Taro T

Typically, you can c&p a paragraph or 2 provided you cite the source and then post a link back to the original article. As previously mentioned, posting the full text is frowned upon here.

Has anybody even remotely tried to imply that they don't? The criticism hasn't been that they don't have the right to protest. The criticism has been that they have no !@#$ing idea what it is they're protesting, many of them are breaking the law while protesting whatever it is that they're protesting, and the closest thing to a coherent message that they have espoused is either 'we don't like the "1%" getting special treatment, but give us special treatment and let us camp out in the park overnight and **** wherever we want' or 'we want free stuff.' Either of which, while catchy doesn't quite rise up to the level of 'we shall overcome.'

For the most part, they do take it really personally, but that just seems to be a part of the personality of most of the people that self-select themselves to be contestants on a show like this. The snowboarders don't seem to be the typical contestants and barring something major getting screwed up, I'd expect to see them in the finals and probably winning it. I also don't see them getting severely ticked if they do get U-ed. They clearly aren't in the 'let's not hurt anyones feelings' camp; if they were foolish enough to be there, they wouldn't have the $15k from the previous leg. Like you, I have a hard time understanding the 'I won't U-turn anyone for fear of repercussions' attitude. I wouldn't do it unless it made tactical sense (and winning A leg of the race doesn't rise to that level, IMHO) but if it does make sense to live to see another leg, then game on. Didn't they have a rule a few seasons ago that you could only use a U-turn once in a race? Do you know if they still have that rule (if they did in fact have it in the past)? If so, they it was doubly-dumb to U-turn Bill & Cathi, as that may be an important tool to have in the next couple of legs.

If you're referring to fans of the show, I'd agree. If you're referring to contestants on the show, I think there's a fairly rational explanation to getting ticked off by getting U-turned. Bill and Cathi (and dad & Zach) had a roughly 1-in-6 chance of winning $1MM prior to getting u-turned. While the other teams odds remained at 1-in-6, their odds of winning fell (temporarily in the case of B&C, permanently for the other pair) significantly. There has to be a huge amount of frustration when somebody sees their picture at that signpost. It's only natural to feel some anger towards the individuals that were DIRECTLY responsible for them being in that situation. These people went from thinking 'hey, we're still in the mix for $1MM' to 'we've got to bust our butts and hope somebody else screws up and if we get REAAAAALLLLLY lucky, we may live to fight another day.' One thing I thought was interesting was that Bill and Cathi could use the U-turn without having completed that leg that they got U-turned on. (Because they'd been U-turned, they'd only completed 1/2 of that leg.) The dating couple got reeeaaal lucky on that leg, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them out next.

Yes, clearly, it must be one of two options. It must be that American society provides non-whites less opportunities than whites because of their skin color, or non-whites are inherently less capable. There can be no other factors involved in how outcomes in the aggregate are disparate.

Seriously!?!?!? Haven't you ever seen those artificial trees clogging every aisleway in the Walmarts and Targets of the world as soon as Halloween is past? Good grief, how can a hardworking X-mas tree rancher possibly keep up with the Godless Commie plastic made-in-China trees? Speaking of 'good grief,' they've stemmed the attack of the aluminum trees that Lucy wanted poor Charlie Brown to drag back to the elementary school musical, but if Michelle Obama has her way and gets kids to stop drinking soda pop the price of aluminum that formerly went into cans will go down and the aluminum trees become competitive again. Throw in the competition from NAFTA-inspired Canadian douglas fir imports (Ross was right about the 'giant sucking sound,' he just misplaced its direction) and the X-mas tree rancher simply has little to no chance without government provided marketing.

One good thing about the announcement happening so quickly is that there don't seem to be as many "the government secretly is holding Bin Laden at _____ which is why they claim to have buried him at sea" or "he's actually been dead for x years (3.5 perhaps?) and they've been sitting on the info" or "this proves he was actually working w/ the Zionists in an elaborate plot to keep the Arab down" theories getting floated as widely as I expect they would have had they said he died 1 month ago in a Navy Seal raid. Not that that should trump military / strategic considerations, and don't know if the decision did trump them, overlook them, or consider them. But it appears to be one small benefit of the announcement happening as his body was being dumped.

Well, Polian has set up a team to support Luck fairly well and has set up a team that should be able to get him as well (come on Miami, win 1 friggin' game (but not against us, preferably against the Cheatriots or the J-E-S-T, Jest, Jest, Jest)). If that ain't long range planning, I'm not sure what is.

