Texsox

LOL, thanks SS I needed that laugh.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) Well to me, telling people to change their behaviors because you believe there is a better way to live life is pretty much the definition of a moral authority, at least to me. Right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter. Then I don't believe there is anyone on the planet that could tell people to change. Like Jesus said, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." "Mom, that hurt!"* Added for comedic value, not to detract from m point.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 07:51 AM) A wild bear is legal to shoot if it is locked in a pen? I think that this is an issue of the "sport" of hunting. I know hunting in itself is pretty cruel and inhumane, but at least wild bears have a sense to run away, that tame bear probably just stood there and let it happen. Either way, it was a pretty lame thing to do to get a trophy on your wall. If you want to brag about a kill, at least have the balls to go out and hunt for it. You go out to your farm or ranch and a bear is in your pen, of course you can kill it in the pen. What would be the alternatives? Say shoo, please go away? Wait until it tears up your property or kills some livestock? I agree it is a lame way to harvest a bear in this way, but is it criminal and should there be charges years after? I don't think so. Which is more cruel and inhumane, our factories that turn out t-bones and ground beef, or the harvesting of wild game? Do you also have a problem with killing a tame cow? A tame chicken? A tame pig?

At worst, great message, poor messenger. Also, poor and misleading reporting by the damn liberal press trying to make a conservative like Al Gore look bad.

And I always wonder why certain players get some press for being on the list and others do not. Do sports writers try and pick the biggest names that could be dealt? That would make the most sense.

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 08:21 PM) Are you crazy?! Floyd Bannister pwns! That's Floyd "The Barber" Bannister to you young man. Ohhhhhh Andy, how about a little trim . . . ?

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:53 PM) I doubt you could put your pet cat/dog in a cage and videotape yourself shooting it with a bow and arrow and say you were just putting it down. Why should a tame bear somehow receive more protection than a wild bear? If a wild bear was cornered in a pen, it would have been legal to shoot. Did this bear somehow become a citizen and now has a different set of rights? GMAB, this is a waste of government money.

I hope they didn't spend too much on the four year investigation. Now, I have to wonder, why is it ok to kill a wild bear, but not a tame bear? We could have our cute little cat put down, but not a bear? WTF? Should they have strapped him down, sedated him and killed him via lethal injection? Come to think of that, that would be a cool video.

Damn, nobody mentioned post counts

August 17, 2006 NOTE FROM CHRIS: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has started a blog: http://snipurl.com/iranblog The Top 5 Posts on the Iranian President's Blog 5> "So Ahmad says it's time to get a jihad on and we roll down to Ibrahim's Brass Pole for the wet burka contest. We're like total schwingfidels. Shiite yeah!" 4> "... and if you move the country's letters around you get 'rain,' which never happens here in the desert... Man, I am sooooooo wasted right now." 3> "Today's mood: choppy. Currently listening to: A Flock of Seagulls." 2> "Who else has noticed that Casper the Jihadist Ghost looks a little *too* similar to that dandified capitalist Richie Rich? Are they perhaps the same being, reunited through a rift in the space-time continuum? ... Um, I mean, KILL THE INFIDELS!" and Topfive.com's Number 1 Post on the Iranian President's Blog... 1> "Curse the infidel! How can I resist battery power *and* five blades?!?" Join ClubTop5 to see the whole 16-item list and the Runner Up/Honorable Mention submissions for today's list: "Post Mortem" and "Couldn't Get Away" http://www.topfive.com/html/ClubTop5.shtml

Who is using them?? I have a surfer dude on mine, fits with my job.

Let me tell you, after reading a few suggestions from a friend of mine including Nora Roberts, John Jakes, and Clive Custler; I learned a whole lot.

And that probably describes hundreds of thousands of illegals in this country. BTW, some people equate paying cash with not reporting it. That may or may not be true in this case. I was paid cash when I worked for Foot Locker, but of course it was reported. Many retain stores still do that. I did that for my workers as a convienece to them. Sadly, their families may never know what happened to them.

