AbeFroman

My top five in order: 1) The Brand 2) Milking the Horse 3) Shopping Cart Slingshot 4) Terror Taxi 5) Bull Teetor-Totter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ld/mideast/iraq Sounds like this book is going to reveal a whole bunch of things the Bush administration is attempting to cover-up about Iraq. I'm so surprised.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 07:52 AM) Has anyone been watching thus far? Once again, this show has me rolling just about every time I watch it. Im wondering a few things, is Jim getting ready to exit the show or are they going to bring him back to the office to make one more move on Pam(who quietly broke off her engagement, I must have missed that). Dwight is still my favorite. that guy plays the part perfectly. I don't think Jim is leaving the show... If you saw last nights episode, Jim played a prominent role. I'm pretty sure that this much ballyhoed merger between the two offices will eventually happen bringing Pam and Jim back together. Great show. So many great episode. I agree that the british version is better... but only slightly. I still love the American version. Plus, its been a lot harder in America cause they only ever made 12 episodes in Britain and then ended the show.

Boone Logan was only in the pen for part of the year. Then, we sent our best pitcher down to the minors.

QUOTE(bmags @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) why would saving his money mean he wouldn't have a threesome? saving his money does not equaly having a threesome... That is if you understand the kind of chicks that would double up on a dude like Screech.

this whole situation is wierd... I don't know what is happening..

If anyone is going to be watching it, keep us updated...

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) Regardless, I wouldn't expect anyone to confirm such in this kind of situation. yeah thats probably right

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) T.O. Will speak at 2:30 CT. If T.O. is going to speak himself, I can't imagine that he actually tried suicide. Anybody that had just attempted suicide would be counseled to be taken out of the spotlight for their own mental health.

is the press conference going on now? whats happening?

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:43 AM) Oh God. I bet he had his ears surgically made pointy too. haha that exactly what I thought two. I heard this guys Maserati has a "My other car is the Starship Enterprise" bumper sticker also

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 11:07 PM) Do it, do it! *******Spoiler***************** * ** *** **** ***** Spoiler coming up Did they really plunge that out of his asshole? Some of my friends thought it was fake, but I thought it was real and the funniest part of the movie. well, I actually saw the movie twice. i wondered the same thing the second time I went. Here's what I saw: when bam carries the plunger over to his ass, he never holds it completely downward. However, he does hold it on an downward angle for a second or two so that it appears that anything in the plunger would logically fall out. I don't know why you would just happen to have a plunger when you are doing that prank. It appeared to be at a hotel... and I don't know any hotels that keep plungers around. So my feeling on it is mixed. It may be true. I just don't know. I'm skeptical about two other skits: 1) eating horses*** - I just can't believe that happened. 2) the snake bite on Pontius's wang - He didn't seem to scream or yell as much as I would imagine for having your snake bit by a snake. I'm curious to hear other people's impressions

Mike North reported that an AP report said that an entire bottle of pain medication was empty

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 06:04 PM) Out of curiousity, what did they teach you about the price of capital goods, the failure of the Soviets to be able to feed themselves, and Reagans push towards using this markets to undermine the Soviet system? Hey, its a post on a message board. Millions of pages have been written on the fall of the soviet union. I didn't write anything about cripling soviet beaurcracy either... doesn't mean it didn't have an effect (which it obviously did). Moreover, I'd say I covered the price of capital goods transitively in my section on open competition's effect on consumer prices and the rewards of innovation. As for the Soviet's inability to feed themselves, thats a bit of a stretch.... It wasn't Ethiopia. What the Russian market craved was US and Western consumer goods; like Levi's, McDonalds, etc. And that was my point to begin with. and I would dispute you that Reagan used "markets to undermine the Soviet system." Markets were already in place. The west was booming and would have boomed with or without Reagan. Capitalism will always defeat Communism. It's economic capacity was growing exponentially while the USSR was probably decreasing its national economic output. (As an aside, I'd love to discuss the effects of the Reagan Tax cuts of 81 and 86... There's much to be discussed, and I would probably surprise you with my opinions... but that's for a different thread). I will agree that Reagan's policy of dumping money into the military in an effort to force the Soviets to do the same probably accelerated the fall of the soviet union... so did the tax cuts of 81 and 86. (And btw, the Soviets were incredibly stupid to try and keep up with us militarily... talk about ego) But at what cost? Today we have massive national debt. The USSR was going to fail anyway... It was inevitable. So why mortgage our whole future building a military for the sake of causing the Russians to build up theirs? It is HIGHLY disengenious to say that one person or one policy cause the soviets to collapse. East vs. West was a battle of Capitalism v. Communism. Its institutional...

