Where's everbody? Is it Quarter Finals/term paper time?

R.I.P. Bunnies P…

Good to know. It’s not gay if it’s in the Garage.

@frimmel:

@ABWorsham:

What do you think about (UT) Texas signing a mult-million dollar deal with ESPN for it’s own television network? I beleive it was 300 million.

I thinks it a matter of time before most teams realize just how much money is out there for grabs. This will change college football.

This is the first I’ve heard of it but it would certainly further explain the departure of Nebraska to the Big Ten and Colorado to the Pac 10. The precedent had been set previously with Notre Dame and NBC. This though would be very different from the perspective of Texas is not an independent and plays in a conference. I’ll have to look into this more sometime this week.

Got any links to good articles?

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/the-ugly-side-of-the-longhorn-sports-network/

LMAO

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

@AgentOrange:

OK, here’s another question:  If someone said you must fight in a war, and offered you one of 3 fighting vehicles to use, which one would you choose - a tank, a fighter jet, or a small, armed, water-craft?

I chose the tank, if only because it seems really cool to be heavily protected, while being able to dish out quite a bit of damage.  :mrgreen:

If I had to, I would choose:

1.  The medical van.  Because nobody really wants to shoot the medical van.
2.  The fighter jet.  Puke and pass out, but whee!
3.  The tank.  Because if I get blown up, hopefully the munitions will ignite and my end will be quick.  Also, I can pretend I didn’t hear orders. “wuzzat, the tank was too loud . . . retreat, you say?”
4.  The small, armed, water-craft.  Because of chemicals that can burn your skin in the water, and if you survive that, the fishies that like to eat you, and if you survive that, the dehydration and the sunburn.

artillery…king of battle. and death from afar

@ZimZaxZeo:

And nobody knows – nobody – where the next Einstein will be born, nor to whom.

nuts to that, I want another Adam Sandler, for when this one dies :)! But nope I think that’s a good point. I’m not saying people should just keep trying and popping out more babies just so their odds are better or anything though, lol. I agree with ya though, nothing wrong with having kids.

And D:S, I’m sure we all agree with you that “marriage does not automatically mean you have to have children”. Well I hope everyone agrees. If you read the posts, you’ll see that this is more about when a good time is in your life to get married, and when a good time is to have kids (if you’re looking to do both of those things, and you believe you’ve already found the right person.)