Sketch Soland

He was really take charge in "The Hunt for Red October" as well, imo. That's enough for me.

You must admit, however, that Germans do actually love David Hasselhoff... You ever try to walk down a Munich street when a rerun of "Knight Rider" is airing? You can, easily, because the streets are empty!

Dude, It's log... It's log... It's big... It's heavy... It's wood.... It's log..... It's log.... It's BETTER than BAD.... It's GOOD! Ok?

yes i see..... hmmmmmm we should just make peters tackle eligible on every play then imo

We should probably ask Mel Gibson, imo.

This really f's up my bracket. ARGHHHH!

There is no way on God's Green Earth Walker will be a backup, not for the money they are paying him.

This is the whole kit and kaboodle right here. Whether or not the Digital Millennium Copyright Act applies to this lawsuit (which it obviously does because it's whole purpose was to anticipate exactly this kind of problem) and whether Google/Youtube is complying with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to its best capability. To a complete laymen it seems like they are. They take down Viacom clips as they receive requests from the company (like Daily Show and Colbert clips), they've struck deals with NBC and CBS to allow certain clips. Viacom is living in the past and has its head up its arse, especially when lots of their shows get huge publicity and PR from youtube! Viacom is just holding Youtube's feet to the fire in the public arena. It will be settled out of court, most likely, imo.

Mein Führer, I can walk!

I'm sorry, brother. My sympathies.

Yes, she does.... I didn't quite realize how much until that picture.... Unfortunately I think I must stick to my principles and mark her down a notch in the hotness scale *shrug*

Good post

Sears at #12 is way too high.

i believe somewhere in your shady past you were also responsible for the insidious communist fluoride epidemic. Our precious bodily fluids, Tom! *shakes head*

Ok. You think "Farfetched" and "Not Farfetched". I think there are levels of farfetchedness, some more unrealistic than others. This is the context of my post that you still do not seem to understand. I was never asking you to agree with me, just not to twist my words out of context. I'm anal that way......no no....I'm a whiny little girl that way! If you truly want to respond to someone's post, have a care to grasp what they're saying before you respond to it! I use the words that seem appropriate for what I'm trying to say. If you have a problem with that, that is your problem and reflects on you, not me. I do not care one whit about what you or anyone else thinks about my use of BIG SCARY WORDS LOL! Don't take me out context and I won't feel the need to post cliff notes so that you can understand what I said in the original post. You acknowledge this in the first line of your last post anyway, so I guess we won't be in this situation again. That's simple. yes, enough of this.... i think jack's gonna have to put on his superman cape to catch those drones! /obnoxious thread hijacking spat

That depends, is Jackie Slater still on the board?

I love it. You are not a "fine receiver" if you have "poor hands".

I see your point! Here's the Cliff Notes Version for you then of my Original Post: IMO 1) Season Six is Not as Good as Season Five so far Why? Because the unrealisticness that has always been part of why the show is so great is taken too far in Season Six. 2) I still really love this show, though, nonetheless Why? Because I do. Now, let's take a look at your response: Pop Quiz: where in the above cliff notes version did I say anyone claimed that the show is not farfetched or did I claim that the show wasn't farfetched at any point of its existence? Refer back to point 1 of Cliff Notes of Original Post. Your point that its been unrealistic from the start is something I acknowledged straight away in my original post. How can you repeating something that I said be considered a "response" to my post? See Point 2 of Cliff Notes of Original Post. Your point that I have to accept the show for what it is in order to enjoy it is something I acknowledged straight way in my original post. How can you repeating something that I said be considered a "response" to my post? I hope this short Cliff Notes/Analysis has been helpful for your reading comprhension and semantic response skills. I am always glad to help out if I can.

Why would the Bills Coaching Staff and Management be coming up with a plan to address player personnel?

Tomorrow, March 16th, that would be a better day.

I love when people do not read something because they see *LONG POST* and then spit back a generic WTF CHILL DUDE response because they think that covers it.

LOL, yes, it does fit the analogy better. "Highly unusual" does also not necessarily mean there's anything "wrong" with it, either, that is true. However, it usually does provoke inquiry into why some thing is "highly unusual". A working system of governance imo should have checks, balances, and safeguards in place to check on "highly unusual" situations when they occur, and if the "highly unusual" situation is completely legal and above board, then great, no harm done, but sometimes it is these situations that, when the veil is pulled back, become the ones that need to be really looked at. (run-on sentence!) I would agree that the Justice Department has supremely botched the handling of these firings, yes, and that it is symptomatic of a greater degree of incompetency that pervades not only the justice department but many levels of our bureaucracy and current adminstration, as well.

Yes, as I stated in my first post, it is common practice for presidents to greatly overhaul the DAs every four years, as they like to appoint new DAs and each DA anyway serves a four year term, yes, at the complete behest of the president. The turnover at the start of a new adminstration is extensive. There have, however, according to the Congressional Research service, been only 5 firings in the last 25 years due to supposed misconduct. So "non-renewals" by a new adminstration is routine, firings for misconduct or alleged misconduct is not so routine. These eight firings are a political issue and not a legal one, it seems, by which I mean that the authority to fire them was legal but the handling, maneuverings, motivations for and PR surrounding the firings is coming under serious fire by Democrats and Republicans alike. This doesn't make them illegal, however, as far as I understand the situation.

Tom, did I say it proved anything? Please show me where I said it proved something. Or maybe "out of the ordinary" = "Totally Illegal", in your mind? 8 firings, when there was only 5 in the last 25, is "out of the ordinary". That's all. Doesn't have to be anything illegal about it. I'm not Holcombs Arm and therefore I do not care to get in a latent internet quarrel about dice and whose evolution is bigger than the others. Just please don't take me out of context.

I do not know the inner workings of this specific law enough to know if there is anything "wrong" about the most recent 8 firings. Just that it is "highly unusual" in the track record of the last 25 years of District Attorneys being fired for misconduct, which only means that it is "out of the ordinary". But this was not my main point.... My main point was to state that it is common practice for Presidents to bring in a generally new wave of DA's on the start of their term. This turnover is common practice. If the OP had done even a cursory fact check, he would have known this.