Rex Kickass

20. (tie) George Strait - Here For A Good Time (highest rank #3 Tex) Review from Taste of Country http://tasteofcountry.com/george-strait-he...ood-time-album/ 20. (tie) Cage the Elephant - Thank You Happy Birthday (Highest rank: #3 knightni)

20. (tie) Raekwon - Shaolin v. Wu Tang (highest rank #3 by BigSqwert) Review from Pitchfork http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15210-...lin-vs-wu-tang/

18. (tie) Toby Keith - Clancy's Tavern (highest rank: #3 TheGooch) Review from Taste of Country http://tasteofcountry.com/toby-keith-clancys-tavern/

20. (tie) Tom Waits - Bad As Me (highest rank: #3 BigEdWalsh) Pitchfork Review http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15961-bad-as-me/

18 (tie) TuNe-YaRdS - w h o k i l l (highest rank: #3 Rex Kickass) Review courtesy of Guardian's Best of 2011 list. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/...e-yards-whokill

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) So the head of the Jersey Teachers union sending an email to all the members asking them to pray for a Christie heart attack are not the same? It isn't just some offhand remark, its how they feel. And when they get called on it, they get all mealy mouthed about it saying 'that's not what I meant' or that it was somehow taken out of context, or the always awesome "i'm sorry if you were offended". Can you point to this email? Because I don't recall it, and I think I would have heard about it living in the New Jersey state capital.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 03:12 PM) If 'who that person is' would encompass being a conservative/Republican, there have been some. I recall a teachers union in Jersey wishing Christie dead not too long ago. And all the vitriol aimed at Palin can't be ignored. And if you add in 'bodily harm' instead of just death, you can include just about every liberal group out there wishing it on some conservative. edit - I am not saying they are right for doing so. I hate fringe whackos like that, make everyone look bad. I don't ever support that kind of language in political discourse, ever. However, I do think there is a very real difference from an offhanded remark about someone and organizing a prayer chain to wish for death. Those two examples are very much not the same thing. Not even shades of it. PS: I never thought you were, I just don't buy that what you initially described as the same thing.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) And groups promoting diversity being mostly white. And liberals preaching tolerance being intolerant. And groups promoting killing of babies want to keep baby killers alive. Happens all the time. That's fine. You can call them out if you'd like. I'm just gonna reserve the right to call out organizations calling for or praying for the death of people because they're gay. Because I'm gay. And I don't think that's right. And particularly hypocritical when you do things in the same of "protecting life." So you can continue with a false equivalency all you'd like, but groups promoting diversity don't often call for the death of someone based on who that person is.

200K jobs added in December. Unemployment rate drops from 8.6% to 8.5% U6 rate drops from 15.6% to 15.2%

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) How many people do you think that group represents? I just find it funny that groups committed to "protecting life" would pray for death.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 11:43 PM) Huntsman gets the Boston Globe endorsement. I figure he has less than a week left to his life in the race, so trying to get some posts in now. It's a shame we don't see/hear more from him. He does have the best logo of all the challengers.

Christians for a Moral America endorsed Rick Santorum because he's committed to "protecting life." Last month, they were taking a break from endorsing Christianist candidates to urge their supporters to pray for the death of singer George Michael who had pneumonia at the time. http://global.christianpost.com/news/radic...l-to-die-63489/

So the Republican choices amount to a guy who flip flops so often, he makes John Kerry seem immovable, a guy who wants to bring back the gold standard, and a guy who wants to outlaw birth control and the National Weather Service. Bumper crop, I dare say!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) I don't know... I think SC and FL will be tough for him, he has to make it to NV intact. And IMO, the only way to do that is Top 2 in NH, hope for a backslide from Romney, and campaign like hell in SC or FL. If he's in 3rd or lower in NH, I think he drops out. If he's in 2nd in NH, he continues, but needs to get a Top 3 finish in one of FL or SC, to make it to NV still breathing - and then he needs to win NV or be close to it. He just isn't getting enough financial support to make it any other way. I think it depends on what that third place looks like. Remember, over 60% of delegates aren't awarded until after March.

