Rex Kickass

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) Can you explain who that is? George Hincapie was basically Lance's super domestique. Big stars don't win without the support of a team. He was Lance's main support on every one of the seven Tours that Lance won. He's also got a great reputation for being pretty honest - not the kind of brash liar that previous accusers have been - like Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis. He's also the only rider who rode with Lance for every one of Lance's seven winning tours. He has nothing to gain by rolling over on Lance.

I believe Joseba Beloki is the only one of those five TDF riders to have never been suspended for doping. Also, I would wager the reason that Lance is backing down is that George Hincapie was going to testify against Lance. Stripping the yellow jerseys this way doesn't lose him his endorsements. Stripping it by exposing him as a fraud costs him more than a few trophies in his case.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 07:32 AM) http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/08/22/cop...lurs-into-skin/ BUt in liberal land, that's ok, because her intentions were good. Fake but accurate and all that. Actually, that's pretty s***ty and stupid.

Biden will be holding a rally in Tampa on the Monday of convention week.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 15, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) In Riviera maya? If you want a nice all inclusive yet romantic resort I would recommend Zoetry http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g2..._Peninsula.html Alot of the all inclusives are HUGE but this one is smaller, more personal and very awesome. You can get a cabana steps from the ocean with butler service. If you want a really nice larger resort Grand Velas is fantastic. Zoetry is pretty darn nice. On the Pacific Coast, Taheima Wellness Resort and Spa is pretty incredible according to my guests. I'm also a big fan of Sandals in Whitehouse, Jamaica. It's secluded, gorgeous and the pools are amazing.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Liberal favorite Elizabeth Warren was set to give a speech before a group of volunteers in Brockton, Mass., on Wednesday night, when she was interrupted by an apparent Tea Party supporter who had some less than kind words for the Senate candidate. So, no confirmation, let's just go with it since he made a scene. Good reporting there. And seriously, is Warren really a 'favorite'? You guys both know that this story is from November, right?

Ron Pallilo AKA Arnold Horshack.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) I'm going to Nicaragua in November. Did you go to the Corn Islands at all? I didn't and I didn't hear so many great things about the Corn Islands. Basically you could distill the lonely planet guide down to about four words - Remote, Muggy, Expensive, Mosquitos. I ended up in San Juan del Sur for a few days and wanted to go to Leon to do the Volcano boarding, but I couldn't take myself away from the beach.

I've just confirmed that I'll be spending four nights at Club Med in Florida at the very beginning of November. It's a "work trip." My life is hard

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) I edited. As I highlighted, Bush almost lost the state of Texas to Clinton because of Perot. There are many repeated examples of this. It's simply undeniable. But he did not lose the state of Texas to Clinton. You could make the argument that Perot played spoiler in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. If that's the case, we're talking a total of 75 electoral votes swapping from candidate to candidate in 1992. That would give Clinton 295, Bush 243.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) Doubtful. Perot got a LOT of votes from republican voters, not just people who weren't going to vote. Perot was basically a republican candidate running as an Indy. I find it highly unlikely that 3 or 4% of his votes came from democratic voters. Perot got 19% of the vote in 2012. If 4 of those 19% came from voters who may have voted Democrat because of dissatisfaction with Bush (and crossover like that was more common in 1992 than we'd see today), Clinton would have still gotten 47% of the votes cast. It's also, very likely, that the Perot campaign got a few million voters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted in 1992 at all. Since most of the votes Perot got were in strong blue or strong red states as it was, it would not have helped Bush win very easily. His path to 270 was a lot more complicated than a Perot spoiler.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 09:50 PM) Bush lost to Clinton because of Ross Perot. Perot split the republican vote and Clinton won with something like 43% to HW's 37%, had Perot not run, HW would have won easily. That's a little simplistic view of things. Perot did get a lot of disaffected folks out to the polls in 92, but its also likely that many of those voters would have stayed home. Some of that 18% (likely 3 or 4 points of that) also peeled off of Clinton's total. Looking at the results, its possible that Perot not being on the ballot might have flipped as many of nine states from blue to red, but that still would have only amounted to 75 Electoral Votes, giving Clinton something in the neighborhood of 295 votes - not the landslide he got electorally, but still enough to eek out a victory.

RIU is a chain you should be a bit careful about. They have 5 star accommodations and 3 star as well. There's a decent service difference between a 3, 4 and 5 star accommodation. Early November is a great time to go. Prices are depressed because its between Labor Day and Thanksgiving and the places are pretty empty. Also, you catch a break because its technically hurricane season as well - although by November, that threat is much much lower.

