StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) I don't agree. He attacks one of the WSJ article's arguments with the exact same reasoning. And it happens to be true. There is a tremendous amount of money on both sides of the issue and each side is simply trying to point out the financial motivations of the other side as their singular and deep dark secret behind their claims. I don't see it. He's pointing out that the WSJ is being dishonest by only highlighting the financial interests of one side and completely ignoring those of the other.

guys I already made a zombie Lincoln joke.

First I heard of it closing was today. I think they've just lost funding/support over the years.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) Hmmm....I wouldn't characterize it as a solid anything, let alone take-down. This article basically does the same thing as the WSJ article: It raises the same broad excuse for why the other side must disagree....simply because it's in their economic interests to do nothing about Global Warming. That's missing the point. He's exposing the gaping logical hole in that argument, not claiming that AGW is true because "follow the money."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,2024695.story

She was forced to retire because someone shot her in her brain, severely impacting her ability to perform her job.

Ed Kilgore with a solid take-down of the nonsense climate change denial article published by the WSJ today

More reactions on the GDP news, some good, some bad. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...1/gdp-reax.html

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 12:43 PM) My girlfriend and I both switched to USAA for out banking. We switched and then left on vacation at Christmas. She miscalculated how much she had desposited in the old versus new accounts. She checked her USAA balance when we finally were within a cell signal and found out she was overdrawn. She called USAA in a panic. They calmed her down, explained they transfered funds from her savings to checking (she had pre-authorized that) and everything was fine. She asked what the fees would be for those transactions. The reply? "Zero, welcome to USAA!". Jealous. I'd use USAA in a heartbeat.

If you're curious about what google thinks your demographic is: https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/onweb They think I'm 55-64, at least at work. I'm not sure what to think of that.

It's pretty similar to Texas's whitewashing a year or two ago.

More coming out that Ron Paul absolutely knew what was in those racist newsletters.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/...lative-demands/

That sounds awfully Eastern Bloc, comrade.

you left out Alinsky-ite Marxist Muslim Kenyan anti-colonialist (that's a bad thing?) usurper

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) Everything must be made into black and white, polar arguments in the current political environment. Not sure if you noticed. Next we will hear about radical moderation. Well Newt recently reiterated the growing threat from the radical islamofascist secularists, lending more credibility to my hypothesis!

GDP growth rate was 2.8% in 4Q2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16760575 Slow, but improving.

Sending in a ballot and then dying before an election does give new meaning to "absentee" voting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) But I thought it never happened? :confused:It... didn't? They've checked the six names released so far, and every one was a legit vote. In-person voter fraud, the kind that voter ID laws would stop, does happen but is exceedingly rare to the point that one or two cases every several years get trumpeted endlessly as proof of MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD. To the extent that it's a real problem, it's so minuscule that it wouldn't even have changed Florida in 2000 (unlike the really terribly handled felon voter roles!). On the other hand, the voter ID laws proposed to "fix" this problem result in the disenfranchisement of millions.

shocking.

WTF is "radical secularism"

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Bob Dole trending on Twitter, he says a Gingrich nomination would be a landslide for Obama, and that Newt cost him in '96. Dole would know something about landslides though The conservative base believes that nominating moderate Republicans like Dole and McCain are what cost them the elections in 96 and 08. They seem much more willing to "go down fighting" with someone like Newt or Perry than losing with another moderate Republican.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) So... Newt wants to massively cut programs like infrastructure, energy and medicine... but he wants a base on the moon by 2020? WTF? Remember when I told you he was crazy?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/time-trav...tion-not,27178/