Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

pettifogger

Members
  • Posts

    1,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pettifogger

  1. Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in starting the civil war in Syria? Do you really believe that? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian-civil-war-guide-isis/410746/
  2. His reaction to the virgin disclosure was bizarre. It was like someone hit him in the head with a hammer. loved thatAnd I believe 100% of the reason is that he couldn't wait to pull off the trifecta. No schtick, I think it took him a minute to process that he wasn't going to get to nail her. I thought his reaction to Becca's virgin announcement was about the same as his reaction to Jade's computer pics -- caught completely flatfooted. And he does not seem to have picked up on the fact that the Producers know all this stuff in advance and are setting him up for these little surprise bombshells.
  3. So I am reading on the innernets today that Jade went to the Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts in addition to starting her own cosmetics company and hanging around with Hollywood starlet girlfriends. Lots of nice pics on her facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/jadeelizabethroper Sounds like she would have had a lot of interesting things to talk about if the producers ever let the people talk about their outside lives.
  4. I know you only asked for one, but here's the Dum Dum Girls with "Bedroom Eyes" Chrissie Hynde meets the GoGos.
  5. New alt-country band Honey Honey -- heard them first on an episode of Vegas. "Angel of Death" in which the devil passes out pictures of people to send to the great party beyond, then passes out pictures of the band members to each other. Same song performed live on an LA rooftop.
  6. Oh, my. Interesting, but then there's the Who's version: And their version of Young Man Blues from the same show is my all time fave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCXpFy0E5s
  7. Jameson and Ginger Ale Good lord. Polluting a fine Irish whiskey? Animals!
  8. Kind of like married sex, only in that case there would have been no beej.I wonder if somewhere out there on the innernets, the gal has posted her version of what went down. It's probably unflattering to our boy.
  9. In our next episode, we discover the ex girlfriend works at the massage parlor.
  10. Are they going to do Boys v Girls the rest of the way? I thought this was a one or two week thing.They keep monkeying with the rules but I think the purpose this time is to give the judges a veto/save, in effect, every week. Anyone truly good with potential to win it all will likely be saved by the judges simply by picking the other low-finisher to go home. What I thought was interesting is that if you look at the top half and the bottom half per America's vote this week, the voters got it right. Fast forward six weeks and the people sitting in chairs screen left should be the ones left.
  11. My girl likened the Ben/Courtney thing to Ben regressing back to his high school days when he would never have a shot at a chick like her, so he's willing to grasp at anything to let her back in. Even after she tells him, "I'm losing that spark, etc." (red flag, Ben?), he comes back and says something like, "I really respect her for being honest, etc." She is playing him perfectly. What a chump.I really REALLY now hope that Courtney wins the whole sha-bang-a-bang: 1) She makes the show much more interesting with her craziness, one-liners, and all out "in it to win it" starategies. The rest of the girls are pretty damn boring. 2) This Ben dude is such a freakin' tool, he deserves to get stuck with an evil soul-sucker like her. 3) These other chicks can do much better than this guy.I'm full on the Courtney express, baby! WHOO-WHOO! :trainwreck:This is a point my wife and I were agreeing on last night. The whole talk on the pyramid scene was a clinical exercise in passive-aggressive "I don't know if I can go on unless you commit to me" antics that got the wine guy begging for the chance to go on a home visit date. As they were walking up the last set of steps I half expected her to say "let's skip the view, I've already got what I wanted on this date."
  12. PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. This is the Massachusetts code section cited in the police report. I am having a hard time understanding why loudly complaining to the police in your own front yard qualifies for an arrest under this statute. Apparently the officer thought he had enough for probable cause under this statute. The Department subsequently decided, apparently, not to refer the matter for prosecution. Gates was not charged with obstructing an officer for failing to show his ID. He was charged with disturbing the peace based on discussions outside the house after his identity and right to occupy the house were verified. The police report does not indicate suspicion of other burglars still being in the home; it may be valid to speculate whether the officer considered that, but it is not a factor he gives in making the arrest.
