Rex Kickass

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 10, 2005 -> 05:22 PM) I'm not a Dr. but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Diagnosis? A Shifted Uterus. That's gotta hurt.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 10, 2005 -> 12:12 PM) Rush is a drugged-up dolt. Agreed, and he oughta turn himself in too and face the music he said other drug addicts oughta face for the last 15 years. Michael Moore - Not affiliated. Barbra Streisand - affiliated. Both are bleeding heart liberals. But dude, its a joke. Calm down.

It's gangrene. Cut it off. I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV.

Reasonable doubt is relevant in all criminal trials. Only in civil suits can a "preponderance of evidence" overrule reasonable doubt. Personally, I don't think he did it. Given the fact that the dates of the molestation have changed several times, according to what I've read, I'm leaning towards an acquittal.

When I was 8, a sandbar washed out under my feet in Lake Michigan and I got caught in the current. I'm not a very good swimmer and I don't remember much. But apparently, I didn't drown. Last year, I was driving back to my s***ty city on I-196 in Michigan. Caught some black ice and spun out at about 60-70mph. Was headed directly into crashing into a wrecker and sending both of us down an embankment. Stopped just short of hitting the truck.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 10, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) Would that be because they're illegal aliens and they shouldn't even be in the U.S. in the first place? :rolly That said, I agree that the exploitation of these people is disgusting. What's even more disturbing is that this type of "employment" is better than what's available in their nation of origin. If you really agree, why the swipe at the people that are busting their ass for literally a dollar an hour? Seriously, you're blaming illegal aliens for their own exploitation by American companies. That's rich.

So if he's at the hospital, admitted or something, does the warrant still count?

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 02:35 PM) I disagree with this. It would be unreasonable to expect, say, McDonald's to pay someone $20,000/year to flip burgers, even if they work "full time." Most graduate students work 50 hrs/week or more and typically earn about $17,000-$25,000/year (depending on the cost of living where they work). Why is it unreasonable to earn 20,000 dollars a year flipping burgers full time? A double cheeseburger at McDonalds pulls in 99 cents of revenue. I'd say that its reasonable to expect that on average, a McDonalds serves 30 customers an hour. Assuming that they sell one burger product worth 99 cents of revenue per customer, that. The burger flipper is responsible for nearly 30 dollars of revenue each hour. In a forty hour work week, that flipper is responsible for 1200 dollars of burger revenue. Now, I'm willing to bet that the average employee does more than make cheeseburgers. He probably also handles the fry machine, maybe fills drinks, cleans the kitchen area or dining room. Takes hot grease out to the dumpster too I bet. And works his ass off. 50 weeks a year, 2000 hours a year. And he's not worth 10 bucks an hour? That's a hell of a lot harder work than I do or any grad student for that matter. Why shouldn't he get paid 10 dollars an hour? But the average McDonalds worker gets paid far less than that. Assistant Managers make about 8. An hour.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 04:39 PM) I figure if I cannot cover it while wearing a business suit, I'm not getting one. That's why I have an "exit only" tattoo on my butt. English and Spanish. Just in case I pass out. That only makes it more of a challenge. Too much?

Tex: The GOP could not have done it in California after the 2000 Census, because the Democrats control the California Legislature. There is talk of Democrats doing tit for tat redistricting in other states that they now control to "level the playing field" so to speak and negate the gerrymandered effect of the Texas redistricting in the 2004 Congressional elections. Personally, I think its a s***ty idea to do it either way. The last thing I want as a private citizen is to have to figure out who my congressman is every two years.

Re-Redistricting is rare.

Don't make me...

Except its amazing how fast the tables turn when someone starts "changing the rules of the game." It can really bite someone in the ass. After the Texas re-redistricting, Dems are looking at doing the same thing in a few states where they now control state houses. Democrats did very well last year on the AAA level of state houses and senates... especially in red states. And that means a year or two down the line, it could cost the GOP some of the very seats they count on today.

