Soxy

Look out Yugoslavia--Russia is going to pants you!

Snowballs! That will not stand!

Make mischief? What is Russia going to do? Throw spitballs at Georgia?

Don't like the killin' talk. Don't you blaspheme T.R.!

How many Reagan shout outs has that been?

McCain--no one laughs at your jokes but you and Brokaw.

Truth be told about denials: no one remembers them and they actually reinforce the false ideas that they are denying. Let me find a source on that.

I will not do the math John McCain. You do the math and report back.

Obama picking up steam a little bit.

Goodies? Really? Coming off a little crotchety here.

Obama makes a serious fumble on the sacrifice question--although he does pick up near the end with the volunteer corps (going into JFK territory here).

For lack of a better place to put this. . . Your daily etymology lesson: Maverick

I'm sure this stat/polling site has been posted. But I thought it was cool. And the guy running it (Nate Silver) might be familiar to those of you who follow baseball stat stuff.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) So, you are saying McCain can roll his walker over to Obama and stare him down? Look, there are so many policy issues to challenge McCain on--why go for the easy cheap shot of his age? We get it he's old.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 6, 2008 -> 04:01 PM) The ACORN flow chart: http://justsaynodeal.com/acorn.html Barnet Frank is the biggest pud in Washington. He dates an executive from Fannie for 7 years and says there is no conflict of interest. I think even the dems on the board would agree with that. Right Rex?

I saw Tell No One over the weekend. It's a French thriller about a man who hears his wife being killed--but he is attacked and is unable to save her (he's hit with a baseball bat, and falls into the water--he is found in a coma on the dock). He stays in a coma for a couple of days, recovers and wakes up to find that his wife is dead (her father, a cop, identifies her body). Eight years pass. On the anniversary of his wife's death he gets an e-mail with a link to a live video feed. On the feed he sees his (supposedly) long dead wife. Around the same time, two bodies are found near the lake where his wife was "killed," the bodies appear to have been from around the same time as his wife's murder. The discover of these bodies reignites the entire tragedy, so that Alex (the husband) is suspected of killing his wife (and later in the movie his wife's best friend). There are a few twists along the way--the police find a key to a safety deposit box on one of the bodies in the box is a gun and pictures of Alex's wife after what appears to be a severe beating. Alex runs from the police (who want to arrest him for, well, a crapload of stuff) and tries to figure out what happened to his wife. Who beat her? Why was she beaten? Is she dead? If she isn't dead, why did she disappear and where is she now. I wanted to see the movie because I read a review that compared it to Vertigo (one of my all-time fave movies). I don't think it's Vertigo good--but it definitely feels like it could be a Hitchcock (if he was alive and making movies today). The movie is rather long. But it's really suspenseful and will keep you on the edge of your seat. The acting is good and the story is better (and resolved in a most satisfactory way). Highly recommended for a good nail biter/well done film.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Oct 4, 2008 -> 10:53 PM) I saw El Orfanato (The Orphanage) tonight. It was kinda creepy, and I liked the ending. That movie creeped the hell out of me.

So the Trib ran this interesting story today. Naturally, it got me thinking: would I want to know if I had some sort of genetic pre-disposition for cancer? My cousin (and her parents) took part in a Galludet genetic study about deafness--so I have some ideas about my (potential) genetic make-up. Honestly, though, I'm not sure if I would want to know. Just thought this might be an interesting talking point.

Thank god I don't have tv. I would chew my own face off if I had to listen to the constant negative ads. It's so sad that those things are more effective than the actual issues. Sometimes (usually around an election) I wish we could go back to the time before mass media/Hearst (I guess we could trace the genesis to him).

I wish the Dodgers had gotten a few insurance runs there. . .

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) Look at the polls of the board 19-10 Obama, 26-8 Biden. And keep in mind that 25 people said they were voting for Obama--so not all of those people said that Obama won.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) Look at the polls of the board 19-10 Obama, 26-8 Biden. So, some of the liberals on this board (although a fair share of Moderates also voted for Biden).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) That probably should have been better vetted 225 years ago when the whole what is marriage in the US started. And Churches really do not regulate marriages. You can get married with or without a religious entity involved. Atheists are married all the time in this country. I do not think it is right to take away marriage from those people who are not religious and offer them the only option of some newly created PC version of what their parents and grandparents had. They would still have that option--but in a religious ceremony. It's not PC, it's about the government NOT regulating sacraments/religious stuff.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) ok fair enough. I'll change it to "liberals on this board." That's bulls*** too, and I think you know that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 12:21 PM) Yes, but marriage is still legally binding financially for people, so the government will always regulate that partnership because of the termonology . I understand that, but I think that "legal binding" should be couched in terms of civil unions (for the government) not marriage. That way, religious folks can get married without having to deal with the government if they don't want to, and nonreligious folk can get their legal binding relationship.