Chilly

Bruschi got injured omg!

Yup. Part of the political training, I'd bet. Go help Tom with that fit.

Saw this on a Longhorn board I visit, interesting comments by Bill:

Wanna see some fun? http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=57528480 ^^ Rhett Bomar's myspace rofl

Don't be so sure its gonna be McCoy, its up for grabs between him and Snead, and from what I've heard, Snead looks damn good.

Yeah it is. *shrug* oh well, thats what I get for trying to actually understand him.

Yeah, sure, cause everything you post on this board is just sooooo perfect. Could it just be that you aren't clear what you mean? You're the only person that I have a communications issue with on this or any other forum that I've visited for years. But no, you're perfect.

Cheney's more like the 80 year old grumpy man.

Avoiding explaining yourself again, eh?

1.) Helen Thomas has been an important figure in American history, and still has opinion columns published in several newspapers, including in Houston. She still IS important, as weird as she may be, because of the exposer (albeit much less then before) of her columns. 2.) She does ask a lot of relevent questions, just, in very strange ways (which is her biggest downfall). To be honest, some of her qualities are needed in the rest of the media: most importantly a willingness to confront the President/Government not currently seen in American politics and debates, but seen in Britain. I think Jon Stewart is correct about that. Its funny that you go to blame this one on the press rather then your boy, but the president is the one that gets to decide who has a White House press pass and who doesn't. Helen, quite frankly, is important to the administration for just what you said. She makes the press look like jackasses a lot of times, so that its easier for the White House and Republican party to continue with the anti-media sentiments that they so strongly portray.

Then take the type to explain yourself, finally, instead of just posting one sentence everytime you post.

hahahah

You're right, not many do IIRC. I believe my Longhorns rake in the most money. In 2004, the University of Texas is the had a revenue of $53.2 million & profits of $38.7 million. Compare that with the Packers, who had profits of $18 million. And thats not even last year, when we won the championship. Most of the money, though, is spent supporting all the sports programs at the University. Athletics here at UT pays for itself, and does not receive any money from the rest of the Univeristy for anything. Speaking of which, we're getting a nice brand-new scoreboard as part of DKR's renovations. I go by it everyday, and good god its frickin huge. The dimensions of it are 134 feet x 55 feet, which I believe is the words largest HD screen. Crazy, eh?

What, you think the rest of the Lebanese government wants Hez'bollah doing this?

We were talking about this in one of my classes the other day. There's no sore loser law in Connecticut, so he's free to try as an independent. He also has plenty of votes if he does run as an independent to win, its just that the primary is giving him trouble. Pretty much the same conclusions you came to. This isn't an isolated poll either, so the 95% confidence level shouldn't come into play: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State...PrimaryJuly.htm Shouldn't change anything tho, good ol' Joe will be in the senate.

C'mon, Helen Thomas is awesome, any reporter that would help Stephen Colbert owns.

I stood next to someone yesterday while I was waiting for my ride to show up. He lighted up a cigarette. Guess what I did? I move away when I started breathing second hand smoke. Seriously though, I think I am trying to make my point in a bad way. I agree with you that we were founded on the principles of life, liberty and justice. In order to protect these principles, we need to have certain rights, protections, and rules. Does the public or the private owner get more sway? Why? I look at it as a top-down hierarchy, where a policy can't violate one above it. The following is a set of guidelines that apply for legal adults only, and also applies only in the United States (obviously its not for foreign policy). 1.) Right to self determination of person and property - Above all else, people should be protected from imminent danger that they did not choose. This includes murder, but also includes stuff such as scams, robbery, etc. Most of our laws to protect one person from another would be based on this. Also, laws in which public land or the operation of the public government with representation, such as taxes, meet this criteria. 2.) Freedom from unjustified discrimination - Our founding fathers felt that at face value, everyone is equal. So in order to discriminate between people, there should be distingushing societal factors that do this. This provides protection from discrimination based upon such things as race and disabilities, because our society has accepted that they do not provide justification for discrimination. 3.) Freedom of private property - If you buy private property, you get to determine the policies and procedures that happen on your property, as long as it does not interefere with any other property holder's ability to do the same. 4.) Right to govern public lands - As long as a government is representative in some way of the people, then policies can be set for public lands. 5.) Right of self-determination - As long as all of the above qualities are met, you have the freedom to do as you please.

I have to say I was estatic when I saw that, lol.

Which I also take issue with, but thats another story.

But you're not being forced to and neither is anyone else. You don't have to eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Go to a restaurant where it isn't or there are seperate sections. Too bad, so sad that the restaurant you go to isn't perfect for you. Go to a different one then. What you ARE asking is that other people be subjected to your rules/guidelines when you feel that it benefits you. Only when you feel like they should then, eh?

Lebanon's government has little choice in the matter.

This says everything. If the government decides that negatives outweigh the positives for society, go ahead and ban it. Sounds like China to me.

Again: It depends on your definition of reasonable. Its not a reasonable standard. Hell, based on your argument, why should the restaurant owner decide who gets to eat in his/her restaurant ever? Why not let the government decide everything? As long as its "reasonable", whats the harm, right?

Haha.

First of all, what is a reasonable public health standard is or isn't is very debateable, and I think that we aren't going to agree on that one. Your racism anaolgy doesn't apply here. Businesses aren't just banning a group of people due to race or another similar issue. In fact, if a business says "We allow smoking", they haven't banned *anyone* from the place, but rather have opened it up to everyone. Its more like, say, banning everyone from a business that has a cold, because other people can get it too, and it hurts their health. Its still very simple: Don't like the secondhand smoke at ______ business? Don't go. No one's forcing you to.