Chilly

You do realize that this is pretty standard procedure, right?

Uh, no I didn't.

Here is what you said: In that scenario, Hardy would not have been arrested, brought into custody by the police, or at the scene of a shooting. If he was at the scene of a hut n run, thats not a shooting.

Sure it will, just in a different way. Phones are currently subsidized by the cellular companies in exchange for a 2-year contract - which is why they are so cheap. Once that subsidization goes away, cellular phones will increase in cost, as the phone companies won't be able to make up the loss they take on the subsidized phone over the course of a 2-year contract. Now, I took you saying "better technology at lower prices" to mean actual cell phones, since your topic is talking about the "cellphone issue". If you were referring to cellular rate plans and coverage, competition should cause that to get better somewhat as carriers try to distinguish themselves from each other.

Nope, it'll cause the price of cell phones to go up. Without early termination fees, the Cell providers have no real reason to discount cell phone prices anymore.

That judge is hottttttt

dun feed the troll

null

wtf, is it "don't click on the first link" day

lol.

Well, I can assure that your mind goes into meltdown anyway: Just think about this quote: "If it werent for my horse, I wouldnt have spent that year in college"

Not from the Cloverfield monster

wat does that have ot do with Jason Peeners and his contract?

Damnit, not TRY the liver, DESTROY the liver. Livers are evil, evil things that need to be destroyed.

If this trend continues I'm going to go postal.

We all know what he wants to pound.

Proof that we shouldn't save money.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/06/10/doomsd...y-june-12-2008/ House of Yahweh church leader Yisrayl Hawkins, also known as Buffalo Bill, of Abilene, Texas has instructed his followers to prepare for the nuclear war which is to take place this Thursday, June 12 at the latest. He and his followers have set aside 60 truck trailers full of survival rations so that they may eat during the dark days ahead.

I think you all are ignoring the incredible article.

Yeah, but the real question is, did you pull it out?

I agree, but what are your thoughts on the article?

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10861976 I think the article is right, Jason Peter's presence at the minicamp can be summed up by one word: null Anyone agree/disagree?

Right now, the reason why Obama is popular is because of the very low governmental ratings, same for the reason why McCain is popular. There is a point when it doesn't help you politically to act like he is proposing. Most of American history is filled with candidates trying to take the high road, the moral road, and losing. The difference is that in the current moment, unlike conventional wisdom, it is politically advantageous to do so. Why? Because of just how freaking bad Bush currently is. He's a politician - all politicians are elitist and arrogant, lol. Anyway, I take issue with him claiming the moral high ground because I don't believe that any politician can reasonably claim the moral high ground. I'd feel much better about it if he acknowledged that he's not going to "fundamentally change" politics, but that he has a strong policy as to why the government will be much improved after Bush, and then explain those policies. I don't want a politician who claims they essentially aren't a politician (my paraphrasing) - that throws up a huge red flag to me that they are dishonest with themselves and with the country. I don't want a politician who claims they have this grandiose view of American politics as being pristine or free from undue interests from special interests - again, he's not being realistic or honest with himself or the country.

No, I get that he wants to remove "undue influence". I'm saying that he's not going to change anything because his plans don't essentially eliminate them from the system. Its not practical to ban "lobbying", "special interests" and "lobbyists" as they are constitutionally protected. They are free to send all the marketing materials to politicians that they want. I did not consider this, for the purpose of our argument, "influencing the system". I was referring to removing direct influences on the system. Removing them from the system means publicly financed elections and the destruction of the iron triangle. Short of that, lobbyists and special interests will always be part of the system, and will always have undue influence. Obama's proposition goes something like this (paraphrasing): "choosing to put the American people's interests above the lobbyists". The problem with that statement is that it is up to each candidate and each politician to decide what issues are in the American people's interests and which aren't. Hell, I will even go so far as to say it might even work for the time Obama is in office, since at the moment it is politically advantageous to do so. History has shown that unless the system is fundamentally changed, once people feel that the government has been reformed, and the Democrats have goodwill with the people, this will not last. It no longer becomes that politically advantageous to turn down lobbyist money, as it becomes worth more than keeping up the appearance of a "reformed government". At this point, everything will be back to the way that it is now. Leaving any path where lobbyists are directly part of the system means that we have not fundamentally changed anything. *EDIT: Forgot to finish my sentence on what removing them from the system meant

I found it interesting that the topics you decided to include (seemingly the important ones to you) went directly against your candidate's platform. Or was that only to prove your non-partisanship, thus showing that you do know what the Democratic platform is?