made me wonder how bad are the Hawks actually playing and here is what I came up with off the top of my head; The two ties were the result of a blown 3 goal lead (Washington) and 2 blown two goal leads against Phoenix. The four losses include the blown Detroit game, the blown Philly game the missed call against Anaheim and the Isles game right after the Olympics. Overall, the Hawks easily could have been 9-1 since the break they are not but I think they are doing just fine.....at least compared to the Sharks they are. He was lookin like Phil McCracken from Kingpin.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:37 PM) I could give a s*** less what his save percentage was before tonight. He played like a #1 goalie in the biggest game of the season. If he can carry anything close to this through the rest of the season, the Hawks are a legit threat for the cup. Niemi has played pretty solid throughout the season. The majority of goals scored against him are the type that are going to get scored on most goalies. He rarely lets in the soft ones. Now there was a drop off in his production when it was apparent he was getting a shot to "be the man". I think he put some added pressure on himself and played tight and at the same time the defense got lazy...it was a bad combination and led to him overplaying shots. He looks relaxed again. IMHO he is the #1 on this club and has been all year. The more he sees opponents the better he will be as well. Huet has 271 NHL games, Niemi has 32.

Happy Birthday!

Big f***in game tonight. Lets go boys!!

For those of you that are interested... 7 For All Mankind Private Sale 60% OFF! HOT DEAL! STARTS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT! STARTS TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT PST. Note: when you click the link now the items will not be listed on sale wait until tonight at Midnight. http://www.7forallmankind.com/hid..._sale.html

