StrangeSox

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 27, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) That's fair, but impractical. Are we going to have the refs keep compasses and protractors to measure halfway between 15 yards and the spot?' the playing field is already a giant ruler

page 89 (pdf page 97): http://static.nfl.com/static/content/publi...Rule%20Book.pdf So in that game, the Lions committed a foul that delayed the next snap. The on-field ruling was "against" the Lions in that they wanted to challenge the ruling on the field. I understand the intent of the ruling, that you can't intentionally delay the next snap to give the booth more time to initiate a review, but this was a fair interpretation of the way it's worded. In the hypothetical situation, the ruling that would be reviewed (bad TD call for Team A) was "in favor" of Team A, so them committing a foul to delay the snap wouldn't prevent the booth officials from initiating a review of a ruling against Team B, which committed no foul. At least that's how I read it.

I don't think NSS would have a problem with Rice as SoS, but the two situations aren't really comparable anyway. Mostly because when they specifically called it a 'terrorist' attack doesn't matter one bit.

You can view both INR reviews of Powell's speech here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra..._appendix-a.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra..._appendix-b.htm Many of his claims were rated as "WEAK" and unsupported, yet he went with them anyway and stated them as unequivocally true facts.

To what end? To protest his sham speech instead of lying to the American people and the UN in order to gain support for an unnecessary war. If Powell had resigned in protest of the weakness of the rationale for the Iraq war, perhaps the damn war never happens. At the very least, he doesn't sell out yet again to please those in power. Powell is excellent at "just following orders" and has a long history of doing just that. He stated the case presented to him despite his own intelligence team calling much of it into question. He stated that there were "no doubts" and used strong, definitive statements like "we know" and "it is a fact." He intentionally and knowingly overstated the case and ignored multiple warnings on many of the claims. He may have been questioning everything behind closed doors, but when it came time to present the case to the public, he questioned nothing. Yes, Powell is a complete and total coward. He tried to cover up the American atrocities at Mai Lai. He lied about his knowledge of Iran-Contra, once again covering up for an administration. He lied in his speech to the UN, giving what was the final push for the Iraq war and his aura made it so that the press wouldn't really question his claims. Him being there did nothing to make things better and only solidified popular support, both among the people and in the press. I really don't understand how anyone can keep excusing this man who has so many examples of dishonesty in his record.

Bruce Bartlett (former Reagan budget guy, Heritage & CATO member, etc.) has a lengthy editorial in The American Conservative describing the epistemic closure that conservatives have been suffering from for years now. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/art...ased-community/ edit: Bartlett's section on his "race book" is pretty cringe-worthy and oblivious, though.

He didn't express any doubts whatsoever in his speech: Regarding aluminum tubes: INR memo to Powell: Here he uses Saddam's dead son-in-law to bolster his claims: However, Kamal was killed in 1996. He had been referring to weapons programs from 1991 and said that they had all been destroyed. You wouldn't know that listening to Powell's speech. There's a bunch more examples of Powell repeatedly overstating the case and explicitly ignoring INR memos on his prepared speech if you would like them. The man is a coward who lies to protect power over and over again. He did it with Mai-Lai. He did it with Iran-Contra. He did it with Iraq.

He could have simply refused to give a bulls*** presentation. He has a job that's ultimately responsible to the American people, not the President he is currently serving. He's forgotten that multiple times. Powell and Tenet should both go down for that presentation, but you're making excuses for him. Powell didn't cause the Iraq war, but he was a critical part in building public support for it. He had an (undeserved) reputation that was exploited, and he allowed it to happen at best.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2012 -> 08:36 AM) I like the part where they mention their total debt before and after bankruptcy, but don't mention the pension debt until later, even though that was probably most of the debt, and non-dischargible. This Fortune article from July makes mention of the possibility of pension obligations being discharged and notes that this "often happens" in these types of cases. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/...nkies-bankrupt/ they also make a similar charge about their debt level increase being unusual:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) Didn't they already fail to contribute over $150 million in past payments to the pension plan? They stopped making their ~$8M/month payments in August 2011.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 27, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) What work rule changes were implemented? He fails to list them...Probably because they weren't any...Two trucks delivering bread and twinkies from the same distribution center is not efficient. But union work rules say its a good idea. Probably would save on truck wear and tear too, no? The Teamsters approved the final deal that the bakers ultimately rejected. That deal included work rule changes. I don't know if the details are public or not.

More depressing climate news: http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1119-hance-4-degrees.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...s-a-662887.html I believe we'll be well and truly f***ed on a global level within my lifetime. Good thing such an important issue was discussed and contemplated in our $5 billion dollar election.

Don't forget his complicity with Iran-Contra! Oh and covering up Mai-Lai, too! Powell has never hesitated to lie to further the interests of those in power.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) Well, if Cam Newton scores less than 3 points, I'll take sole possession of first place in my league.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) Probably, in the long run, the $34k to $0k. Because taking that $34k to $24k was only going to benefit the current private-equity owners and the workers would just be taking another beating in a few years. The bakers union was very well aware of what their strike likely meant, and a majority of their members still felt it was more important to make that stand than to accept those drastic cuts. The problem with the "learn something useful" is that it comes with a hefty price tag more often than not and what's useful isn't static. Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) I played it exclusively for about 2 months before I got bored. same

Two feet=in bounds. Half-a-hand or even a whole-hand=process not yet completed, similar to one foot being down. As soon as any part of his hand hits oob, play over, incomplete pass.

If the land is sold to pay taxes, clearly it will go fallow for generations. Or the new owners will lease the land to farmers. Hard to know.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) The runner is considered down when either a: His forward progress stops or b: any part of his body other than his foot or hand touches the ground AND he is touched by a player of an opposing team. Bryants hand touched down out of bounds before any other part of his body, thus he was out of bounds...Simple as that. that's a different rule than completions, otherwise foot-dragging wouldn't count.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Iamshack says an entire appendage counts in whether someone is in bounds or not, so in that case, it makes sense that he was ruled out of bounds because although 90% of his hand was in bounds FIRST, the last 10% eventually landed out of bounds, nullifying the catch. But I believe a hand down does count as being "in bounds", so long as all of the hand is in. But would it count for a completion e.g. someone lands with their hand in-bounds but then their butt entirely out-of-bounds.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) No, it's the fact that Dez's hand actually hit IN BOUNDS first, then his pinky landed out of bounds a millisecond later. In both instances, the player came down in bounds, then another body part landed out of bounds almost simultaneously. Dez's was closer than Spaeths, but what the correct time frame to say "he was in bounds long enough before he was out of bounds"? That's the gray area there. His pinky was not the first thing that landed. And the issue or not about the agreement of that play right now, it's that I am somehow just trolling by saying Speath was out of bounds, instead of simply starting a conversation. As if my comment about Spaeth somehow had malicious intent just to piss people off, because that's what trolling is, and that's what I am being "unanimously" accused of, regardless of our beliefs on the Dez vs. Spaeth plays. I could be wrong here, but I don't think "one hand" counts as being in-bounds. So it doesn't matter that his hand landed in-bounds first and then his pinky hit. When his pinky hit, he hadn't yet completed the catch in-bounds so it was incomplete.

One hand isn't enough to be ruled inbounds though, right? So it doesn't matter where Bryant's hand hit first, just that part of his hand hit oob before his butt landed inbounds.

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) Lance Louis placed on IR, done for the year.

Wealthy people would like to pass on generational wealth without taxation. Whether it's in the form of land or cash or stockholdings doesn't matter.