Desipio Message Board

Impressive showing by the Milwaukee pen today.

KASPLOOGE!

Quote from: Slakee on April 08, 2009, 11:19:38 PM

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2009, 11:00:40 PM
You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great 2009 Championship Season, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy was an Astros fan.'"

No, Sir! You can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Chicago Cubs and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Dave Patton!'

As long as he keeps getting ahead, this Patton fella might be on to something.

Also, we're a mere few games away from a serious Milton Bradley spit-swappin' shirtless-huggin' splooge-A-roonie. No hits yet but four walks already. I smell some serious ball pounding coming up.

Just wait till he starts going yard. I already have a gross of Crazy Uncle Milton Shot Blaster shirts printed up.  It's gonna be legend...wait fo..dary. You thought "Horry Kow" and "It's Gonna Happen" were big? Wait till those buttwipes get a face full of my C.U.M. Shot Blaster logo ringer tees. Boom. Easy street.

Quote from: Kermit, B. on April 02, 2009, 01:53:28 PM

Quote from: TDubbs on April 02, 2009, 11:45:51 AM

Quote from: Kermit, B. on April 02, 2009, 11:26:37 AM
Whoa, whoa.  You guys liked this ending?  In my opinion, that ending was the biggest "Fuck you" to the viewer since Dallas' dream season.  The whole damn show was about two things: (1) whether 2008 or 1973 was reality, and (2) whether Sam was going to choose to live his new life in 1973 or return to his old life in 2008.  That ending basically said, "Joke's on you!  NEITHER 'reality' was real."  It then proceeded to completely take Sam's choice out of his hands.  Yes, he said he wanted to stay in 1973 on the phone, but that wasn't even an option.  I think that ending was an insult.

I loved the BBC ending.  I thought this one was an absolute joke, and completely threw out the entire point of the series in exchange for a "bet you didn't think of THIS" moment.

How did the BBC one end?

SPOILERS:







Sam basically abandons his 1973 gang in the middle of a gunfight to return to 2004.  When he gets there, there's a great scene where he's at a meeting and doesn't realize that he's stabbing himself in the finger with a pen, to the point of making himself bleed.  When he sees this, it reminds him of a time in 1973 when Annie slapped him and said, "Can you feel that?  Then, it's real."  He goes to the roof of the precinct and throws himself off.  He wakes up back in 1973, and helps the gang out of the jam they were in.  Presumably, he spends the rest of his time in 1973, while back in a coma or dying in 2004.  It was a terrific ending, in my opinion.

I agree with this Kermit post.

Quote from: Canadouche on April 01, 2009, 04:30:37 PM
I just want to state for the record that I did those photoshops for Al. 

You can tell because they look so impeccably authentic. 

a) Why?

b) Why did you use a white person for DLee's facial transplant?

Quote from: dbal on March 31, 2009, 09:28:01 PM
Pussy.

QuoteIf you thought you saw me scamper out of the way of Torii Hunter's two-run homer in the fourth inning on today's MLB Network telecast of the game, you were correct. The ball smashed onto our blanket, woke up Jessica who was napping, made a scuff on my scorecard (I wish I had a scanner here so I could show you!), clanged off the back fence, and into the hand of my friend Jim McArdle (plug coming: check out his new book "Living The Dream"), who promptly whipped it back on the field. (Wish we had a throwback ball with us.)

You should create an Al Yellon gimmick account and post as him all the time.

Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 04:16:32 PM

Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:03:23 PM

Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM

Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?

The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff.  I agree with that.  However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.

Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever.  I'd really rather not.

I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.

Quote from: Dave B on March 17, 2009, 11:01:48 AM

Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM

Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.

Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html

u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Christ Almighty...

QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain

it's simple: he's got a 17-year old chick working as an intern and she just text-abbreviates whatever he says.

If only that were true. I have a friend who's a speechwriter/spokesperson for Grassley; sadly, the Twittering is all Chuck.

Quote from: Oleg on March 17, 2009, 09:54:44 AM

Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.

All those letters look familiar, but I have no idea what they spell.

I'm with you, Oleg. I'm friends with him on Facebook, so stuff like this greets me at login.

"Attention Ia legislative business lobbyists:I visit w many Repbli can REPs and Sntors. Don't take ur frends 4granted.U spend all time w Dem"

Morph needs to teach this man how to use a Blackberry.

Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.

Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html

u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread sucks more than JOn at a dick farm.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Check out these tits.


This chick is smoking.


Here's a nice ass.

Yeti, (I think) you're making the point that if governments are so eager to protect the public health of residents, they should outright ban the sale of tobacco within their boundaries. I can kind of agree with you on that being the more logical approach.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
I liked this thread better when it was about the benefits of legalizing weed, although it's still better than when it was about some linguistic asshat who had the nerve to rape the English language by disengeniously justifying the use of the word "literally" in a figurative sense.

Agreed. I could literally care less about the original topic.

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMIs our health care taken care of by the government? I'm thinking that's still a no at this point.

Well that's kind of a separate issue, but you're wrong. Unless you consider 27.8% of Americans to be an insignificant number.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMPeople can make choices in this country. If the person doesn't want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking they don't have to.

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's the restaurant proprietor who has the choice. Can he not move to an area without a smoking ban?

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:24:15 PM

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 12:22:30 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
*real* laws

Oh, please do elaborate!

Real laws are ones that I decide are right or wrong

So any law upon which you've made a decision is a real law? As you've decided that the smoking ban is wrong, does that not make it a real law? (Not a) LAWYERED!

Also, this.