The Avenger

Wow - this place is going to be grim after the game if the Bears win - I knew we had homers here, but to see so many people pick the Bills to win and score more than 2 TDs is amazing... OK, the Bills aren't as bad as everyone thought and we did beat Miami in Miami, but guess what - Miami sucks! What we thought was a huge win isn't as important as we initially though - even Houston beat them! Hey, I'd love to see the Bills win it, but our offense hasn't exactly lit up the board and I don't see how we are going to do it against a great Bears D ON THE ROAD. Hope for a trap game all you want (it could happen), but I just don't see the Bears dropping this one. Bears, 20-6.

Didn't used to like Butters, now he's one of my favorites. When Leopold Stoch started dancing and people started dying - that was some great stuff. As I mentioned earlier, the last line of the "Margerene" episode, where he's chained in the basemet and given a dead body to "feed" on and asks for spaghettios is one of my all-time favorite momemnts.

Loved when the thumbdrive with the Sword of 1000 Truths was given to Randy - they guy actually kneels down and bows his head as he makes the transfer - classic.

Westbrook killed me. Got my first loss of the year because of it - lost by 1 friggin' point!

So many excellent moments - hard to pick favorites. -I loved Chef's parents and their Loch Ness monster stories - how they hell did Matt and Trey come up with that? Totally random. -The superhero episode where they are drawn like musclebound action heros and Butters takes a trowing star to the eye - suddenly they snap back to being drawn like normal little kids, Butters has a star in his eye, there's a brief pause of panic and then he starts screaming bloody murder when he realizes what's happened - classic. -"Fightin' "Round the World with Russel Crowe" when he starts singing and Tugger tries to get away but is tethered to the dock so he pulls out a gun and shoots himself in the head - he then capsizes and there's a big oil slick - classic. -When the cute little forrest creatures start killing and the situation devolves into a blood orgy - damn. -When Cartman meets Bart Simpson while waiting to see the TV network executives and they compare stories about the worst thing they've ever done. Bart tells of beheading a statue in the center of town, Eric tops that with a story of killing a kid's parents, grinding them up, cooking them as chili and feeding them to the kid (Scott Teneman). -Eric negotiating over the price of found aborted fetuses - "You bustin' my balls here, Jim, bustin' my balls" -Butters coming "back from the dead" and going home. His parents chain him in the basement and then kill a curtain saleswoman so "it can feed". At the very end a chained and naked Butters asks, "Uh, can I have some Spaghettios?"

Actually, you used an emoticon - you gotta lose points for that. Damn, I hate losing - all that typing for nothing! Damn you Cincy!!! [shakes fists] So, what's the rematch topic?

I'm NOT defending the Dems (at least the southern Dems) support (or more accurately, lack thereof) of civil rights - it was poor. You're telling me that 198 Democratic lawmakers voted FOR the act because they saw their Republican bretheren support it and "smelled the coffee"? Fat chance. If the Republicans were that damn persuasive why did 40 Republican lawmakers vote AGAINST the Act? What I AM pointing out is that your contention that Dems, as a whole, voted against the Act is false - that's simply not supported by the facts. 94% of northern Dem representitives voted FOR the act, as did 98% of northern Dem senators. Your initial premise, that the southern Dems who voted against the Act did so with the approval of ALL Dems is wrong. Your premise that all Dems cast ethics aside and didn't have the cojones to defy that block is also flat out wrong. The reality is that almost ALL congressmen (and 100% of Republicans) voted against the Act demonstrating that that was the political reality of the time. It also shows that arcane parlimentary rules on cloture allow a small minority of lawmakers to filibuster legislation that has broad support - that's what we saw with the filibuster by the Dixiecrats. You're not a big fan of the Democrats - we get it. All I'm saying is that if you're going to bash them you need to find a better reason than to say that the southern Democrats in 1964 had a poor civil rights record so the WHOLE PARTY had (or still has today) a poor record on civil rights - that's just not supported by the facts.

I'll start by saying I'm sorry if you took offense at my "rock on" comment - it was not intended. I'll also disagree that there was no difference between northerns and southern Democrats on the 1964 vote - you couldn't be more wrong. Here's how the vote broke down (1st number is FOR the 1964 Act, 2nd number is AGAINST): House Version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) Senate Version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) This CLEARLY shows this wasn't a party vote, but a geography vote. Your painting ALL Democrats as anti-civil rights legislation just doesn't hold up. Nearly ALL SOUTHERNERS rejected civil rights legislation which just goes to prove my point that any politician in the south in 1964 had to support segregation in order to keep their seats (I'd be curious to know how the 8 Dems who voted for the Act fared in their next election, but I don't have the time right now). Nearly ALL Northern Democrats supported the legislation - so saying, "Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats..think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics" just doesn't wash. Were there segregationists/racists in the Democratic party in 1964 - you bet. But there were also Republicans. Were these folks right for being segregationist/racists? No - time has shown that it was wrong. Was it an unfortunate political reality in 1964? Yes.