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) 24's plot turn at the end (you know which one I am talking about) was horrible. Completely ruined the show for me this year. I thought this season was great thus far and only getting better from last week's episode and the first 57 minutes of this week's, but then the plot twist. Just horrible and unnecessary. Anyone else irked by it? Me. Too. Funny review below. Pretty much my sentiment exactly. 24 Season 8 episode 13 reviewAaron Birch There are major spoilers ahead if you've not seen the show. 24 Season 8 - 4:00-5:00pm There was a fair bit of action this week on 24, both with and without guns, and even uber-geek Chloe got a chance to shine in an episode that, on the whole, continues to keep the show's pulse going. After the EMP strike on CTU last week, it's no surprise that the major crux of this episode featured the team trying to make the best of a bad situation, and after Jack's plea to his NSA buddy for help, even the usually dull offices of CTU got a bit of excitement, thanks mainly to Chloe and her rather unique way of getting people to cooperate, but also, shock horror, thanks to Dana, whose plot takes a rather dark (and plain silly) turn, indeed. With the NSA showing up like a bunch of bullish, top secret nerds, ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum (only they were all out of gum), it's not long before geeks clash, and some rudimentary techno babble is strewn around the place, with subnets and trunk lines being mentioned as if to get some technical kudos from the masses. The NSA bods demonstrate a ‘my way or highway' solution, much to the annoyance of Chloe, who thinks she has a better way of doing things, so she decides to make her point, with a gun. By tapping into the trunk line (one for the euphemism spotters out there) she claims to be able to get CTU up and running, and so she forcibly evicts the NSA out of the rather small server room and gets to work. Even after security break in, thanks to Hastings giving her some slack, CTU is up and running. Amazing what you can do by shoving some CAT-5 cable into a line that connects a couple of phone exchanges and networks, eh? Although, quite how this is supposed to negate the physical damage done to the local servers by the EMP is unclear, but we'll let that lie for the sake of entertainment... Of course, the episode wasn't all computers and tech support, and we also witnessed what could possibly be the longest, and most drawn out gun fight ever, as Jack and Ortiz find the terrorists and enter a stalemate against some enemy snipers for the majority of the episode, but not before the nukes are placed on a boat and start across the river. With comms down, Jack spies a hard phone line away from their position and quickly, in an anti-terrorist Blue Peter special, gets his team to fashion some A-Team-style shields out of their banged up SUV. Unfortunately, yet another highly trained officer who supposedly knows how to follow orders doesn't listen to Jack and promptly breaks formation to end up on the wrong end of a bullet, and Agent Owen, always destined to be a 24 red shirt, bites the dust whilst trying to save his reckless buddy. During the course of this fire fight, and up until this moment, not even one terrorist is killed, and although Jack has, in previous series, been able to single handily take out whole gangs with a pistol, even with a fully automatic rifle here he fails to kill a single guy, until he wanders into the middle of the crossfire in an attempt to distract the bad guys as Ortiz makes a beeline for the phone. Jack is promptly hit, and taken down, and just as a sniper is about to score a headshot, Renee shows up, after being called in by Chloe earlier, and kills Jack's would-be assassin. She then proceeds, with a measly pistol, to do what Jack, Ortiz and two other SWAT guys and automatic weapons couldn't do, and kills off the snipers. You go, girl! Of course, Jack's not seriously injured, and his bulletproof vest stopped the deadly rounds, and thanks to their efforts, and Chloe's help, CTU are back on track, with info on the location of the nukes. Phew! This brings us to Dana. Yep, it's no secret that her story isn't winning over fans, and up until now it's been a little bit ropey, to say the least, but the arrival of Bill Prady injected some life into it, if only a little. As I suspected last week, Dana does, indeed, reveal, truthfully or not, that the video feed Prady was after was wiped during the EMP blast, and with that, the story was seemingly over. That is, until Hastings gets a message that Prady is waiting to see him, much to the dismay of Dana. Now, I saw the next bit coming, and as Dana made her way to the holding room where Prady was located, I knew that his days were numbered. However, I thought this would also be a very good move, injecting some much needed drama and urgency into her story, not to mention some interesting personality and character, which Katee Sackhoff has been unable to convey due to the poor writing so far. True enough, in a move that would make number 47 proud, she takes down Prady with some strangulation wire, and promptly shoves his lifeless body into a wall panel (very convenient). But, just as I was thinking that her story may liven up, we get one of the most ridiculous, cheap and downright clumsy plot twists ever, as she calls the leader of the terrorists, revealing she's been a mole all the time. Oh come on, guys! That's just cheating. What's worse, the twist just wasn't needed, or even hinted at in an acceptable way. The main plot was going along well enough, with Tarin's involvement and the movement of the nukes, and Dana's story, if it was left at the murder of Prady, could have flowered. As it stands, I'm now quite happy to think that President Taylor is, in fact, the ruler of a satanic cult ready and coiled to take control of the government, Hastings is actually Tony Almeida in good make-up and prosthetics and under deep cover, and the nukes are really alien bodies that need to be picked up from Madison Square Garden by the mothership (Will Smith is apparently on standby). And with that, I was left more than a little irked. Up until the closing seconds, this had been a very promising, if a little stretched episode. Dana's revelation quickly shot that down, though, and it just reeks of desperation, as the writers struggle to keep viewers guessing, no matter the cost, and even if things come completely out of left field. Still, things may straighten out, and we'll have to see where Dana's involvement leads. That is, if Jack doesn't turn out to be a robot, from the future...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 20, 2010 -> 02:14 PM) My brother-in-law met his wife on match.com, and I know another couple that met that way too, so i guess it can work. I know a few success stories as well, including my best friend. Hey, any avenue you can use to meet people is good in my book. Whether you're looking to hook up or meet the girl of your dreams. The more girls you meet the better chance you have. Also, for the guys a little uncomfortable or unsure how to act around women. The more dates you go on the more comfortable you get. I used to tell my friend that all the time. Get out...go for a few drinks or coffee or whatever.(Although IMHO, never dinner) Just date and get used to talking to girls so you learn to be yourself around them. You're not wining and dining these girls....these are quick little meet and greets to see if there's something there.

Oney on the score

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 02:09 PM) These days, it's just silly to pretend that people can get by without a cell phone, or basic things like internet access and a computer. Even search for jobs requires them. These days cell phones are free too. I saw a lady on the news a while back, that was like it's great. I use the free one until the minutes are all up and then I use my other one. Yeah lady ....that's what they're for.

Congrats!!

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/201...19100051579.pdf We cannot emphasize enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reductions and number of Americans covered. The inclusion of a full SGR [sustainable Growth Rate] repeal would undermine reform’s budget neutrality. So, again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reductions and number of Americans covered. As most health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians (sic) support for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time…

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) In Illinois, unless the company has a written "use it or lose it" policy, the law requires payment of accrued, but unused vacation. Not so with pure "sick days," as it they are deemed a contingent benefit (e.g., to be used only "if" the employee is sick). I'm not sure if this is a way around it or not, but we have now gone to a PTO policy. There are no more 'vacation' or 'sick' days. Everything falls under personal time off. So if your sick it's PTO, if you're on vacation for a week, it's PTO.