  13. I don't see why this has come up so much as it has. I don't think rational people are really saying this cop hates black people. But he made an assumption that was at least partly based on race and a lot of people don't think that's right. The fact is that cops tend to do this kind of thing to blacks more often than whites (and if this guy were a white guy in grungy clothes and a week without a shower or shave a similar thing would have happened IMO.) I don't really see how that point can be argued. If you want to say that blacks have a higher percentage of law breakers, that would be fine and probably correct but I doubt you'll win many friends.Is it really that hard for people to realize we (and the numbers show black cops do this also) have a different reaction to an unkempt black guy fiddling with a door in a nice neighborhood or a young Arab sitting next to us on the airplane or even a white person who you would see at a county fair? What assumption was that, Timmy?Who the hell is timmy? And the assumption was that a grungy looking black guy shouldn't be fiddling with a door in a nice neighborhood.He wasn't grungy-looking. Gates was in a blue blazer. His driver was in a suit.Does not look grungy in the booking photo -- he's wearing a polo style shirt.ETA http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...3092gates1.html
  14. There's one here somewhere. Maybe Gr00vus, but I'm not sure.and frankly even then I doubt he would think that the Chargers should have signed him to a mega deal while Rivers was on the roster.It's the bicycle seat guy. To his credit he stuck with the "we should have stuck with Brees" stance early in the year even when Brees was playing poorly. Unlike the typical sharkpool poster that doesn't bring "Chargers shoulda kept Brees!" until week #9. It's funny how the things they should have done change from week to week. I'm sure AJ wishes he could go back and make changes depending on how the wind is blowing that week.I'm calling dibs on "We should have kept Micheal Turner" schtik right nowNot a chance. I've been saying they should pay $5mil for him next season and nobody agrees with me.Isn't Michael Turner an unrestricted free agent next year? Why would he want to take $5m to ride the pine (mostly) behind LT2? He could probably get several times as much on the open market. It only takes one desperate team to set his "fair market value."
  15. Finished At the Center of the Storm by George Tenet last week. Pretty quick read. Tenet gives a different view of the same topics Bob Woodward covers in his books about Bush, 9-11, Iraq, etc. He takes pains not to throw Bush under the bus but it's clear he won't be exchanging Xmas cards with Cheney, Libby, or Condi Rice. One of his big points is that CIA mistakes on WMD did not lead to Bush's decision to go to war but he totally sidesteps the issue of how his NIEs led Congress to vote the way it did. The stories about meeting Arafat and participating in the Dayton negotiations re Israeal/Palestine are very interesting. His descriptions of "tradecraft" and how intelligence is processed are interesting too. Last weekend I started the Reagan Diaries. I'm through about a quarter of it, now up to 1983. It's really a fascinating insight into Reagan because it's obvious he was writing for history but not planning to have it published in his lifetime. Everything you like or dislike about the man comes out in the entries. He's stubborn, narrow minded and very sure of himself, and everyone who is against him is, in his view, not being honest or is just playing political games, but at the same time these personality characteristics lead to him accomplishing major changes. The press gave the impression that he was pretty lazy, kept a 9 to 5 office and vacationed a lot. That impression does not hold up when you see even a topical highlight of the events on a daily basis and the wide variety of topics he had to cover. He seemed to be far more engaged in writing his own speeches than the current president is. He spent an incredible amount of time lobbying members of Congress directly and meeting them for dinners, social events, etc. Most interesting entries so far: --when he talks about Saddam Hussein being a "nut" who wants to acquire nuclear weapons and take over the neigboring Arab countries, but he's not in favor of Israel's bombing their nuclear reactor; --his frustration with the Israelis and what he sees as their aggressiveness, failure to pull out of Lebanon, etc.; --his views on some of his meetings with Tip O'Neill, who he thinks is genial but misguided and gets his facts wrong (I read O'Neill's book and Tip said basically the same thing about Reagan; it sounds like they had a few heated exchanges and each thought they came out ahead); --he's really devoted to his wife, frustrated by his kids on occasion, etc. Ron Jr. does not like having Secret Service protection and constantly complains, one time hanging up on RR and they are not talking for a while. Patti's like a "yo-yo", friendly at times, distant at others, calls for money when she's broke, though; --he sees no contradiction in introducing intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe, or starting an MX missile program and stealth bomber program, while bargaining for arms limitations; --he follows the numbers closely on his economic recovery plan which depends on tax cuts. When deficits ensue, it's always something other than his policy at fault, for example we were too good at curbing inflation so tax revenues are affected, or the Dems won't let me make sufficient further cuts, etc. --but, he knows when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, and will make a deal when it gets him most of what he wants. This leads to constant criticism from the right, who seem to think he's betrayed them. He finds it particularly amusing when people like Richard Viguerie (who opposed him and wanted Al Haig as a candidate) write to him expressing disappointment that he did not live up to their expectations.
  16. I guess my questions would be: 1. Do you believe Steve's version, on how far it went, or do you think Steve admitted whatever Steve thought was witnessed by someone else and denied everything else, but more happened? (Not do you suspect more happened, do you believe more happened.) 2. Do you believe she does not remember? 3. What could you do to get any more information on either topic? (The answer to this appears to be "nothing." You questioned George, you questioned Steve, you questioned her repeatedly and confronted her with what Steve admitted, correct?) So, while it's not satisfactory, you have all the information you're going to get, unless she volunteers something new. It sounds like she made a drunken pass at Steve, but, maybe took a grab for him in the stall, most likely that was it. Now think about it from her perspective. She knows what she did, at least in part, based on what you have relayed to her. She may know more. But, she's trying to figure out a way to handle you. That's what she needs a few days to think about, not whether she's bothered deep down by some unknown issue whether something's bothering her. Good luck.
