UConn James

I got into that Krall / Monheit thing near the millennium and then it just wore off. There was just something about the both of them that didn't seem right. For Monheit especially, after her second album it went from sugary to cloying. Songs that I didn't really like that came to be accompanied with swing-era music. As you're hinting, I thought Krall's voice was fine. She was just doing some esoteric stuff. I imagine being married to Elvis Costello will do that.... Norah Jones also seemed to go off in a weird direction. I love the French-ish bistro-y sound to this. The pacing and inflections. I'm also reading that she was hit by a car and it affected her eyes (hence the 'sunglasses at night / indoors') and hearing. Liking some other stuff I'm hearing too. Thanks for the heads-up! Also, to note.... I'm a fan of music, not necessarily any type. Just good music.

Embarrassed? Why? It was counter-intuitive and the reaction was out of left field (then again, was there ever any doubt that Southerners don't like religions that are not Baptist / "Born Again" / "Evangelical" .... but make no mistake that many of the reporters and anchors in that outfit are privately high-fiving because they were part of reviving the primary campaign of someone who has probably a 15% shot at beating their man Obama. This would be like expecting HuffPost to sheepish if they had helped Christine O'Donnell out-primary Mike Castle. !@#$ that --- they'd be doing jumping jacks!

Probably is Dave in Norf--k creating another screen name in advance of being banned or proven egregiously stupid (you know, over and above his normal level of breathtakingly stupid). You don't think it's a coincidence that shortly after one is banned or slinks away, another dumb-as-a-doornail liberal shows up here, right? Because there's been a string of them. Dude keeps getting knocked down and comes back for more wearing a different mantle. Sure, he might tack slightly one way or the other in an attempt to put people here off, but it's the same person. Elegant Eliot, connor, Mickey, beausox, pBills... the list goes on and on. I can't remember them all. Does anyone here think this is simply a string of one-off posters? If mods could check the IP numbers, I'm sure most of them would be the same. The dude likes his lulz. A pair of glasses may hide Superman's secret identity, but a < 100KB avatar does not fool me.

Wow!

They give me targets for my air rifle.

I don't know if you put a halt to the trolling here on the main board, but... As much as "Honey Badger don't care / Honey Badger don't give a stevestojan" Mr. Mathieu still just completed his sophomore season and is not eligible to declare for the NFL until next year if he does decide to leave LSU early. And while it's natural to think Philbin might want to bring some members of the band with him, it's control-freak Jeff Ireland that makes the ultimate decisions there. He may want to stick with Moore.

No stevestojan. birdog, there are planes and boats that leave every day for many European countries, Columbia, and Cuba (this won't be a direct flight) if you have such a zeal for income redistribution at higher rates than the U.S. already does.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that becoming an isolationist state will help us WRT the GWOT and "other countries hating us." Now, I'm all for reducing military spending that's wasteful and unnecessary, but we're involved in many areas and pulling our resources back with such a brunt as Ron Paul wants to do decreases stability, creates a power vacuum that other countries will fill and use to their political and economic advantage, and just leave us open to whatever entities want to come at us for payback once the word is out that we've turned into a weak sister.... The Islamic extremist set --- and even the moderate --- doesn't forget things easily. They carry grudges from 1,500 years ago like it just happened yesterday. People alive now beat themselves bloody for not being alive 700 years ago to stop the murder of such-and-such religious icon. Disengaging and pulling out from the Middle East to Paul's degree only guarantees the slow (or fast) destruction of Israel, and a free forum to plan attacks on the U.S. homeland in a "AND STAY OUT!!" milieu. That kind of sense was palpable on our exit from Iraq --- a place where we poured in trillions gave us the cold shoulder. We can't ever do something like that again, and Paul's point that Europe and other places need to be forced to start paying for their own protection rather than getting a free ride on our dollar is something I do agree with but that doesn't mean we should basically bring everyone home and hunker down. Especially at the prospect of a nuclear Iran ==> the Islamic Bomb. The idea that "blowback" will end toute suite once we disengage is foolish and preposterous.

You say you'd take sloppy seconds on every "would ya?" thread.

No, Philbin was working at the game. They showed him several times up in the coaches' box.

Yeah, I was alive in '97-'98 so I know the particulars. That was a more rhetorical question along the lines of "What was the use of it all?" I understand that there's a legal distinction b/w lying under oath and lying in front of the camera for all the world to see, and that somehow when you're in a testimony seat, there's a higher standard for truth-telling than when you're standing next to it. I was brought up to believe that a lie is a lie is a lie, no matter where you're sitting. And the pretense of this weasel trivia doesn't make Newt any less slimy than the creature his first name describes. The Clinton impeachment was at its heart a personal vendetta. And now Gingrich is getting the red ass because now his own brand of poison brew is the medicine he's being forced to swallow?!!? him. I'll probably vote for him if he's the nominee, just to get BO out of there, but I won't like it and I pray it doesn't come down to him. AD can chastise me for being a lemming and part of the problem all he wants, but I'll take a son-of-a-B word who at least says he'll reduce taxes and cut spending over a guy who's passing public money out like it's !@#$ing candy (not to mention running taxpayer-bought guns to Mexican drug cartels so he can get the wheels rolling on the "Progressive" wet-dream of U.N.-style gun registration and confiscation when he's got nothing left to run for).

