SilverNRed

Everyone raise your hand if this is the first time in your life you've ever given a rat's ass or even heard about our ambassador to Belgium.

Sabres have the tiebreaker with 3 more wins. One more win (against Philly or Washington) and we get the President's Trophy and there's nothing Detroit can do about it. Two OT losses also clinch for the Sabres. One win away from another banner in the rafters, people.

And technically I don't think that the goal of the surge is to make it safe for an American senator to walk down the street in Iraq.

No room for marshmallows in the chocolate city.

You're an angry, mean person and I like it.

Two branches of the government are pursuing different foreign policies. I seriously doubt Madison had that in mind when he wrote the thing.

Great episode. I would've been surprised if it wasn't. I'm always amazed how much they move along the plot in every episode. Other shows could really learn from The Shield.

Yeah, there you have it. The Mayor of SF was friends with whoever was really behind the attacks. That's how come they tipped him off. And was anyone really worried about box cutters on September 10, 2001? I traveled in the summer of 2001 and security was a complete joke. You were able to board your plane as long as you didn't have an AK-47 or worse.

For that matter, what happened to all that outrage about Bush being the one tearing up the Constitution? That's been a huge talking point from the DNC for over 5 years now. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that she's the majority leader in Congress, not "the Other President." Oh well, I guess that Constitution thingy was stupid and old.

Here ya go.

If you had to? I'd sleep with her even if I didn't have to. I'd sleep with her twice a day even if I didn't have to. I'm just saying.

Here's a fun article. Try to read it and not barf. Daily Mail In other words, don't teach historical facts that might not jive with kids' goofy, conspiracy-theory beliefs. And it gets worse: Nice to see the Brits are phasing out history in schools. Facts are lame anyway.

By the way, I think what I wrote last night mainly applies to political reporting, primarily on a national level. The press can and should play a significant and positive role in society when it comes to investigative journalism. The Walter Reed and Abu Gharib stories showed that. Unfortunately, there's a ton more work to do when it comes to meaningful government reform but most outlets choose to cheerlead for one political party or the other. Either that, our cover Anna Nicole Smith or Sanjaya on American Idol (rare topics that they seem to understand enough to report on).

Yeah, I pretty much trust Cheney as much as I trust any reporter or group of reporters. I think the vast majority of reporters are biased or incompetent or both. For all the crap we give politicians (and rightly so), they do deserve some credit for wanting jobs that come with a ton of responsibility. As much as I love this country, I don't think I'll ever want the responsibility, stress, and bull sh-- that would come with being POTUS. Reporters really don't have much responsibility. If you're great at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. you can help a whole lot of people. If you're great at your job and you're a reporter, that means you break some big story like Watergate. If you're bad at your job and you're a politician, policeman, firefighter, doctor, etc. that means people get hurt. If you're bad at your job and you're a reporter, that pretty much means you end up obscure and maybe don't get promoted. Or maybe you write a book and cash in. Reporters to me are people that want to be famous and/or have the power to change the world without the responsibility that comes with that power. Jayson Blair built an entire career on lies and never really had to pay for it. How many other high profile jobs are like that? So basically, yeah, I think Cheney is more worth listening to than the group thought that comes out of most newsrooms, though that isn't saying much.

To be fair, he was probably crucified naked. I doubt that the guys who killed him were going to torture him and watch him die but also stop to give him the modesty afforded by a tiny loincloth. Jesus dying on the cross naked is probably more accurate than anything else. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if it's offensive or how offensive, it just looks good for the religion if its followers don't get totally bent out of shape about being mocked. There will always be people mocking religions, but if people really truly believe then they could care less about that criticism. These religious nutjobs in the Muslim world who demand that everyone who questions their beliefs be put to death come off as really insecure. I don't know what all the answers are, but I think those guys are further off than I am if their response to a follow-up question is "We'll behead you."

Weirdest part about this is that I swear I've seen chocolate with Christian images on it and maybe even in the shape of crosses before. I've probably even eaten it. So is Donohue pissed off because they made a really, really big chocolate Jesus or just that he didn't get a piece? mmmmm.....sacrilicious.....

Most Catholics don't even know who Donohue is.

Careful, Tom. You're boldly going where no thought has gone before.

She's phenomenal. Sara Evans and Miranda Lambert are the two best country music choices out there right now, IMO.

No one knows why Fox News does anything. They employ Geraldo. No one here really cares either. That's hilarious. You obsess over Fox News as a Republican mouthpiece but reject any notion that there are liberal counterparts. Guess what, jackass, slanted coverage doesn't mean coverage you don't agree with.

A blurb a week or two after the fact really isn't much coverage. But, yeah, I'm sure if this was a Republican they'd handle it the exact same way. It's completely surreal that they wouldn't mention it at all when it actually happened.

Where's a stray bullet when you need one?

...............Jesus........

My favorite part of the story is that the San Francisco Chronicle is apparently refusing to cover it. Pretty much the journalistic equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you." mmmmmm.....bias.

Then there's this. What in holy hell is this supposed to mean?