Let's see - Troy Vincent has a hammy pull and they put him on IR, TKO has a hammy pull and misses a few games, comes back to practice and then aggrivates the injury. My guess is that the Bills are going to euthanize the guy. Damn shame - I really liked TKO.

Sheee... "Golly!"

When you own the team it doesn't count.

There's a little thing we like to call TIME that made all the difference in these examples: Thomas Jefferson - owned slaves, but this was legal when he lived before 1826. Not saying slavery was right, but those were the times. What most people have a problem with is the illigetimate offspring Jefferson is now known to have had - when you have sex with "property" is it really consensual? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - debate on this took place in 1964 . You may recall that the South was largely segregated and this was a way of life. Again, not saying it was right, it was just the way it was (and if you were a southern politician you had to stand for segregation if you were to have a shot at re-election). 93% of southern Democrats (80 of 87) voted against the legislation, but 100% of southern Repulicans (10 of 10) voted against it as well . Still think voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on party affiliation? Looks like it was based on geography to me. Fast forward to 2002 and you get Trent Lott saying that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 (he ran on a platform of segregation) "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" - an endorsement of that platform? Lott also voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and voted against the MLK holiday. I don't know about you, but I think someone like Lott in 2002 should be held to a different standard than Thomas Jeffrson prior to 1826 and southern politicians in 1964 when it comes issues of race, but if you think they're all equal, rock on with your bad self.

I can recall only 1 politician who wore a team cap and was truly a fan of that team - Rudy G and the NY Yankees. When he was mayor during the subway series he proudly proclaimed himself to be an Yankee fan and actively rooted for them over the Mets. Other than that I think all politicians are going to go with whatever team helps them politically (as they should - that's their job).

Cool - thanks for the link. Interesting stuff - I'm going to look into how this is all calculated to get a better understanding of what it says. Again - not trying to yank any chains, just trying to figure out the basis for the original statement - it certainly looks as if there was some reason to state it as fact in the first place.

I'm not going to refute - I'm simply asking whether the statement is fact or opinion. It looks like it's being offered up as fact and if it is I am wondering where one gets that sort of information. If it's fact it can't be refuted - it is what it is. On the other hand, if it's an opinion I find it interesting that its being presented as if it were a fact.

Out of curiosity, is this something you can cite with facts, or is this just an opinion? I'm not trying to yank your chain - I am just wondering whether this is a fact that can be supported (I'd love to see it and understand how it may compare to other areas because there are some place with REALLY high taxes), or whether it's just an opinion.

Yeah, you know that dude who used to be in the Misfits before starting his own band - looks kinda like if Elvis and Satan had a kid together.....

Beware of any burger that, when sold, comes with the counterperson asking, "would you like a defibrilator with that?"

My favorite is The Daily Show - absolutely to notch writing - the only show that regularly makes me laugh out loud. I also love Mythbusters - where can I get a job doing cool stuff like that and getting paid good money for it? Sitcom favorites are Earl and The Office.

Tawana Brawley, anyone?

Some kids just don't like bath time. When my twins were that age they both screamed like banshees when it was time for the bath. Eventually they grew out of it (I was stunned when my mother-in-law gave them a bath one day and they were actually enjoying it). Really not sure how much you can do with a 6 week old - if they don't like something its pretty hard to change (but they do grow out of phases pretty quickly). Good luck!

Did you notice where the article said that Creighton, the WOMAN, planned to use the penis/urine to get a job? I'm not sure the drug screener would have cared too much about whether the urine was real and/or the righ temperature after seeing a woman whip out a big old dong - that right there probably loses her the job

I particularly like how the Indianapolis Colts fight song mentions Baltimore 3 times and ends with, "For Baltimore and Maryland - You will march on to victory" that's gotta go over huge in the famlands of Indiana......

Good question. I think it depends on when you became a huge fan (and don't say when you were 5 - little kids are fans of Sesame Street and ice cream - their football fandom isn't yet formed). Being born in 1970, I can understand the whole Miami thing. By the time I really became a huge fan (call it 1980) it was at its peak. IHATED Miami ans still do, but they are no longer at the top of my list - that dragon was eventually slain. Remember, that was 25+ years ago, folks. Sure the Dolphins owned us and sure it made for a great rivalry. But what have they done since? After our Super Bowl years the next team to own us was the Pats - unfortunately we are still in that cycle (31-0 win against them a few years ago notwithstanding - but it was sweet). Hey, I'm all for hating the Dolphins, but to hold them as most hated for something that happened long ago while in the midst of being owned by another team right now isn't rational. It's like hating Germany for WWII instead of hating Osma bin Laden. Then again, it could just be that I live outside of Boston and have to put up with the a-holes all the time

Minor IR? - never heard of that - is it like double secret probation or something?