KRC

We could probably work something out...

It depends on how spicy the food is that you are ordering. If it is mild, then Singha goes with it. If it is spicy, then you will need to pick a "hoppier" beer (something with more of a bite to it). If you are looking for alcohol content, then you should look more into the Beligan beers (a trippel will get you closer to 8-9%). Singha is only around 5-6%abv.

It tastes even better when it is FREE!! I will have to try to brew a clone of it when I get a chance. I am brewing an amber ale this weekend and probably a Hoegaarden clone in a few weeks.

Singha? You are going to make Tennyboy jealous. I have a few bottles in the fridge.

Stella Artios. Company is buying, which makes it taste even better. Gotta love the company paid 2-hour lunches.

I am not sure about other states (I am guessing it is the same), there is a Legislative Review Board which basically writes the legislation in the proper format and in proper legalize. It is really not that difficult, but the research is intense. I have written three bills and each took me about two months of work (and these bills are relatively simple). It is pretty rare that the legislator actually writes any of their bills. They will write up the concept and that is about the extent. On bills they did not write, they receive bill summaries (I have written them, too) and usually have their legal council review the actual bill before deciding to vote yea or nea. It is rare that they actually read the real bill.

Thanks for that mental image. HB NG!!

The restraining order...

Only $250/hr? Sorry. I may be easy, but I am not cheap.

I think that his opinion is that the US is subservient to the UN, due to the fact that we are signatories to their charter. My problem is the circular logic inherent in that: We must abide by our Constitution. Campy's argument is that our Constitution states that we abide by any treaties (ratified by Congress) and the UN Charter is a "treaty." If we must abide by the UN's whims, what happens when their whims contradict our Constitution? Which takes precedence? Do we now need to ratify a Constitutional amendment when their whims contradict our Constitution? Take for example gun ownership. If the UN were to decide that gun ownership is illegal, our Second Amendment becomes null and void. Now what?

Funny, I thought I am on record stating that there is no difference between the parties: they both suck. I deeply apologize for mocking idiotic regurgitation of soundbytes which have no basis in reality. I now realize that I have not been wear my tinfoil hat while reading the posts here. I will wear the tinfoil hat in the future.

Funny, I thought that you would actually want members of both parties to be held to the same standard. It looks like I was wrong and you feel there should be different standards depending on your party affiliation.

So, what did she say at the birthday party? As far as the Dem being held to the same standard as a Republican, just look at Byrd's comments as recently as a few years ago and you will see that your statement is incorrect: "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." (Robert Byrd - March 4, 2001 - Television interview) What would have happened if Lott used that word? Let me help you. Lott lost his leadership position for saying something equally or less divisive that this. Byrd kept his leadership position and there have been no repercussions. The comments were just swept under the carpet. Hell, even the NAACP called Byrd's comments "repulsive" but failed to do anything more about it. How did they react to Lott? Byrd apologized and everything is OK. Lott apologized (repeatedly) and he lost his leadership position.

I heard on the radio (have not confirmed it yet) that a list of the questions was sent to the parents. It did not include the sex questions.

I forgot that one. Thanks.

Yeah, that has to be it. Funny, what was going on in the world when Lott was crucified by the left for his birthday party attendance? Oh, wait...If it involves Republicans, it is newsworthy. If it involves Dems, it is not. Got it.

I already did. Not paying attention Sparkey?? Here they are again. Try not to miss them this time. Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.” Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991). Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians. Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773. Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833. Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715. Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115. Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143. Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions. Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154. Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154. Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687. Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284. Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

It is actually a rotating thingy: Haliburton Revenge for Daddy Oil Lather Rinse Repeat

I'll sure my tin-foil hat is on correctly.

The UN also did not authorize the no-fly zones, but the anti-Bush people still want to use them in their arguments. I guess violations of the UN are only allowed when it justifies "Bush Bad."

Recently, it is getting more and more difficult to distinguish.

More than just 14, but who is counting... Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.” Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991). Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians. Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773. Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833. Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715. Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115. Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143. Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions. Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154. Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154. Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687. Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284. Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

Saddam threatened Daddy. Yup. That has to be it.

I just need the "Bush started this war so that Cheney and his 'Big Oil' buddies at Haliburton could profit" and my day will be complete.