Soxbadger

Why are all of these hot girls being videod in peoples homes. I seriously am in the wrong profession wtf.

Its just basically best case scenario for Democrats. Even if Obama should lose, Romney is far more palatable than Santorum or Gingrich.

If he was such a hardcore Republican due to his old man, why in 92 was he an Independent who voted for Tsongas? It wasnt until he ran against Kennedy that he found his "Republicanism". And what does wealthy have to do with it? The super rich are more likely to be Democrats.

People have flipped once they got into power. Romney seems like a guy who will put anything next to his name if he thinks it will get him further in his career. Part of me thinks the only reason he went Republican to start is that it gave him a chance to put his name in lights against Kennedy, where as if he was a Democrat he just would have been another guy. Im not overly concerned, I also dont have any real role in what happens. My state will go Obama, so my vote in essence is meaningless

I personally dont care either way at all. I dislike everyone, therefore Im an equal opportunity jerk as opposed to a racist. That seems simple enough to me.

Ill be voting for Obama, but Romney would probably be okay too. Really doesnt matter to me as Romney is a businessman so I assume he understands how to put all of the social aspects of the Republican party to the background and focus on what really matters. Who knows.

Y2hh, The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman didnt say "Hispanics", he said "Mexicans" a group he would not identify himself with. Its like arguing that Nazi's can say bad things about German Jews because the Jews were Germans so its "cool". The way its "ok" by your standards is if the person identifies himself with the group they are making fun of. IE Jerry Seinfeld can make fun of Jews, but he cant make fun of Dentists because he is a Jew but not a Dentist. I would agree that if Zimmerman had said "hispanics" he likely would be included in that group. But he said "Mexicans" and he is "Peruvian", which are not even close. They dont even come from the same original culture as Peru was Incan and Mexico was Aztec. So while they do share a similar "Spain conquered us story" its like calling some one from Italy the same as someone from France, because at one time Rome controlled both. So I entirely agree that Zimmerman could consider himself Hispanic, it just is irrelevant as he was specifically knocking Mexicans, which is a subset of Hispanic that he is not a part of.

You guys are on the right track, but you have to use less recognizable hot girls.

Steve, Start an LLC/Corp give them EIN instead of SSN. In some states you dont need need to list any of the members of the LLC so its entirely anonymous. Kyle, For whatever reason the article just wast clicking and seemed like Id have to read a ton of words for what Zen explained pretty easily.

Can someone give a brief explanation that doesnt require me to read the original article which seemed unnecessarily hard to follow.

You can dislike Walker, but at least dont just make s*** up. "Lift and Pull" was created on this website, it was never real.

I figured when Walker left the lies about "lift and pull would stop", that was not his hitting philosophy.

You do know that Mexican and Hispanic are not the same though, right? Because that isnt about being left or right, thats just understanding the word, as they are not interchangeable.

Zimmerman isnt Mexican though and his comments werent about Hispanics. Zimmerman is Peruvian, which is in South America, Mexico is in North America. It would be like saying its okay for an african american in the US to say "I was going to drive over that stupid Egyptian." Egyptian does not equal african american, just like Mexican does not equal hispanic.

Does anyone else look through mug shots when they are bored? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...47.photogallery The girl in image 9 (prostitution) is actually much better looking than most you see.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:32 PM) And now we know, and knowing is half the battle. [/img] So I posted 3 paragraphs and you take 1 sentence out of it. What are you even trying to prove, the argument was that I was making 1 line sentence posts that anyone can say. Its just not true. (edit) The sentence you bolded was merely a conclusion to the post. Its not like I merely posted: If a team shoots 60% theyll win. Without any other explanation or discussion.

I dont think anyone will argue that there isnt an increased suicide rate in athletes (baseball has had a lot http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/...baseball.shtml), the difference is that in baseball you havent heard of most of these players. They werent star athletes who just couldnt take not being well known. It could turn out that there is no correlation, but what does it hurt to investigate and confirm? Or what does it hurt to have suicide counseling for NFL players where they can discuss the loss of fame, or their family leaving them or any thing else that may cause them to kill themselves? I guess I just dont agree that the NFL should do nothing because there is a chance (even if its a good chance) that concussions have no relation to suicide.

Jenks, I agree that football is inherently violent. I just believe that if the NFL purposefully lied to players about the risks they may be entitled to some sort of compensation. My main statement was that the NFL should get their act together and start being proactive, because ex-NFL players killing themselves isnt good regardless of the cause.

I work in the west loop too, I wonder if I have seen you Jenks. haha

Unfortunately there is no legitimate way for me to claim to be a scientist. Grr.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Ok, but whether or not you agree with their policies doesn't mean that it was inaccurate to say Bush didn't give a s***. I dont know if this is true or not, I never spoke with Bush. You are making a lot of assumptions, Im pretty sure anything Bush was doing to get Osama was classified, so it really is irrelevant. Which is why I was commenting on the fact that I think Bush wasnt that out of line if he was saying that Osama wasnt really a worry anymore.

And I would say Obama wasted resources.

I just am not super impressed with Bin Laden. I dont think he was some sort of mastermind who was irreplaceable. If anything (imo) he was a complete failure. He had tons of money, tons of support and at the end of the day his greatest achievement was the twin towers? Im pretty sure I could get that type of death toll with considerably less funding. All it really took was convincing a handful of people to die for their cause and taking advantage of system where you were instructed to not confront a terrorist and to placate them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) I love how the scientists often stick together on this site. Anyhoo, I (dis)agree with Steve. Are the concussions a factor? Sure. But so is your wife leaving you and taking your kids away. I fixed that for you as you are agreeing with Strangesox, Balta and myself, who said that concussions are a factor. Steve's position was that concussions were not a factor at all. He flip-flopped about half way through and tried to argue that he really meant to say that concussions are just a factor, but no one was ever suggesting that concussions were the only factor. (Edit) Saying concussions are the only factor is just as silly as saying concussions are no factor. Which is why so many people were outraged by Steve's original comment that concussions play no role and he doesnt believe in them because other celebrities commit suicide too.

Which was smart because pouring resources into capturing 1 individual is a poor use of resources. (haha used pour and poor in the same sentence) Bin Laden was good for national pride, but his death likely accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things.