Rex Kickass

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 02:22 PM) Things already covered in this game for future discussion: 1) Our SP sucks 2) Our BP sucks 3) We're already trying to pull everything/ why does Greg Walker still have a job 4)Over/Under on (meaningless) solo shots on the year Let the fun begin. Thanks you just saved me 28 pages of reading

Sort of related: anyone read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen? Excellent book.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) I did not know his shows on TLC had started since A&E screwed him over. Richard and Trademark are the s***. Hopefully I can record this sometime soon but TLC's website says it isn't on anytime this week.. This guy is worse than the people A&E replaced him with to be honest. He plays the nice guy, but he's even more of a huckster than the obvious schemers that replaced him. After hearing about some of the houses that Trademark did on their show, and how they turned out a year later (often still for sale, or still actually unfinished after sale) - I'd watch his show but I wouldn't buy a house from him.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 31, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) I fly 3 weeks out of every month, and only fly united. I would say American and United are tops as far as airlines go. Delta, US Airways, Continental are by FAR the worst in the skies. Southwest is ok if you dont mind waiting in line like cattle. I've had nothing but good experiences with Delta. What the airline lacks with in flight "extras" (although its comparable to most other product out there), it makes up for in generally good service.

Werd

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/60066...rce=slate_rss_1

Good point.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) Even if that's 100% their reasoning...how smart is it to try to convince the Bush Administration to back down by escalating a potentially military situation? "No Mr. Bush, I will not give you my lunch money, you're going to have to take it" (Machine gun fire is heard). They're betting on the fact that this can last for a couple weeks, maybe get their guys out of custody and be a nonthreatening enough situation to keep from any kind of serious military attack on Iran from the US due to our overstretched military position in the reason. That's my guess.

Some people argue that the Iran seizure of the British naval vessel has a lot to do with Iranian diplomats currently being held by the US in Iraq.

NSS: Not entirely true, there is US Airways. Bob: Try to keep a log of what happened when things start going wrong. Put it all in a SHORT letter and send it to United Customer Relations. Keep emotion out of the letter. A phone call might also help too. Again, stay nice. The people handling your call didn't cause your problem - and their jobs are to fix it. The less you scream, the more they'll be inclined to help you. If you need any more help regarding your situation and advice on how to get it in your favor, PM me. I do this more often than I like to admit for my travelers who end up in s***ty situations similar to yours.

I think Emmanuel Lewis may be a foot taller than he is.

So if it's a nonissue, why is the law necessary?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 08:21 AM) No, because the same stuff happens in the budget bills. I'm aware of that, but fiscal 06-07 has no actual budget. The Congress last year never passed one. I'm not defending pork spending or anything like that - but my question is, had an actual budget been passed last year, would most of this stuff actually been needed to vote on - say- now rather than months ago when it should have come up for vote in the first place?

Dumb question: but is it possible that a lot of these excess spending items might have been avoided had an actual budget been passed this fiscal year?

That really sucks and I really hope that he pulls through.

Or ask a travel agent. That's on Soxtalk. And named Rex Kickass.

So how many? I'm planning on ONE game this year. A one game increase from last season. I got my tickets already. White Sox at Yankees. August 2, 2007. Five dollars for nosebleed seats!

Remember when I said that impeachment most often comes from a death by 1000 paper cuts? Look, who's talking impeachment now? Not Kirstie Alley or John Travolta. But Chuck Hagel. A GOP Senator. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_...S._mCfnwP.MwfIE

81.00

So the President was for it before he was against it? Wait... what year is this again?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) If I recall, there was a very similiar situation with the Clinton Administration, and Clinton offered the same "Deal" Bush is offering, and the Republicans took it because they wanted to know the truth without all the grandstanding. Of course, THIS is different. It always is. Please cite the situation, because to my knowledge, the Clinton administration never fought a subpoena to testify before congress. In fact 31 aides testified nearly 50 total times during the Clinton administration by subpoena to Congress. How many aides have the Bush administration sent to testify before Congress by subpoena? According to the Congressional Research Service, not a single request for Congressional testimony was turned down during the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton administrations. http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 12:09 AM) Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime. Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration. Now please remove the GOP colored glasses Kap, because I honestly can't tell if its you or Sean Hannity speaking. The truth is, this is a shady situation, the AG office has even admitted as such. However, there is the issue of whether or not the AG has lied to Congress about matters of government business. I realize that for some people, this doesn't raise itself to the level of a President getting a hummer - but its worthy of some investigation. If there was really nothing here, why is the White House fighting the subpoena? Why is the only offer to Congress in terms of any kind of investigation is an off the record closed door interview? This is a personnel review. Exactly what about this is covert or classified? Exactly why isn't transparency appropriate in this situation?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) Then bring on impeachment. Seriously. That's what they have wanted since November 10, 2000. Impeachment in the current climate is not what the Dems would want. Impeachment in a climate similar to 1974 is what the Dems would want. Remember, successful impeachment proceedings will only take place when the movement to oust the President comes from the grassroots. The movement to get rid of Nixon didn't start in Congress.

Umm, no. The issue is whether or not the AG lied to Congress. There are a number of emails and testimony that could put some meat behind this argument. Regardless, the White House is gonna fight Congress about subpoenas now. The Senate is going to issue them, the White House is going to court about them, with the argument, we offered them voluntary testimony without an oath or a written transcript. The White House argument is looking more and more like they're saying they have the right to lie to Congress.

They aren't shutting down the campaign but its probably going to be a little more low key for the time being. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/edw...2008/index.html