Wow. I think we have some degree of convergence. I'm a little scared here.... Like Cain's protestations, Newt's are stupid on their face. Of course if you ask women who knew the couple, they might tell you there was no such thing. Problem is, they weren't privvy to the nitty-gritty of a marriage. Were they there? Defending yourself by demurring the question to people who weren't present when details happened is like asking hundreds of women whether they thought Ted Bundy was a serial rapist/murderer. How is it pertinent to ask women who weren't affected? It's a red herring defense. What matters are the women that were. And you either choose to listen to what they have to say and weigh it, or you don't. But it's Gingrich's utter hypocrisy that's so disgusting. He comes out and says, 'How dare you ask a personal question like that to open a presidential debate.' If a personal relationship isn't pertinent to presidential matters, the WHY THE HELL was Newt leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Why was so much tonnage spent on finding out how many times an Arkansas hick got his rocks off with a chubby intern? If it was pertinent for Clinton, it's pertinent for you, Newt! But, still, it seems as though some percentage of SC and nationwide GOP voters don't care about Newt's past. As I wrote in the Cain thread at the time his doings were being revealed, people can accept celebrities who just come out and say that they screw tigers --- and in fact, they like screwing tigers. ****, look at Trump, who trades in trophy wives every 10,000 miles. People expect that of him now. It's a friggin' trademark. People watch enough (un)reality teevee that this kind of behavior is applauded! (Up to a point. Say, in Anthony Weiner's case, he might've survived if not for the pictures. Once there's pictures, you're done.) Newt, like Trump, may be one who can be brash enough to make otherwise deplorable actions his Style and a percentage of moron voting public will give him a pass and/or eat it up with spoons. But the minute Trump would denigrate someone else for getting wives of newer vintage, that's a thin red line to cross. It's OK for Trump to be a chauvinist, but not a hypocrite. To the corollary, Gingrich seems to have made his trademark / elan as being a hypocrite. Some people obviously admire Angry and Bitter. It's gotten him thus far. Kind of new territory and it definitely puts this theory to the test.

AJ has a stevestojanny speaker system.

And the Pet Rocks. Don't forget the Pet Rocks! I mean, the lower classes had no choice but to make that "inventor" a millionaire.

As explained, he pays taxes on that. It's not a haven of any kind.... You !@#$ing idiot. "Oooo.... Romney has money in more than one bank account!!!" and your pea brain thinks this is somehow the height of all evil. Go jump off a bridge, Dave. Do it. You know you want to.

Dude. There's like 20 major league baseball players who have made in the last 10 years what took Romney a lifetime. Do you demand to know what tax rate Ralph Wilson (who is worth many times more) pays? Seek professional help. Nevermind the question, why did this need a separate topic? Oh right. Because you're a !@#$ing idiot.

Dave, I normally abstain from ad hom statements outside of the "Insult the previous poster" thread, but here goes. You're a piece of ****.

Because for Dave in Nor-!@#$, opinions are emoted rather than decided.

ABC Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says Ouch.

"Totally separate"? Meeehh. Sure, they live in different houses... but they're very close cousins.

Center for Public Integrity story Huh. I thought he said his administration would be different.

Because it's not a matter of whether "we" benefit from soaking the rich. That's not what the framers had in mind. Jefferson had that little notion that people (let's not get into that era's definition of people at the time) should be allowed to keep what they earn. Because by and large when that's the case, people get off their asses and get productive as all hell. The income inequality pattern was not unforseeable. That's kinda natural as "the rich" become afraid to spend their $ because they don't know what this president will introduce next. So, it sits in accounts and the middle class quietly disappears because there are fewer jobs that "the rich" want done thereby producing less income. Class-warfare-conscious administrations then persuade the Fed to start printing $ to encourage "the rich" to spend their money because inflation is eating away more than they're earning in the bank. Only, inflation affects the bottom-tier as well, and shortly only serves to move decimal places to the right. Throttling up on the Laffer curve is not the answer.

Nor is it like MLB All-Star game balloting. You know... for guys who make the equivalent of Romney's lifetime accumulated wealth in a 6-year contract. Then again, at the rate the Benbernank is printing, it's all going to be Monopoly money anyway.

As Doonesbury's own intrepid reporter Roland Hedley says, "Twitter is the first rough draft of gossip."

Says the dude supporting the guy who's going to be running the first billion-dollar presidential (re-election) campaign. Not including whatever PACs or SuperPACs surface for Obama. You know... four times Romney's accumulated lifetime wealth from 40 years in business, Obama's going to spend in 6 months. Not surprising given the givens of how this president has spent our money.