Everytime I see a neck tat, I wanna put a bandaid over it. Especially since most of them are so badly done besides.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 10:13 AM) BTW, what's the deal with your Bea Arthur thing? Are you related to her or something? Just curious... It might be related to the coffee table thing (shut up, that's why). I'm not really sure to be honest. Maude/Dorothy is a comic genius.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 10:11 AM) I don't really think we need to have a discussion about what's worse, a b****, or an asshole or other variants. It's stupid to even discuss it, so let that part drop. That's all. Other then that, it's a pretty passionate discussion and that's all well and good. Ding! And circle gets the square! I'll take Paul Lynde to block.

Damn straight!

I think the article is a bit misleading to be totally honest. People aren't pissed about Joe Lieberman being more "moderate" than the rest of the Democratic party. They are more worried that he's betraying the party when they are in a position to not be able to betray. There is plenty of room in the big tent for people with different positions. The governor of Montana is a staunch gun advocate. The Senate minority Leader is not pro-choice. However, when there is an issue for the Democrats where it is important to take a united stance - like the privatization of Social Security, you can't afford to have someone like Joe Lieberman flirt with the GOP about coming over to their side because it makes the power you wield in Congress ineffective. The story is pure inside baseball, and frankly not that accurate. You don't have to tow the party platform 100% of the time while you're in office, but you also need to do what your party asks of you too. The party helps you get there, and once you're there you need to help your party stay there. And the Democrats are far more laissez-faire about the stances of their Senators and Congressmen than the Republicans. Just ask Arlen Specter. Or Chris Shays. Or Olympia Snowe. Or Christie Todd Whitman.

That's a scary thought.

Either way, let's cool down the rhetoric here. I don't wanna see this get any uglier.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:26 PM) They are both BSers. A 25% increase in minimum wage would end up getting many people laid off or fired. At the same time we don't need anymore tax cuts, as employment and wages have been increasing at a solid, noninflationary rate. They both need to get their heads out of their asses. I'm just curious to where that data comes from. They say that everytime that minimum wage gets raised, but whenever it happens - I don't remember the McDonalds' of the world laying off fry machine kids to make ends meet. By the way, the Republican bill would have made waiters and waitresses unable to get the 2 dollars and change minimum wage that they get now, and it would have also allowed people to work over 40 hours in a week without getting overtime provided that the total worked in two weeks is under 80. The GOP counter bill was more a trap than anything, allowing Republicans to target vulnerable Dems by saying that they didn't support minimum wage hikes. The Democratic bill was also a piece of theater, going up for vote even though it was well known that they didn't have the votes to pass it either.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/07/retirement...dex.htm?cnn=yes

It seems that the people here that are getting so mad about this situation which doesn't affect them at all, only seem to be getting mad because it hurts their argument. So let's calm down a bit and look at the facts of the situation. An italian journalist was shot and she wasn't supposed to be shot by American forces. We can all pretty much agree on that. Whether she is/was a communist b**** or not is neither here nor there. She was in a convoy taking her to the airport to go home. After just being freed from captivity, something tells me that she didn't have the ultimate say on the speed or action of the convoy whisking her off to the airport. So my guess is, she didn't make the decision to speed through the checkpoint or open road, whichever. Italy says that the United States command was notified. It probably was, but there are a lot of people to notify and some people probably didn't get the notice. Italy has a right to demand and receive a full investigation into the shooting of their convoy given that they are a. fighting alongside the Americans in Iraq, b. involved in a military accident that involved a member of their security team mistakenly killed and c. was involved in something that can legitimately be referred to as an "international incident." The truth in these stories lies probably somewhere between the US version and Italy's version. And yes, it makes the US look bad. Not because it was an accident involving a checkpoint as much as it was shooting at a recently freed hostage being evacuated from a country that they have "secured." OK?

When one of your own is shot, its rare that public reaction is a shrug and "s*** happens."

Best thread title ever. Happy birthday too, asshat!