True, you never said 300k, you said 837k. And you gave me **** for stating that 300k and 100k were exaggerated in BOSNIA. Except, now you agree that they weren't. Make up your !@#$ing mind. Or are you now claiming 80k is greater than 300k or maybe you are claiming it's pretty close to 300k? I notice you still aren't concerned w/ the Arab League's lack of giving a **** about Bosnia. Sweet. And you wonder why you and your friend catch some flack here? Really?

Hopefully it's just a high ankle sprain. It looked very nasty when it happened. He slid into the goalpost square with his skate and instead of the peg giving way, his ankle did.

It's ill advised because it's unfeasible in any reasonably self-sustaining form in well over 95% of this country as has been pointed out many times previously. If it could be profitable, it would make sense to issue bonds to get it built. High speed rail has very few places in the US where it could be anything but a boondoggle.

And who was it that halted those attrocities? I don't recall the Arab League leading the charge there. EDIT: Above reply should not be construed to be notwithstanding your exaggeration of quantities of dead & raped.

Classics, all. But couldn't Conner's gems be called Molson's Golden nuggets?

Never knew Beth was married to Scott P. I wonder if this means that they're keeping Chet in the morning. For some reason I figured that she'd out last him in that gig. Guess not.

Shula did it as well.

RIP.

Well, it depends upon what your definition of 'their goal' is. They don't DESIRE the outcome of their policies to be screwing the economic pooch; unfortunately, the enactment of their policies have effectively screwed the economic pooch. So, if you are looking at results as 'their goal' then you are correct, they don't want to tank the economy (any worse than it already is). But if you are looking at the implementation of policies that they favor and the (apparently unintended) consequences of those polices, then we're getting to a point where there's some truth to what Herman is saying. Which of the 17 reasons given for going to war in Iraq were the false ones? (Sorry, it's hard to keep up sometimes.) Or were you referring to the military actions in Libya and Yemen or the one in sub-Sahara Africa we just joined? (Sorry, just kidding w/ that last Q. I know you didn't mean any of those. )

Well, they essentially replaced the Braves that had moved east to Atlanta previously. They even eventually moved to the NL to make the replacement complete.

So Somalia doesn't count?

Well, your mother's boyfriend's sister's best friend's boyfriend's cousin's girlfriend's sister might have seen Obama at 31 flavors looking pretty gross; but considering as tone deaf as our current President and his crew have been I wouldn't put much credibility on Romney being the Republican that they can most easily beat of the current frontrunners, even if they do believe that. I must admit a curiosity as to how you can claim to have inner circle knowledge of the Obama administration and also claim to not know anybody that thinks the country has moved massively to the left. Might you clarify that a bit?

Really? I've gone hardcore to using my credit cards for almost ALL purchases and paying off the balance every month. Considering the bank accounts net almost 0% interest and the CC's have either cash back or some other incentive, it works out reasonably well.

Like the time Howard Hesseman mooned a photo of Ronnie during his opening monologe when he hosted SNL?

But even though he is down he still needs to complete the catch. It's similar to when a receiver gets both feet down in bounds and falls to the turf out of bounds (in the same motion, without making a football move) and then has the ball pop out when he hits the ground. If the ball pops out when he hits the ground, then it wasn't a catch even though he's down as soon as he goes out of bounds. Because he'd been touched in the process of going to the turf (and while on it) during the process of making the catch, a fumble was never a possible outcome. It would either be a catch or incomplete. While I disagree with the back judge, he saw (or thought he saw) the ball touch the ground without Stevie having control of it. And unfortunately the crew chose his view of the play to be the one they ran with. Also, unfortunately, even though we can all reasonably surmise that Stevie did maintain control through the entire process we can't see the ball during the entire catch to prove that he did make the catch. Because the ref reviewing the play couldn't see the ball through the entire process (Stevie's body blocked it for a bit) he couldn't state definitively that the ball didn't touch the ground with Stevie losing control of it at that point. Had the call gone the other way, there wouldn't have been evidence to overturn a catch either, as the ref still wouldn't have been able to see what happened when Stevie's body blocked the ball from the camera.

You need examples to prove something that you indirectly admit to knowing about? Sorry, I expect that I am done responding to you in this thread. THAT was funny.

Again, if you honestly didn't hear anyone refer to Bush as Hitler you have led a very sheltered life on that boat.