Fezmid

Political corruption.

I never understood the fascination with Alba... She's not unattractive by any means, but she's not a knockout either, IMHO.

Blow up the Rainbow Mall.

The Ralph is way better than the Metrodome (Vikes) as well.

You do realize that the stadium isn't even in Buffalo right now, right...? That said, moving the team to Niagara Falls probably isn't a good idea as the city is a dump - worse than Buffalo... (I know, I grew up there...)

The issue with Lambeau is that it's all aluminum benches... BRRR!

Assuming your numbers are correct, what about your part on his will?

What's the $100+M for player salaries? What's the $12+M operating expenses? That's an investment. And where are you getting the quarter of a billion dollars from? And how do you know what Ralph's will says? Sounds like you're just making crap up and calling it fact, unless you have some proof?

http://www.cracked.com/article_18410_the-1...y-internet.html #12 is awesome!

Yeah, but CB isn't an exciting position, and we get a lot of those.

The Packers did it in the 90s when they had games in Milwaukee.

How does it sound like a good idea when applied to ANYONE....??? What happened to the first amendment? Aren't I allowed to speak against the government...?

Your analogy doesn't make any sense because there's no proof anywhere that Ralph doesn't want to win games and doesn't hire people that he thinks will help the team win. Just because many of the choices haven't panned out doesn't mean there's a a lack of effort. If he was really just "phoning it in," then the team wouldn't consistently be in the middle of the pack every year, they'd be picking top-3 every season.

Not sure which year you saw him make $31M in profit -- I'm not doubting it, I just didn't see it. In '07, the team only made $14.M according to Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sports...lls_301765.html

An opinion doesn't need a link, since it's an opinion. A fact should be backed up with a link/evidence.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/838861..._Yyc:aUycaEacyU

I'm jealous

I work in IT, so I can post during the day while waiting for processes to finish (and lots of time I get to sit around for hours, "just in case" something breaks... Yay....). So working 50-70 hours a week isn't uncommon, but there's downtime. As for movies, I don't see how anyone doesn't ever have 1.5 hours of uninterrupted time to watch a movie... I'd venture to guess that, while you aren't the only one in the world who watches movies that way, you're definitely in the minority. I'm just trying to figure out how someone can be so "busy" that they don't even have 90 minutes in a row do something they like.... I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand it.

All of the good tickets are gone for the Minnesota show... I had meetings and couldn't sign in right away. Now I have to decide if I want to sit 20 rows back or not....

All I'm saying is that if you only read in 30 minute chunks, it must take a LONG time to finish a book. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how it's hard to find 1.5 hours to watch a movie (and millions of people do it - movie theaters are pretty busy places), but to each their own.

If you only get 30 minutes at a time to read a book, you must not read much either....

You read your manual, since every player handles it different (in regards to what buttons to push). I'm curious what you do that you never have a 1.5-2 hour window? (most movies aren't 3 hours long...)

I liked that one though.

The workaround is to set a bookmark before pressing stop, then resume that bookmark. That said, why do you only watch in 30 minute increments...???

I'd recommend you make an exception for Spamalot -- assuming you like Monty Python (especially Holy Grail). It was hilarious.