Reuben Gant

Her and Scarlett J. have been packing on the pounds.

In the end I do find Clinton more culpable. I spent a fair amount of time in Hong Kong in the 90's and he was loved there. Of course, he helped make many of them very rich. But I also know many American businessmen who believe that their products were outright lifted by Chinese pirating or reverse engineering without any legal remedy. In the end, we don't know what we are helping create in China because there is such a lack of political transparency. Without a floating currency we are in a sense providing the biggest labor subsidy in the history of the world.

Careful, we don't want to "look with the same brush" here.

Sort of a redundant honor isn't it? Especially when the guy thinks he is already in the HOF.

Kids are so darn inefficient.

Counting Fuccillo ads? I guess everybody needs a hobby.

I saw a little bit of it, but can't stand that kind of rant so I turned the channel to watch Yanks-Rangers, who is SOS?

James Joyce??

The real American paradox is that Darwinism is framed as antithetical to creationism, but American society has fully embraced social Darwinism with no problem at all.

I much prefer turtles with Semtex, but the hampters are fun too.

Leslie Neilson - but he is native Canuckian.

Who? I know who Mariah Carey is.

HB!

You are not teaching your kids evolutionary theory? I think that if you don't know at least what evolutionary theory is, that you are not educated.

Andy Reid is the GM. He should cut him one week before the start of the season.

.38 Special is a little hard for this crowd, I'm thinking John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band.

That isn't God. That is Underdog protecting you. You're safe right? Therefore it must be Underdog: speed of lightning, roar of thunder fighting all who rob or plunder Underdog.

kruschev's "We will bury you" was so bad they didn't try to use it in Rocky IV.

No, but it is hip to be square if you believe in love.

That's right. UB = Architectural experiment in riot prevention

Nobody has shown me how the acceptence of one system falsifies the other by necessity. ID vs Evolution is a false dichotomy.

?

The trouble with intelligent design is that it postulates a missing set, i.e an intelligence outside of the data; if you have a theory that postulates that there is something outside the data that is creating [/i]all the data, then it is non-falsifiable. Anything that is non-falsifiable outside of a data set is something other than science as it is modernly understood.

Sooner or later, most men come to realize that it is hard enough to keep one woman happy, but I don't begrudge this fellow the attempt.

There are cavemen in those Geico commercials. That is good enough for me.