Hykos

that's .75. And there's been talk for weeks that they'd drop another .5 after the last drop. That's not uncommon for an economy like this nor is it an unwelcome stimulus to the market. and then it went right back up about 300... Seriously, spreading fear of recession is about the lamest thing ever. I'm tired of hearing radio/tv pundints and their fear mongoring. It can only make matters worse. A slump after like 15 years of serious growth is not that big of deal. The GDP is still growing which means no recession yet. If you want to be worried about something, worry over the potential rise in cost of food over the next 10 years. My lattes are going to cost me 8 bucks in 5 years. That's what you should be scared of!

Wiimote + infrared gloves + Microsoft Surface interface = Minority Report

just go to any mens restroom and you're likely to find it.

Tom that's awesome.

ell no they arent....

24 barrel dual gatling gun, tripod mounted, 288 rubber band capacity, 40 shots per second. Took 4 months to build. Enjoy http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/16/meet-th...minigun-madnes/ http://disintegrator.co.uk/index.htm YouTube video

I thought that was really weird for them to do that. It's stupid that you already spent like 400 bucks on the thing and now have to pay 20 more for something iphone owners get for free.

/continues to wait for 3G iphone /wishes he had money for a Macbook Air edit: lol Kla. that sig is awesome

jeez. you'd think we would have fiber by now with all that in atlanta...

not a LOL-Kitteh, but best LOLrus I've seen in awhile http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-bucket-list-walrus.jpg

you could just reroll gay ---------------------------------------------------- For those interested. NH results: Clinton - 39.2% Obama - 36.4% Edwards - 16.9% Richardson - 4.6% Kucinich - 1.4% Others - 1.1% Biden - 0.2% Gravel - 0.1% Dodd - 0.1% McCain - 37.2% Romney - 31.6% Huckabee - 11.2% Giuliani - 8.6% Paul - 7.6% Others - 2.0% Thompson - 1.2% Hunter - 0.5% ---------------------------------------------------- Upcoming primaries/caucuses 1/15 - MI (R only) 1/19 - NV, SC (R only) 1/22 - LA (R only) 1/25 - HI (R only) 1/26 - SC (D only) 1/29 - FL 2/1 - ME (R only) 2/5 - CA, NY, FL, IL, GA, NJ, MA, TN, AZ, MN, CO, AL, CT, OK, AR, UT, DE, ND, AK Dem Only: NM, KS, ID; Repub Only: WV, MT 2/9 - WA, LA (D only), NB (D only) 2/10 - ME (D only) 2/12 - DC, MD, VA 2/19 - WI, WA (R only), HI (D only) 3/4 - OH, RI, TX, VT

My rule of thumb: If it violates someones right to life, liberty, or property it should be illegal. If not, then the government should keep their nose out of it. Even if 90% of the population wants something to be illegal, if it doesn't violate someones right to life liberty or property then it should be legal. Every issue can be decided that way imho, with the exception being abortion since people have different opinions on when a fetus becomes a life.

If you are registered in Fulton County then you should be unregistered in FL. To register again most states require you do so by 30 days of an election/primary. I think it's too late for FL if that is the case. -Most experienced Candidate running. 21 years in the Senate and 4 in the House before that. -Long time opposition to spending and pork barrel and would veto far more than either of the last two presidents. -In 25 years he has never been one to tow the party line and has worked with the other side of the aisle more than most Republicans. -Has said he would sign off on FairTax if it passed the houses, but also that it isn't what he wants. Kinda unclear, but is in favor of major tax reform. -Supports personal plans in Social Security. -Supports stem cell research -Opposes gun control -Opposes ban on gay marriage. Prefers States decide for themselves. -Opposes government run health care -Supports Guest Worker programs and paths to legal citizenship for existing aliens yet also securing our border more. -Supports Charter, Voucher, and home-schooling programs. Prefers states to decide how to spend Education monies. -Pro NAFTA -Pro-Nuclear plant expansion and fast tracked oil-independence -Supports stricter measures on air quality but opposes Kyoto act -Opposed how the war was handled, proposed troup surge to end violence which has since worked, for now at least. -Against pork spending in defense budgets. -Supports Taiwanese independence -Supports Israel -Spent 22 years in the Navy. -Has a father and a grandfather that were Admirals and he could have had any cushy desk job he wanted in the Navy yet chose to serve in combat during Vietnam. To me that says something about his character. The opposite can be said for Bush. -Against torture of any kind. The only candidate with first hand experience on this. Only things I disagree with him on are his views on abortion and his election reform plan that he passed a few years ago. Oh and ANWR drilling.

I will be voting. And Georgia does not have party affiliations. You can ask for either party's ballot. I probably agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any other candidate, but I don't think he is electable in the General Election, nor do I think he would make the best leader out of the bunch. I'm probably going to settle on Bridget, Honki, or McCain. One of the three. Since I don't think you can write in candidates on primaries, it'll most likely be McCain. Since GA's primary doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, I might just stay home and sulk. /can't wait for 2010 census so we have more say in elections

HaPpY bIrTHdaY MOKY!!!!!

you're going to run out of room for all your toasters

It wasn't "scandal" it was "scandals". 8 years of them. Many of which Hillary was actively involved in, yet neither of them were ever prosecuted for anything. That still amazes me more than 10 years later. Also, what did Bill do that was so great? There were no major or monumental policy changes domestically or internationally that I can remember. The unemployment rate was only moderate (higher than any point in the Bush terms), interest rates were higher than they are now, and there was still a lot of tax and spending. Some would claim that he ignored foreign threats that led up to 9/11 (since Bush had only been in office for 7 months). He took credit for an economy that in most economist's opinions was the outcome of years of Regan/BushHW policy and slammed it into the ground by the end of his 2nd term. People often view former presidents with rose colored glasses (look at Carter for a great example) but don’t forget that 8 years ago the overwhelming majority of the country did not like Clinton. His approval ratings were lower than any president at the time (in the low 30 percentile. A sad record only surpassed by Bush). Whether or not it's ok to penalize Hillary for any of this I don't know, but since they make no short fact about her active involvement in his presidency I think it's only fair to hold her accountable for some part of what was done or not done during those 8 years.