Just wondering

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 08:47 AM) But why should alcohol be legal and marijuana shouldn't? Many scholars and legal experts would agree that the reason is partially or mostly racist. Minorities (blacks primarily) smoked pot and nice WASPs drank gin.

Let's remember these rules are more about helping the teachers who don't want to deal with crying kids who were excluded than about anything else. Knowing and working with several elementary teachers I can say they have too much to do than counsel the class geek who wasn't given a Valentine or invited to the party. From that point of view, I side with the teachers. I just wish they would be honest and give that reason than some pop psych lip service.

Anyone actually follow these? Traditional Anniversary Gifts by Year First -Paper Second -Cotton Third -Leather Fourth -Fruit or Flowers Fifth -Wood Sixth -Candy or Iron Seventh -Wool or Copper Eighth -Bronze or Pottery Ninth -Pottery Tenth -Tin Eleventh -Steel Twelfth -Silk or Linen Thirteenth -Lace Fourteenth -Ivory Fifteenth -Crystal Twentieth -China Twenty-Fifth -Silver Thirtieth -Pearl Thirty-Fifth -Coral Fortieth -Ruby Forty-Fifth -Sapphire Fiftieth -Gold Fifty-Fifth -Emerald Sixtieth -Diamond

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Well...when you count Iraq... Seriously though...yes, in terms of total numbers killed, there are more people killed walking down the street by terrorists than in planes. But in terms of per capita...there are quite a few more people on the streets of the world every day than there are flying in planes. Like 7 billion versus a couple million. So the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack will almost certainly go up considerably the moment you step on a plane. So then considering the small potential for surviving the attack, airplanes should be singled out as needing greater protection. Combined with the thought that people do not need to get on airplanes.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) what that guy said. mega dittos Hi8is

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) Cavemen eat roast duck with mango salsa. Astronauts eat Tang. Cavemen. No contest.

1. They should have consulted an attorney when drafting that agreement. 2. The attorney should have advised them to seek a therapist 3. The therapist should have suggested these adults should go jump off a bridge. f***ing idiots.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) The risk on a street is not nearly as high as it is on a plane. Planes are basically flying bombs (Jerry, at the NSA, this is only a description, not an actual threat). You are flying through the air on the principles of physics with a gigantic tank of highly flammable and potentially explosive liquid only a few feet underneath you. If you want to kill 200 people on a street in Chicago, you need an absolutely enormous bomb. You need to quite literally drive a car into a gigantic crowd of people and blow it up. To do that on a plane, you need a small explosion, good enough to either puncture the fuel tank or rip the skin of the plane. Hell, a Fire alone can bring a plane down if it catches the right thing (i.e. that Valuejet flight). A plane is the safest way to travel because of how well built they are, but they're so incredibly well built because they are flying bombs. If they're not well built, they can go off. How would you repsond to this . . . The risk on the street is greater for the individual. You are correct that a bomb on an airplane would be more likely to kill a group of people. But for the individual, does it matter if they were the only ones killed by a car bomb, instead of one of a hundred that were killed on an airplane? Isn't this about protecting individual lives? Doesn't the person on the street also run the risk of knives, guns, cross bows, traffic accidents, etc? I'd be interested in adding up airplane fatalities through terrorism versus car bombs, suicide murders, etc.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 08:51 AM) I am NOT in the "I have nothing to hide so search me" crowd. Others in here I am sure are aware of my stance on the FISA B.S. and other encroachments on real, protected rights and freedoms. That is why I made the post earlier saying that I am 100% OK with the new travel stuff, but hope we are dumb enough as a nation to start bargaining away or Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. I was posing that to the group. I believe there are two themes here that would make intersting discussions. Why go through all this screening to stop one person in a crowd of 200 on an airplane, when there will be at least that many on a crowded street corner in every major city? You don't have to walk down Michigan Avenue you chose to. Isn't the risk just as high? When we consent to being searched everywhere else, does our right to keep the government from searching us become meaningless?

it pisses me off that I actually pay a service to block spam on my regular pop3 account.