  17. You've already said that you and your friends joke around all the time, so how can you be surprised when you ask a question in a joking manner and he responds in a joking way? Unlike most of the other posters, Friend #2's email makes me think it's even less likely anything happened.Distinct possibility here. Still waiting for the Indian movie version of the recent developments.
  18. Please give us your opinion.Well, with regards to the "girls" hanging out, he did say earlier that she had a loose sweatshirt on so they could be hanging out of her bra and flopping around underneath the sweatshirt. I would like to think, for his sake, that she didn't do anything but I'm afraid she did as I don't believe she just happened to forget that one particular and very important moment of the weekend. Steve probably followed her in there like he was joking, they ended up swapping spit, he whispers he wants to see the boobage, she flashes him, he fondles for a bit as she feels she might as well ease her curiosity since she's already wasted and gropes for the sausage. Now if this is the case, it depends on what MITYH's line of cheating is and how far he wants to take this thing. I feel bad for him and wouldn't wish this situation on anyone. Only once do I not remember what happened after I had too much to drink and that was after BSR were already at home and I basically passed out on the bed. I recall being undressed by him and then it gets a little fuzzy. Other than that, I remember everything that happened before that. I would also like to echo Football Widow's question regarding the other guy that was there. The OP said there were 3 guys that went to the bathroom, Steve, George and Other. What did he say about this when they first got back to the campground? Why was George the only one that mentioned it? I think they both heard what was going on and wanted MITYH to go find out himself as it would be a crappy position to be in to inform a buddy that his wife was "in the arms of another man" to put that as PG as possible. This post is so totally out of character from anything Mrs. BSR has ever posted here that I have to wonder if someone else hasn't logged on under her name.
  19. Please give us your opinion.If she's going from page 1 through page 18 it might take a while, with detours to the movie version and all that.
  20. It's the G Rated version but I think it gives a pretty accurate portrayal of what happened.It's a moving scene.
  21. LINKAh, good ole data mining. Talk about Big Brother. How much more blatantly obvious can it get? You know, if this data mining includes message boards it means we're all on their radar for talking about them so much. (Waves to NSA.) Hi guys, how're ya' doing?
  22. if you read the entire speech, there is nothing contradictory. Peti just highlighted what he wanted to. I just highlighted the part where Bush previously said we still use warrants, then the part where he recently said no we don't. And I linked the entire speeches for anyone interested, so they could see Bush's entire arguments.
  23. George Bush in 2004, insisting that the Patriot Act expanded the law to allow roving wiretaps, but that we still had in place the protection of judicial review: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen. The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040420-2.html George Bush this week, acknowledging that well, maybe we don't use warrants all the time after all. The second part of the question is? Sorry -- I gave a long answer. Q It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts? THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I -- right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. We use FISA still -- you're referring to the FISA court in your question -- of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051219-2.html Hey, if we capture the computer of an al quada member and it's got phone numbers in America on it, I have no problem whatsoever with automatically wiretapping all the numbers listed. I have no problem wiretapping any other numbers people at those numbers call. There really is no doubt that a FISA jugdge would approve it either before or after the fact. If the network of communications leads into the US of course we can use the NSA domestically. What the President has not explained is why the FISA process has to be discarded and why review by an Article III judge is such a problem in the process. And, he has not explained why it is necessary to tell people that we are using the process when we are not. Claiming that the resolution passed after 9-11 authorized domestic spying is an Orwellian argument that shows that he knows he does not have actual legal support for his actions.
  24. Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. It's about the Paris peace conference following WWI. She makes it brisk and lively reading. I'm just 40 pages into it but it looks like a winner. http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display...n=0-375-50826-0
  25. Great addition. I believe the original was by The Seeds. AlsoOne Bourbon, One Scotch, and One Beer - George Thorogood (John Lee Hooker)Do You Wanna Dance -- the Ramones (Bobby Sherman)California Sun -- the Ramones (dunno who) or any of a number of their many covers, esp. from the all-covers album, Acid Eaters: Have You Ever Seen the Rain (CCR) and Somebody to Love? (Jefferson Airplane) Please Mr. Postman -- the Beatles (the Marvelettes) You Really Got a Hold on Me -- the Beatles (Smokey and the Miracles)Twist and Shout -- the Beatles (Isley Bros.) Shakin' All Over -- the Who (from Live at Leeds) (Eddie Cochran?) Young Man's Blues -- the Who (Mose Allison) Recent Tori Amos all covers album is also a hoot. Top cover ever, IMHO, already mentioned, is All Along the Watchtower -- Hendrix (Dylan)
×
  • Create New...