yall

Quite stupid is my guess. But then again, how often do we prove them wrong?

Actually, by it's definition, there isn't a person alive who couldn't claim that a hate crime took place. Like I said before - I don't think the laws are necessary, a good idea, or that they are applied fairly. On that we probably agree. But I cannot emphasize enough that the notion these laws specifically protect minorities and not white heterosexuals is a logical fallacy.

No, it's simply a quote from "Beavis and Butthead" that I use on occasion.

Settle down Beavis - I disagreed with a point he made (about motivation not being a factor), I wasn't necessarily arguing in favor of hate crime laws. Go back and read again.

How does the law specifically create protected classes? To my knowledge (and I could be mistaken) the laws simply says you cannot target someone because of their race, religion, orientation, etc. That could just as easily mean a group of homosexuals couldn't go around beating up people because they are straight. In other words, the law itself is a two way street. Is it applied that way? Probably not from what anecdotal evidence we see in the news, but I don't have any hard stats to back that up.

I'm not sure I agree with that (at least not fully). Is stealing a loaf of bread for profit more despicable than stealing it to feed your family? Obviously an extreme example, but motivation certainly can have some impact when it comes to a criminal act. I would agree these laws might not be necessary. I'm certainly no fan of creating redundant laws. I just wanted to point out that the laws themselves aren't necessarily discriminatory in their nature, but rather in application.

Technically - the hate crime legislation does not create protected classes. It simply makes it a federal crime to target individuals based on race, religion, etc. The new bill (I believe) simply amends the old to include sexual orientation as well. The problem is that the application of these laws seems to be done in an unequal manner.

Good idea. Our lack of mediocre receivers is our Achilles heel.

This is sensitivity run amok for sure. Maybe not a great joke - I mean how often can we call everyone we don't like 'Hitler'? But I have to believe it was done as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, and without any reference towards the religion of Silver.

Not to dredge up old memories, but was that the poster that killed his wife, and then himself?

Gotta be first to break the story!!! Journalism is dead for the most part.

Just made the list? I'm pretty sure he was at the top, in red ink no less, on December 17th, 2007.

True, but when it comes to continually supporting career politicians who stab us in the back, we do it with style like no other.

This is one instance where your usual criticism of NY would be spot on Chef.

PBR me, ASAP!

I read that bit about Rush somewhere the other day. His quotes after discovering he was punked were priceless.

The problem is, everyone knows who TE is throwing to... his backs!

I heard the comments on WGR and was taken aback. I have no idea if there is some sound reasoning behind that protocol, but it seems odd, at least on the surface.

That's because those swarthy city folk use cinnamon in their applesauce. Clearly the most subversive of all spices.

You're right, I'm sorry. In fact, as an act of contrition, I'm going to buzz over to the Buffalo Gun Center to grab an SKS. I wouldn't want any of these hordes of ravaging low-income seniors to break into my house to steal my Postum or Polident Dentu-Cream.

Yes, because we all know how bad senior citizens can be. Do you even know what the word 'despot' means? Your post might be one the stupidest I've seen on this board in recent years, and trust me, that is saying a lot!

Out now for 360. PS3, and PC. Think of it as a combination of Fallout 3, Halo, and Diablo. Oh yeah, with 4 player online co-op. Stolen from another forum: What is this amazing game?! Borderlands is the dude who sleeps with your girlfriend while you're at work. 'Course while he's not plowing your girl he is also busy being a CO-OP FPS / RPG / Space Cowboy / Mad Max / Diablo hybrid. Tell me more about this amazing game! Borderlands takes place in the future on a distant planet that mankind has tried to colonize. They thought the planet was a harmless little ice world. They were wrong. Wikipedia wrote: In the distant future, several colonization ships head to Pandora, a planet on the edge of the galaxy. The colonists are drawn there in search of a better life as well as vast mineral resources said to be on the planet, free for anyone's taking, akin to a futuristic gold rush. Some time after settling, the colonists discover that there is little the planet offers, aside from some decrepit alien ruins. Those who have money leave, and the remaining population devolves into chaos and lawlessness. Some of the settlers seek to get rich quickly by discovering alien technology. Most others are just trying to survive. After seven earth years, the planet's slow orbit brings a transition from winter to spring, and many horrifying creatures emerge from hibernation. A beacon of hope for the remaining colonists emerges in the form of a mysterious vault carved in the side of a mountain. This vault is said to contain vast stores of alien technology and secrets. The only problem is that the people who discovered the vault were completely wiped out by some sort of protective force. The only evidence of their discovery is a scattered radio transmission, proclaiming the vault's majesty, but not its location. Okay that's cool, what about game play? The game is a FPS first and a RPG second. You and up to three other of your buddies can travel the open sandbox world, explore "dungeons", kill bad guys, and tear ass across a desert wasteland in sweet as **** vehicles. Also check out these awesome videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1fn01aGJU&feature=fvw

Re-sign Trent to a very lucrative and long contract. That will keep would-be suitors away...

Also - that simply allows one to be built. Someone still needs to pay for it.

If anything the NFL would probably move Jacksonville to LA before they moved the Bills. I realize their desire to have a team in such a large market, but given the past failures, what leads them to believe that the 3rd (4th?) time will work when past attempts have failed?