Southern Poverty Law Center: Shooter was lead singer of a White Supremacist rock band and had ties to Neo-Nazi organizations. Reuters: Shooter was dishonorably discharged in 1998 for being drunk on duty and other misconduct.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Were they Germans? Nope, they were from all over Europe... I think two Americans.

I'm a travel agent, just so ya know. There are plenty of safe places to vacation in Mexico, and Cozumel and Cancun can be an incredibly great value at times. You can also find some great values in Jamaica and Dominican Republic for all inclusives. The best time of year for a great bargain is coming up. Post labor day and pre Thanksgiving affords some amazing deals, but you do have some risk of tropical storms/hurricanes. The good news is, if there's no Tropical Storm, the weather is usually some of the best many Caribbean islands have all year. There's even one all-inclusive in the US, Club Med has one in Florida, near Port St Lucie. Vegas can be great fun, but if you're going to go for the first time - do it right. Don't cheap out and stay at a generic off strip hotel, especially now because there are deals EVERYWHERE for Vegas. There's a big difference in your experience if you stay some place like the Cosmopolitan as opposed to say Circus Circus or the Hilton Garden Inn. Vegas can be very cheap to get to, but expensive to stay in. Personally, I'm ambivalent to the area. My favorite cheap destination was Nicaragua. $5/night hotels a block from a gorgeous beach, riding chicken buses across the country for $1.25, drinking Tona beer and chilling out for a week was great. I wasn't even paying attention to what I was spending, had a great time, and never spent more than $70 in a day.

I spent an interesting couple of days with LaRouche-ites in a hostel in Munich Germany about 10 years ago. They were apparently there to campaign for local politicians, because Germany has a Larouche Party apparently. I remember talking with them, and saying I'd seen their tables and such in downtown and was confused why their campaign table had signs that said IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY when they were running local election campaigns. They looked at me like I had two heads and couldn't seem to understand why it might not be effective to base a campaign for city council in Germany on the premise of impeaching the president of a different country.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 04:46 PM) If the CEO of CFA had no history of donating any money to focus on the family and was apathetic about SSM but came out and said he hated gays the reaction would have been the exact same. GMAB. If the CEO of Chick-Fil-A had no history of donating money to anti-GLBT causes, he wouldn't be on anyone's radar in the gay community. The truth is, there have been many of us who haven't gone to CFA for years because of their history of supporting anti-gay politicians and causes. Plus, their chicken is kinda s***ty.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) If you got that from my post, I presented it wrong. No, not being teased. It's parents not allowing their kids to ever even THINK about the possibility of being a priest because of the mockery of the position now. A priest is a strange pedophile now, case closed. There is something wrong with you if you want to be a priest is the common perception and that is HORRIBLE. My former priest is my life hero and mentor. A person I knew in grade school and high school went to study as a monk, and eventually became a priest. He followed his calling. I don't find him to be a strange pedophile at all. In fact, none of the people that I know who know him think of him that way. I would love to see some data to prove the point you're trying to make, because it's just so vague and out of left field.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) Our priest (yes priest, my religion has run out of priests because of all the jokes and PC that no longer allows "normal" kids to consider pursuing such a calling) has welcomed all gays into the church even tho the higher ups would probably excommunicate him for that. There's all sorts of ridiculous stuff in this thread, but this line... really? REALLY? You honestly think that the downturn in men choosing to follow the calling of their Catholic faith has to do with being teased about being a child molester? Seriously? It might have something to do with the perception that the Church decided to protect the "men of faith" who violated the most basic trust of children in their care instead of the children who were violated and damaged. It might have something to do with the perception that the Church cares more about protecting its own than the pursuit of doing good works in the name of God for the people they are supposedly chosen to serve. I grew up Catholic. I considered following a calling. But upon greater reflection, I felt that the Catholic Church no longer reflected the faith it claims to protect, but was concerned mostly about protecting its own wealth and its own. That's the perception that made me leave the Catholic Church. It certainly had nothing to do with jokes about the priesthood. Those have been around for centuries, my friend.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 11:21 PM) No one told me if they're against shaving. I shave begrudgingly.

Let me rephrase this. I won't boycott a business based on someone's personal stance. When that person's personal stance is reflected in the way that company does business, that's when a boycott is fair game IMO.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) If I boycotted the products of all the companies whose members of upper management have differing/objectionable ideals, I would likely have to be totally self sufficient. This is one that gets much more media attention because gay marriage is such a polarizing issue that gets plenty of media attention by itself I can respect personal stances. I don't respect using your business to advance a social agenda.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) I don't see that quote. You're right I paraphrased.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) Does anyone know why this story got so much play recently? I thought their position on homosexuality has been known for years? Because the President of Chick-Fil-A said in an interview last week that if we let gay people get married, we're all going to hell. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/d..._n_1680984.html