EvilMonkey

QUOTE(loltrain @ Aug 5, 2006 -> 03:46 AM) horrific defensive play led to some runs, and forced him to throw far more pitches than he should have. this could have been said about many Sox outings this year.

He is also getting beat because in primaries, you generally have the more extremists of each party out voting. They tend to be the ones most agitated, most worked up, and vote the most in the primaries. That's why you see alot of politicians tone thier message down a bit once they get the nomination.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 4, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) Lamont pounds Joe on WMT PAC donation of $1000, while controling over $30k worth of stock. Hello pot, meet kettle. Seems Mr. Lamont owns a nice chunck of Walmart stock himself, while also trying to play the anti-Walmrt card. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...12200-4787r.htm

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Aug 4, 2006 -> 12:42 AM) That skit was pretty funny and that's how I like Colbert...in short skits. I must still be tired, I read that three times, and the first two, I thought it said you like him in short skirts.

17 & 20! Just pups! Enjoy your youth, and hair, while you can! EM

This would have been edited out or not shown at all here in the US. Kinda funny, maybe moreso due to my lack of sleep. Enjoy! http://www.vsocial.com/video/index.php?d=163

There was this lovely post this morning of HuffPo about Lieberman from a Lamont supporter. It originally contained a lovely picture of Joe in blackface, which has since been removed. A shining example of the civility of some of Ned's most vocal supporters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher...nt_b_26316.html And this is the picture that was removed.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 06:43 PM) You know I'm the last to ask, considering we had a road trip where we were staying right next to the strip club district and didn't realize it until the last night All I can vouge for is the Rhino in Vegas. YEs, the Rhino was good in Vegas. Cheap booze, too. Scores (in Vegas) was way overrated, though.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) No, you are incorrect, it is just the part over the limit which is taxed. Non-partisan Factcheck.org. Actually, I am NOT incorrect. Look at what I wrote. The ARTICLE says it the way I wrote it. I also said that it MAY BE the way you described, and that I did not know. I made no assertion of fact other that what the words were in the article. You assumed the rest.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) So let me get this straight. If someone inherits 1.75 million, only the last .75 million is actually taxed right? The first million is "free" so to speak. So someone with a 1.75 million dollar inheritance isn't really being taxed at 55% but really at like 23-25% right? Not sure of the exact wording in the tax bill, but as it is reported, it says estates valued over $1 million, not the portion of estates valued over $1 million. It could be the way you described, but with the IRS, you never know. However, even if it is just the part over $1 million, it is still mine.

The only one I have been to around here is Club O. It was ok, but the ones in Vegas were better. The one thing that kept sticking in my head, though was that before it was a strip club, it had onced housed a laser tag place. There are two 'towers' that were in there, which are still in the strip club! I keptexpecting to see someone jump out from behind it with a lasertag gun.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:16 PM) Well, that's great to know. And I'm sure you also know that the estate tax doesn't touch any estates valued at under $2 million. Well, first, according to the story, if the Estate tax isn't repealed or changed, it reverts back to 55% for over $1 million. Second, I hope to have it grow in value more than it is now, so I can raise that $2 million number. So if I die before 2011, my wife is rich! After that, my family gets screwed.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) While I actually agree with both of these moves individually, I do agree that these railroad rider bills fly in the face of the intended purpose of legislation. I'll state again my support of something like a Truth in Legislation Act, requiring bills to stay on topic. You want 2 bills? Send 2 bills. This would prevent all sorts of the B.S. underhanded stuff that goes on, keep the budget under control (since the add-ons often cost money), and allow REAL transparency for the American people. This means that people who choose to monitor Congress can more easily know who they are really voting for. I will agree in principle with what you said, it isn't as if the Republicans are the only party that has done this. It has been going on for quite a while on both sides, and is usually politically motivated to make the other side look bad by vetoing it. However, since there is nothgin wrong with it for now, I guess Dems have to decide what they want more, higher minimum wage or to tax dead people.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- The way I see it, is, "This is like robbing Harry Truman to pay for Franklin Roosevelt's estate." It certainly isn't progressive, or honest. It was calculated to die so that the Do-Nothing Republicans in Congress can pretend to Do-Something. While I am i no way rich now, with the life insurance I have, and the business I own (which would also be paid off if I die), my wife would inherit just about $2 million. I would like for her to keep that, not go to some government that didn't earn it, sweat for it, starve for it and pay for it. I earned the money, I am building the business, I am paying for the insurance (at a hefty price, I might add), and any benefit should belong to my family, not the government. I love this line from the story ""The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said" Like the taxes belonged to the government in the first place! No, you pompus ass (Reid, not you, Greg), the 'taxes' came from the very people you and the rest of the congressional idiots supposedly represent, the people.