Soma response Two of those presidencies included war time spending and one of them included the cold war. Exclude defence spending and the pitcure would look a bit different I bet. My opinion on this changed in high school when someone close to me had one. I was very religious then and against abortion. Like most things I think it is a States right issue and should be up to individual states, but it should remain a legal option for those States that want it. It is one of the biggest things I disagree with republicans on. I hate that so many of them are single issue voters and that this is their single issue. The solution is accepting the fact that young people are going to have sex regardless, proper education, and availability of birth control. For some abortion is the best or only viable option and it should remain an option. Abstinence only education is a proven failure like you said. That is not the typical conservative policy. There are a lot of conservatives that want to change that spend and spend policy in washington. Corporations are just groups of people (employees). The taxes are paid out of their paychecks. When politicians (usually dems) talk about increasing taxes on corporations all that means is you're going to pay more in the end. Either from your paycheck or from the goods/services you buy. Should be up to the States IMO, as it is now. I do think however that it should only be allowed in cases where there is irrefutable evidence such as DNA. A single witness testimony is not enough. While we are dependent on foreign oil we have interests in the Middle East and we need to protect them. That's why we are in Saudia Arabia and the Kingdom wants us there for the same reason. To protect their interest. Us. Their major customer. And I wouldn't call our support of Israel unwavering. If that were the case we would have taken out Palestine and Iran along time ago. We do as much as we have to to protect them and I think that's fair. The industrial age in the US is over, and it's just beginning in a lot of foreign countries. As a result manufacturing jobs are leaving for overseas. Unfortunately we have a lot of middle aged blue collar workers that didn't get the memo and they will be without jobs. It's unfortunate but to keep their jobs or even restore them at the expense of the consumer and the economy is not the right thing to do. Tax subsidies for education of those workers, sure, that I can go with. Making it harder for companies to get goods manufactured elsewhere so that they have to do it in the US thereby spending more and making consumers pay more? I don't agree with. I don't think either party will do anything that will risk losing their 2 party stranglehold on the system, and that includes voter reform. The only thing that will change this sadly is a major crisis. Economic depression, world war, or civil war. None of which are likely to happen.

Kevan response Kevan, I think I agree with like 98% of that post. /soulmate xD I've always found it ridiculous that age and personal responsibility have no affect on health care costs when they do for other forms of insurance. Younger people pay more for car insurance because they are a higher risk, bad drivers with tickets pay more because they are a higher risk, old people pay more for life insurance because they are a higher risk, people who live on an earthquake fault pay more for property insurance because they are a higher risk, but when it comes to health care someone who is a chain smoker, 50 years old, and lives off of big macs, frosties, and fried chicken will pay the exact same premiums I pay?!?!?! wtf kind of sense does that make? Our system is without a doubt messed up, replacing a flawed system with another flawed system (government run) is no solution. There are three problems that prevent us from having a better communication infrustructure. 1) telecom monopolies 2) we have a very old infrastructure and replacing/expanding/maintaining it is more expensive than to build a new one from scratch like a lot of asian countries that now have 100GB internet connections 3) our country is !@#$ing huge and the population density is very low throughout most of it so replacing an infustruction, be it internet backbones satalite cellphone towers or whatever, takes a long time and is very expensive compared to small countries with dense populations like Japan or Hong Kong or most EU countries This seems to be the general consensus among people under 30. Thank god my 401k will make me a multi millionaire by 55. I think in another 4 years or so this will become a bigger issue for candidates. It just requires too much of an effort for people to understand fully so it's all too easy for political parties and lobbiests to brush off as a scheme for the rich to get richer (something Dems love doing) when if anything it will have the oppossite affect.

Id vote for bridget! The only dog i like.

Well nearly every adult I talk to too, but I assume there's some out there that think different. Plus polls only give her a dislike around 50%. I just haven't run accross many of those other 50%. and travelgate, and jennifer flowers, and rose law firm records, lincoln bedroom, etc. scandals...

That might be true if it were a recent thing, but she wasn't running for any office in the 90's and that's how far back that opinion goes. People have thought that about her for a long time. Also I don't recall Elizabeth Dole being thought of as bitchy when she was running for president 8 years ago.

Kla, basically what Kev said. She's a vile woman in my opinion. Not to mention all the scandals her and her husband were involved in during his presidency. There's no way those people should ever be allowed back in the white house. Not after the 8 years we already had to put up with once. Not everyone, but close to half the country. If you look at polls that show who people would want in office the least she always comes in first above every other candidate by a huge margin. She's probably the most polarizing figure in american politics, well, second to Bush I guess.

el oh el

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5116/dscn02412se8.jpg Ben has some kinda resident evil thing going on here. Zombie Ben!