Rex Kickass

Secretly, I was too.

Love this celebrity pic of the day. Barbara Bush's (the younger) backpocket at a College Football tailgate on Saturday. Triple fisting at a tailgate! That's impressive! The full story at Ivy Gate Blog. http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/11/ba...o_drinking.html

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) what about frist... isn't he planning to run? Hasn't announced yet though. And with McCain jumping in - officially - so early, it might suck a lot of support away from a Frist run.

I knew I forgot about him.

On the GOP side we have: McCain - Yes. Romney - Probably. Giuliani, Santorum, Allen - Probably Not. On the Dem side we have: Biden - Yes. Richardson - Probably (rumors of a January announcement). Edwards, Clinton, Obama - Maybe. Kerry - Less likely but still possible. Warner, Feingold - Definitely Not. John Edwards raises profile by editing book about families and homes and something boring suitable for a Presidential candidate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_...ks_john_edwards Joe Biden says he's running. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/12/s...fo_n_33913.html Bill Richardson says he's running, maybe. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/12/n...ch_n_33928.html

QUOTE(The Critic @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 02:35 AM) I believe that if there is a hell, this would be my torture. One Yoko Ono SONG in a row makes me want to icepick my eardrums. Lies! I listened to Season of Glass the whole way through last night. That album is sooo good. So raw too.

I too got a 97%. The only answer I got wrong was my age.

I will be too. But because I think Sofia Coppola is an AMAZING director. The Virgin Suicides is a genius film.

Teamsters left AFLCIO for Unite to Win, no? I'm much more of a fan of the latter than the former.

Happiness is having three Yoko Ono albums playing in a row.

I don't see the problem with taking your oath of office on the book of your faith. What would be the point of a muslim swearing to uphold our constitution on the tenets of your faith? Frankly, I'd be more concerned if he swore to uphold our constitution on a bible, because that isn't an instrument of his belief system. And ultimately, what does this change? Nothing. Does this make him less or more exempt from prosecution for breaking the law? No. Does this make him less or more likely to represent his constituent's wishes? No. As far as I'm concerned a Congressman can swear on an encyclopedia, a picture of his family, or whatever he finds important to him and it makes no difference to me what he uses to take his oath. As long as he takes and upholds the oath he needs to take. Mr Genius: as far as the other stuff you mentioned? Seeing as how it doesn't pertain to this issue - I still don't have a problem with him swearing on a Koran. If what you allege is true: sure I have a problem with it. But that doesn't mean a thing with what he swears on to uphold an oath. Rooftop Shots: Thanks for coming in the Filibuster. Thanks for offering your opinion. But frankly, your opinion - in this case - is shortsighted and wrong. We are guaranteed religious freedom in this country - and that includes our choice of worship manual to use when taking an oath of office. If you don't appreciate religious freedom - that's what's Unamerican.

Personally, I don't see the problem.

What union is he in?

It came out months ago. The investigation started in June or July I think. A lot of people said that there was a campaign commercial related to this that may have turned the tide in Menendez' favor - oddly enough. Sort of a Sopranos knockoff. Problem is that there are a lot of Italians in NJ that resent the Sopranos thing. Too many people thought it was below the belt. I am not gonna defend the guy - but from what little I know of this matter is that the reason nothing came out on this controversy is because there isn't much to come out. It was investigated while he was in Congress (before the Ethics comittee was basically destroyed) and he was cleared of any wrong doing then. Apparently. But I don't know. He could be a crook. Although how many crooks do you know live in a studio apartment?

Not all religions promote hated of gay people and not all religions lack compassion. However, we can all agree that Elton John is just an irrelevant guy. And hasn't said anything interesting since he guest starred on the Muppet Show.

I just think its an interesting thing to see. With individual seat races, its possible for one party's candidate slate to get more votes than the other and lose seats (like 2004) and its possible for a pretty seismic gap to result in no real change of power (which wouldn't have been the case this year without 3,000 Dem votes in Montana).

The Democrats took the Senate. A net gain of 6 seats gave them a 51-49 majority. The final two seats were decided by about 10,000 votes (3,000 in Montana, 7,000 in Virginia) Seems like a closely divided country, right? Well, yes and no. At least not as close as you'd think. Where you vote mattered a lot to the closeness of Senate elections. If this was a nationwide election, the GOP didn't just lose control of Congress, they got crushed. According to CNN, the total vote count for all Senate elections swings this way. (Might be a little off, I did the math with a calculator.) Dem - 15,841,568 GOP - 12,957,644 Weird thing is? In 2004, in total vote count - more people voted for Democratic senators than Republican ones. What does this mean? Some claim it could represent a mandate for the Democratic party. But in reality it means very little. Just that the races for GOP held seats were much closer, on average, then seats for Dem held seats. And now a reply to my own horrible math. This total only covers about half the Senate races. But the percentage totals in total popular vote are pretty stunning 55% for the Dems, 43% for the GOP, 2% for Independent candidates.

Dumb question, wouldn't it make sense to push for something small - say 2% but be willing to settle for as-is?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) I think it would be absolutely awesome if the Dems pushed anti-corruption legislation through both the House and Senate and the President vetoed it. No, that would be terrible. I want our President on board with this. I want this to enjoy wide bipartisan support. I want to see everyone invested in representing our country to support these efforts.

I don't know if this is a breaking news story. Seeing as how its been expected since Nov 2004. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2644481&page=1

This would be awesome if they get it done. Even awesomer, if it gets through the Senate and the White House.

Based on income as I recall, was never approved for more than 15% of my tuition in subsidized loans.

I never qualified for more than a couple grand in federally subsidized student loans per year as a student. There are federally subsidized and non federally subsidized student loans that a college student can qualify for.

You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful.

There's now a real good chance we'll see Ohio State - Rutgers in the Nat'l Championship Game.