erynthered

You mean we're not following the Marcus of Queensbury rules against blood thirsty terrorists? Fer shame. Fer Shame.

HB

Well, I guess when "The Happening" happens November 4th, we'll know then wont we. (erynthered + 1 )

M. Night Shyamalan for Vice President. Cool!

Silver Streak

War of the Roses

Daddy Day Care <VABills>

No Biggie.

beerball

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1045125 2 days late Chico.

....and Halloween 24/7

beerball is the one half empty, if you know what I mean.

Bingo! We have a winner!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212017236...in_commentaries Blame Congress Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone must be to blame and the obvious villain is "Big Oil" with its alleged ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, "windfall" profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable threats of punishment, e.g. a "windfall profits tax." But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. To understand the depth of congressional complicity in the high price of gasoline, one must understand that crude oil prices explain 97% of the variation in the pretax price of gasoline. That price, which has risen to record levels, is set by the intersection of supply and demand. On the one hand, world-wide demand has accelerated mainly due to the rapid growth of China and India. On the other hand, supply has been curtailed by the cartel-like behavior of foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum reserves. Faced with little competition in the production of crude oil, the members of this cartel benefit from keeping the commodity in the ground, confident that increasing demand will make it more valuable in the future. Despite its pious denunciations of the behavior of U.S. investor-owned oil companies (IOCs), Congress by its actions over the years has ensured the economic viability of the national oil company cartel. It has done so by preventing the exploitation by IOCs of reserves available in nonpark federal lands in the West, Alaska and under the waters off our coasts. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas – enough to meet the needs of the 60 million American homes fueled by natural gas for over a century. They also hold an estimated 112 billion barrels of recoverable oil – enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years. This doesn't even include substantial oil shale resources economically recoverable at oil prices substantially lower than those prevailing today. In an exchange between Sen. Orin Hatch (R., Utah) and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company during the May 21 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the point was made that anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. If Congress really cared about the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against IOCs and reverse current policies that discourage, indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would lead to downward pressure on oil prices. There is an historical precedent for such a step: Ronald Reagan's deregulation of domestic crude oil prices at the beginning of his first term. At the time, thanks to the decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curtail output, the price of oil was at a level that in real terms is only now being matched. Domestic price controls ensured that the OPEC cartel would face little or no competition in the production of oil. Price controls were exacerbated by other wrongheaded policies stimulated by the two "energy crises" of the 1970s. One of the most egregious was the infamous "windfall profits" tax, designed to punish oil companies for alleged profiteering. But since it applied to even newly discovered oil, its main impact was to discourage the exploration and drilling that would have increased oil supplies. Although the energy problems of the 1970s were traceable to government policies, Reagan's decision to deregulate oil prices was ridiculed by policy makers, especially those who had served in the previous administration. For instance, Frank Zarb, who had been Jimmy Carter's "energy czar," predicted that decontrolling the price of crude oil would lead to gasoline prices of $10 a gallon. Instead, the world price of oil plummeted, helping to fuel the extraordinary economic growth of the 1980s. Reagan's deregulation of crude oil prices created incentives for domestic producers to invest in exploration and to increase production. The threat of increased output by non-OPEC producers destroyed the discipline among OPEC members necessary to restrict production to maintain high prices. Facing the likelihood that an increase in supply would lead to lower future prices, OPEC producers increased output in the hopes of maximizing profits before prices fell. The cascading effect caused oil prices to tumble. As in the 1970s, U.S. energy policies have essentially restricted the exploitation of domestic sources of energy. Curtailed supplies have combined with rapid, world-wide energy demand to increase the price of oil and other sources of energy. This provides leverage to foreign producers and threatens U.S. energy security. Freeing up domestic energy resources will do today what President Reagan's decision to deregulate oil prices in 1981 did then: cause oil prices to fall, thereby enhancing U.S. energy security.

I cant wait to see it on ESPN with Stuart Scott doing Play by Play.

Forgot one.

Use it. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Contacting the Congress is a very up-to-date database of congressional contact information for the 110th Congress. As of May 23, 2008 there are 538 email addresses (of which 516 are Web-based email homepages), and 540 WWW homepages known for the 540 members of the 110th Congress. Traditional ground mail addresses are available for all current members of Congress.

And finally. No book is solely an author's creation. To get your book published, you have to sell it to a publisher. Because publishers make money, usually by appealing to distinct markets, publishers have a legitimate right to tailor the book to their preferred market. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you remember that when you're reading the book. McClellan left the White House with a shiny gold watch and the door slamming behind him. He's a public relations guy, and although he worked in the White House, he wasn't involved in crucial policy decisions. He certainly didn't participate in the decision process to go into Iraq. So, what can he sell? Why would a publisher be interested in a McClellan book? Or better yet, what kind of book would it have to be to attract any interest from publishers? That's the book we got. Unlike a book by a policy-maker, this book (apparently) has no details of why the decisions were made -- so instead, it focuses on McClellan's speculations on the personalities involved. Because it doesn't have the substance, it magnifies the importance of the decoration. Liberals eat that up, because they deny the substance of the argument for war. They magnify the role of personality. That why they portray Bush as stupid, and Cheney and the neocons as evil, power hungry warmongers. In their view, we didn't go to war for any reason; instead, they think we went to war because that's what warmongers do.

Brian McNamee's new book on Bush. Here he is on the Today show telling everyone the real truth.

This shiit is hilarious. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ottie-sowe.html As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping May 28, 2008 3:15 PM Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same. In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors. On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," McClellan said on January 12, 2004: McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people." McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on March 22, 2004: McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ... Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors. McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.

Nice find.

A 44 slug to his forehead would stop him from just entering the house when he wanted to. Then again, that might be a little to drastic.

http://media.podcastingmanager.com/55529-8...ight%20song.mp3

HFB Dude!!