Everyone's list will get published, actually. I'm also going to extend the submission time to Sunday Jan 8. Mostly, because I don't have the free time this weekend that I thought I would to post the list up starting over the weekend. Want some ideas about what was released last year? Amazon's best of 2011 list: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=...rd_i=3454852011 Pitchfork's best of 2011 list: http://www.pitchfork.com/features/staff-li...albums-of-2011/ AV Club's best of 2011 list: http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-music-of-2011,66004/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) 8 votes? Holy Frijoles. So, as some have stated, the main purpose of Iowa is to narrow the field. We had 8 candidates getting significant support, about 2 months ago... then Cain imploded, leaving 7. Iowa looks like it will flush Perry and Bachmann out of the race (thank God). Now we're at 5. Now for my predictions... New Hampshire is of course the firewall for Huntsman - his only possible shot is if Romney starts to tumble (for whatever reason, maybe he loses votes to Santorum) and he manages to win NH or be close to winning. And since that is incredibly unlikely, NH will probably spell the end for him. That leaves 4 - Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich. I think Santorum's near-victory in Iowa is being overblown in terms of importance. He lived there for 3 months, went to all 99 counties, basically bet the farm. He won't do well in NH, so I think NH goes: Romney (by a lot), Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich, Santorum. So I'm guessing Santorum is hanging by a thread after NH. South Carolina is next. If Romney wins SC, it is all over, but I don't think he will. If Gingrich or Santorum can pull off a win or stay neck-and-neck at least, then they stay in. Paul will likely not do well in SC. I predict SC ends in a huge mess, with Gingrich just edging out Romney, Santorum and Paul in the second tier. So we stay at 4. Florida will rid us of Santorum, who will have gotten beaten badly in NH and finished near-bottom in SC. Romney will win it by a lot. That leaves Romney, a limping Gingrich, and Paul. Gingrich will run out of money in Florida, and get creamed in Nevada. So after Nevada, which is around the same time as Romney-easy Maine, Gingrich drops out, basically handing Romney the crown. Paul will stay in, and he may even make things interesting for a while in states like NV, ME, and AZ. But by Super Tuesday, Romney will have raked in enough points that it won't matter. Here is the nightmare scenario for Republicans though - Romney does win the nod, but Paul has so much grass roots support that he chooses to run as an "I" in the General. Might happen. Huntsman really can stay in with a strong top 3 performance in New Hampshire. Nobody's expecting to beat Romney in his backyard. He's run with little money to begin with, but he can stay in for quite a while.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 11:30 PM) it's Iowa. I'm sure people did. lol Well, there is technically a caucus. I know in Iowa City, apparently 500 people showed up. I think if Obama can bring roughly half the people to a caucus thats received literally one percent of the coverage this Iowa Caucus has received for the GOP, it should tell people everything they need to know about this election.

I wonder how many people showed at the Dem Caucus.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 10:54 AM) *sigh* there is NO state that completely represents a good fair and balanced sample of American voters, all I'm saying is Iowa gives you the BEST sample. If you're gonna fight this, give me an example of a politically moderate state that is full of all colors of people in the exact proportion as the entirety of the United States. One that WOULD give the best cross-section of America. Illinois, Michigan, California.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 10:54 AM) and there's an intelligent response. but, yep, you're a republican, so that's all you're good for. Neither of these responses are appropriate for this forum. If you two have issues, you should probably take it to PM.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 08:37 PM) Yet the suppression by the canceling out of legitimate votes by Democrats who are actively making it impossible to follow any sort of a trail by requiring identification for registration or voting to prove who people actually are, that doesn't disenfranchise anyone because the Democrats have made it impossible to actually prove anything. I'll be honest, I don't even really understand what you just said here.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 05:39 PM) Just as Democrats try and depress the military vote from overseas in just about every Democrat-led state, with their 'waivers' and late mailing of ballots overseas. There are a lot of reasons for late mailing of ballots overseas. I would agree that there are lots of problems in many states with prompt absentee balloting and that's something that isn't unique to the military. And it is something that does need to be fixed. Nobody should be denied their right to vote. By the way, your article cites New York as if it is some sort of conspiracy that ballots couldn't be delivered on time - like its done on purpose. Primary elections in New York were held 49 days prior to the general election (September 14). This gives the state of New York four days to certify primary elections, print ballots and fulfill all outstanding absentee ballot requests from the MOVE act. National Review may want to put a conspiracy spin on this, but the truth is that most of the states that requested the 2010 waiver had their primary in mid-September making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to honor the rules of the MOVE act - especially when the act may have passed after the election calendar was set for the state. Minority voter suppression however is a bit more nefarious, and it really exists. I've seen it. For example, in my minority heavy district, I've seen polling moved to police stations rather than a fire station across the street. And sure enough two weeks before election day, mysterious flyers start circulating warning people that if they have outstanding speeding tickets or back child support, the police will be running warrant checks on every voter. Then there are the flyers that are circulated urging people to vote Democrat on the wrong election day, or listing the Republicans as Democrats etc. I'm not saying that every Republican endorses or embraces these measures, but it is something that I do see, and see fairly systemically in urban, minority areas that tend to vote Democrat. And I see it every year I've worked in political elections.

The last time we did this list, at least one from everyone's list made the top 20.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) I don't know, I'd rather my party be disorganized versus committing criminal activities, but that is just me apparently. Unfortunately, for both parties - both things can be and too often are true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) It means that people don't want to vote and don't give a s***. It isn't some organized evil Republican plot that is stopping people from voting. It is lazy and disinterested people stopping themselves from voting. The rest is a figment of loony left-wing imagination. Just because a lot of people are lazy and don't want to vote, doesn't mean that Republicans don't have a recent history of trying to depress turnout in minority communities in close races (for obvious reasons).