I wonder if they have a smiliar item for their female customers? My 13 yr old may like to have this in his bathroom.! http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/breasts...nser-190666.php

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) Remington 12 and 20 gauge that are the only guns I use regularly. I also have a .22 and a thirty-aught-six or however you type that out that I haven't gotten a chance to shoot yet. Cool! I also have a 12 gauge, plus an old .410/.22 over-under that we used to use when deer hunting occasionally. I haven't hunted in a few years, though, so they don't see too much action any more. This gets more action on the range, or at my in-laws acreage: It is a Baretta, similar to the sidearm that the US Armed Forces use. (stock picture, for some reason, mine isn't as shiny, despite good care) It doesn't feel as 'strong' as my dad's .45, but it is easy to shoot and feels very comfortable.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 11:20 PM) Right or wrong, the ACLU interprets the 2nd Amendment as being a collective right and not an individual one, so laws related to individual gun rights are unlikely to be viewed as unconstitutional to the ACLU. In regards to how they don't represent gun owners, that is pretty much what I said. They take a very narrow view of the second amendment, but yet interpret all sorts of deeper meanings into the others that sometimes make you wonder what they are smoking.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 10:37 PM) Baseball calls it the DL. Yeah, yeah, I know. That's what happens when you try to post on Soxtalk and make fantasy roster changes at the same time.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 05:52 PM) I think we all know this administration likes to politicize anything and everything to keep their party in power I think your statement should read ANY administration instead of THIS. Unless something drastic changes in politics in general, whichever party is in power will do whatever it can to stay in power. And the one out of power will do anything it can to get back in power. Its a vicious cycle, kinda like Kerry Wood and Mark Prior pitching, then going on the IR, it never ends.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) Sometimes I feel like the only gun-totin' superliberal out there.....well.....and my dad. There are alot of you, most just don't want to admit to it. You are a brave soul. Whatcha got?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 01:45 AM) Minors, Get it through your head. The ACLU has to represent everyone that feel his or her rights are being violated. They can't pick and choose other it's discrimination. Using your twisted logic, some lawyers are "cowards" for defending murders, rapists or child molestors. If that were the case, why do they never defend gun owners who feel their civil rights are violated? Because they have an agenda. That is why they interpret the second amendment with a much 'softer' stance than they do all the rest. If the applied the same standards to gun rights as they do to the supposed 'sepration of church and state', they would be advocating mandatory gun ownership for all. Also, I believe it was brought up earllier that the ACLU has to be asked first, otherwise they can file amicus curiae briefs (I think that's what they are called) in support of positions it favors, but was not asked to help.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) It should be noted that the previous administration had a special envoy whose job it was to put out any fires in the region as soon as they flare up. It did work with various degrees of success. The administration previous to that was famous for its shuttle diplomacy with James Baker - who probably spent more time visiting with foreign leaders than staying in D.C. Condi Rice hasn't left to go anywhere yet. If Democrats had been elected, this very well may have happened - but the US would have been much more active in trying to prevent escalations of warfare, and protecting civilian lives. You missed the best part, where he said Bill Clinton had 'moral authority'. That is just f'ing hilarious!

I guess to have avoided this whole situation, we should have just elected Democrats! According to Howard Dean, they have magic powers! http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...9-1m16dean.html Later, Dean also noted that if Democrats were in power, the threat from terrorism would be over, gas would cost 12 cents a gallon, and he–personally–would have cured cancer. But I guess they’re all lost opportunities now.

Balta, the hate crime analogy doesn't quite fit. In the hate crime scenereo, the perp set out to kill (or hurt, whatever) someone. The fact that their intention was harming the victim, whether racially motivated or not, is the crime. In the Israeli/terrorist mix, the Israelis shoot at an intended, legitimate target. They are not aiming at 'civilians'. The suicide bombers, however, are aiming for the most casualties that they can inflict. similar, but not the same. Any target for them is the desired target. Yes, if the jets were just firing off missles willy nilly into the city, that would be a very bad thing, likely no different than a suicide bomber. But they don't do that. And just an interesting conspiricy theory I heard earlier today, could the tensions be rising in the region due to a failed Iranian nuclear program? If they escalate the situation, and promt Irsael (or the US) to take out their nukes, they can then claim 'oh, now because of the eeeevil zionists we have to start of nuclear program all over from scratch'. Maybe it isn't there at all, and they are worried about saving face in the region? After all the blustering they have been doing, if it turns out they have zilch, that would be pretty bad for Iran. Saving face can be a hellova motivator in those parts.