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) ...............uhh............ no. Sigh... I really shouldn't do this. Nobody's going to read a post this long. I find your response so smug I feel I have no choice. The availability of premium quality goods in capitalist countries greatly exceed that of the soviet union because free markets controlled the exchange of investment and trade against international borders. With the diversity of investment and production inputs (including labor inputs), the West was able to finance greater strides in quality of life than the Soviets. With economic diversity came stability to overcome large governmental outlays, a stock market crash in 1987, in interest rate crisis in the 1970's and again (much worse) in the early 80's. Meanwhile, the Soviet principal of centralization had faltered. The basic theory of the soviet economy (that a strong central government could most efficiently control resources) was failing. The soviet union, cut off from international capital markets, received no foreign direct investment. The Soviet Economy was like a car that came with a full tank of gas but no place to re-fuel it. Once it ran out of fuel, it can't move anymore. The end result is that the west's economy was stablizing. Competition drive prices lower. Companies in the west had to compete, constantly looked for leaner ways to operate, and developed a knack for obtaining the investment necessary to 1) lower prices and 2) increase profits (and transitively GDP) With that, the western consumer was able to purchase luxury items easier. The west enjoyed a much better quality of life than the soviets virtually from day one. Levi's Jeans were the embodimend of western efficiency and wealth. In the Soviet Union, Levi's jeans were the symbol of the wealth created by the west. Everybody wanted them. Indeed when Gorbachev enacted perestroika, soviets could finally get the coveted Levi's. They cost $300... a rediculous sum of money (even by today's standards).... even more rediculous considering it was 1) 1989 and 2) it was the soviet union for christ sakes; it took weeks to make $300. Whats the point I make to NukeCleveland about Levi's jeans? It's one republicans should be familiar with by now: It's the economy stupid. The Soviet economy was draconian from the early 50's. It was doomed to fail from the get go. Western goods became more affordable and life improved in the West because of capitalism. Its true that the military outlays helped bankrupt the soviets, but that was going to happen eventually anyway. Actually, I'd bet that most Russians were more envious of the Western Europe than Americans! They had Levi's, McDonalds, and all the other western luxuries and free health and dental care. Western Europe, parked right alongside the Iron Curtain was a virtual Utopia compared with My point: Economics caused the fall of the Soviet Union... Not Reagan. Reagon contributed, but not nearly as much as the efficiency of capitalism and international markets. Or at least thats what they taught me at Harvard.... What did you learn from those right-wing commercials on TV?

I think the tobacco companies definitely tried to market "light" cigarettes as cleaner/healthier cigarettes. If that contributed in any way to the millions of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking, I hope the tobacco companies pay out their asses. Rule #1 of marketing: It works. Tobacco Companies are liable for causing millions of people to become addicted to a product that definitely causes about 12 types of deadly cancer. In addition, Big Tobacco has drained our healthcare system, taxes, our insurance industry, and ruined the lives of practically everyone smoking has touched. Tobacco companies deserve to have a nation of drooling plaintiff's attorneys coming after them like attack dogs

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) No. They got the Afghans to do it for them. He also bankrupted their economy with the 1-2 punch of the arms buildup and colluding with the Saudis to tank the price of oil. Levi's Jeans had twice as much to do with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union than anything any president did...

I really want to talk about some of the skits in this movie, but I don't want to ruin it for anyone who didn't see it yet. Its dynamite. Funnier than the first...

I know this sounds wierd, but I've been so depressed for the last three weeks about this team that I'm actually just happy its over now. The writing has been on the wall for over a month now. Watching it happen was really misearble. Now may I can stop agonizing and try to move on. I'm actually happier now that the collapse is complete and we can move on to the hot-stove off-season

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) While I applaud your desire to take the petty politicizing out of things, I have to disagree with your sentiment on getting on with it. I think it is in fact crucial that we analyze our shortcomings and why missed this. As I stated earlier, there are lessons to be learned, and yet we continue to avoid acting to change those things. Yeah... thats a fair point: One I considered momentarily before I added the post. I'd ask you to consider the final line of my previous post: QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) The reason I like to attack Clinton so much is becuase of all he did to de-construct that very same intelligence gathering industry. Its like I said, I would be glad to agree with you that Clinton was a good president if he had done more about the gathering terrorist threat than lob a few bombs into empty training camps. This is precisely the type of post I was writing about. Its dumb to blame anyone. When the USSR fell, the paradigm changed. Bush Sr. and Clinton made cuts to military and intelligence programs. The need for large expenditures diminished and this was reflected in budget cuts approved by a Democratically controlled Congress until 1994 and a Republican controlled Congress from 94-2001. For 50 years, the central role of the CIA was to monitory Soviet military and political forces. The Agency had focused heavily on spying on an institutional enemey that suddenly collapsed in the late 80's. De-militarization was approved by both parties as the logical response to the political failure of our most feared enemy for 50 years. So blame is dumb. Its about scoring political points... its a waste of time. We'd all be better off if in this election cycle Dems quit b****ing about the 9/11 report and Condolezza Rice and Republicans would quit b****ing about Clinton. We all blew it... Dems and Repubs. 9/11 happened. We weren't ready. Get on with it.

I really don't want to read any of the bickering on the previous two pages of posts. Bill Clinton is kinda a hero of mine... so I want to say this: Blaming anyone for not doing enough for 9/11 is partisan hackery. Stop it. Nobody understood or appreciated the threat of Al-Queda attack. If they had, we would have invaded Afganistan in 1992 or 2000 when either Bush or Clinton got into office. This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) What has he done this year to make you want to keep him around? Hitting Carlos Zambrano with a fungo knocking him out of the all-star game was pretty good.

I'm pretty sure we are almost entirely through with Pete Rose. There was a legitimate controversy for years. However, once he admitted that he bet on baseball in his book... principally for money... even the staunchest of Rose supporters cringed. The tide has really turned on Rose. For the most part, he did it to himself.

It worked yesterday, so I'll try again