taks

um, gee, maybe because obama is at least as, if not moreso, liberal than any previous candidate in the past 50 years? maybe because if obama is elected we'll have both a democratically controlled congress as well as president and they realize that while bush and his republican friends spent alot, it will only get worse if we do the same thing again. wow, are you that myopic that you can't see why someone wouldn't want to vote for a socialist? ya know, just because YOU are a liberal and like obama doesn't make it the "smart" option. quite frankly, both of our major candidates are nothing more than politicians. most of the people i know also favor mccain, and i can absolutely guarantee they're not redneck - unless being redneck means earning in the top 10% income with at least one (if not more) college degree. i still get a kick out of all the liberal hippies that really bought it when karl rove said "we're trying to appeal to the average liberal with a phd that likes to smoke pot" (or whatever, paraphrased)... hehe, you all bought it, hook, line and sinker. taks

no, it's simply control over our lives, nothing more. i'm curious, why does everyone think that the government is even capable of dealing with free markets? where on earth did anyone ever get that idea from? realy, it is shameful. these idiots can't even balance their own books and yet we let them drive 30% of the world's economy. ooof. they can't just "push buttons" to adjust anything, and if history has proven anything, the more the government (particularly the fed) tries to push buttons, the worse things get. period. government spending and reductions in taxes are about the only two ways the government can directly effect the economy. yes, the bailouts are socialist, and ultimately are a required because of the government tinkering in the first place. in other words, they're "bailing out" the mess they created in the first place. in reality, that means every tax payer in the US just got whomped for a $3500 tax increase (one way or another). in reality, those that pay the most in taxes are shouldering this burden. taks

gawd, did everyone wake up on the stupid side of bed today? when did i ever say the two didn't overlap? really, do you people know HOW TO READ! this is EXACTLY WHAT I THINK IS WRONG!!! DUH!!! none of this has anything to do with what i said. i'm talking about government regulation, not government spending. jeeesus, folks. taks

wow, such ignorance, yet again. this has nothing to do with capitalism. we haven't "tried the capitalistic side of things" since... well, since ever. this is a result of government intervention, killian. if you don't understand why, do some research. your argument, ultimately, is circular: put government regulations in place to "restrict" capitalism, allow behavior that can only happen in government controlled scenarios (similar with monopolies, can't exist without government help), then when things go bad, blame capitalism. what a joke. the government has as much control over our lives for one reason and one reason only: an uneducated populace. sigh. taks

btw, the warehouse is getting good reviews but i don't know anyone that has gone there yet. walter's is quite famous in the springs, and i've never met anyone that didn't like it. both are on the other side of town, and we opted for close to home, which mean nothing but chains (or places we didn't want to go). taks

we ended up doing neither and going to saltgrass (not sure of exact name). it's a chain of some sort with relatively good food. i had a good ribeye and baked potatoe. spinach/artichoke dip appetizer, ooh, they also had sweet tea, which is a rarity around here. cheaper, of course, only $80 with tip for all three. would have been well over $100 at either of the other two places. thanks, btw. of course, michele and i aren't talking to each other right now. woman logic. i'll never understand that oxymoron. taks

now you're just being cynical, raven. that's the brand recognition thing we were getting at earlier, azure. it is a valid marketing ploy. taks

you mean, the system that started out broken due to government intervention? what you don't seem to get is a) my comments had nothing to do with the current problem and b) the quasi-governmental organizations were handing out bad loans because of the myth (propagated by politicians) that everyone should own a home. what i was getting at is that if the government got out of the business of regulating business, there would be no reason for business to grease political wheels (why bribe a politician when he can't influence your bottom line). to your point: home ownership in the US is much higher than anywhere else in the world, and it shouldn't be. the simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't responsible enough to make the proper decisions regarding home ownership. morons took on low interest loans, on mortgages they would not have otherwise been able to acquire, assuming the economy would keep on trucking as-is (er, as-was) and they'd be fine when their rates went adjustable. news flash, it is a cyclical thing, aggravated by government controls (which ultimately make it less predictable, paradoxically). had they simply left it up to private enterprise, completely, from the beginning, none of these high-risk loans would have been granted and there wouldn't be the bailout. taks

typical socialist ignorance. private enterprise could not control "the grease" if government did not provide the means to do so. think about it for a minute... your ideology supplies the means by which corruption can even exist. duh. taks

today is the 9th anniversary of my marriage to michele. that we have made it this far and neither of us has offed (or attempted to) the other is amazing. i bought michele the new everlast CD (came out on the 23rd) and got myself death magnetic by metallica. we're going to dinner somewhere tonight, probably for a steak. i want something high-end so i'm looking at either of these two places: http://www.thewarehouserestaurant.com/ http://www.waltersbistro.com/ both are apparently kid friendly, though my son is not necessarily good in a restaurant. hopefully they have spaghetti for him. taks

what the US deserves has not run for office in over 100 years, closer to 200. for that matter, what the US deserves cannot run for office as long as the US government feels fit to control private enterprise through legislation. taks

i always thought you were a bit of a dreamer... ahem. taks

bingo. that's the whole point. calling it a semantic difference is a joke simply because the "tie to the original series" is intentionally, and solely, for marketing purposes. just like with any other product, brand recognition makes a difference. if you want more games based on D&D, then you want them to use a name that sells the brand. BG does just that. the story-line that involved bhaal is done, at least the back side, but that doesn't mean all other references to baldur's gate should be flushed from any use in the future. it just doesn't make sense. taks

uh, no, at least, not really. the president is not officially voted into office until the electoral college meets in december, and their votes are passed on to congress. inauguration is then held on january 20 of the following year. all of this is in some ways rather silly, but it does provide for time to deal with issues such as those that went down in the last election (er, two elections ago). taks

it's great that you keep trying to push that utterly semantic distinction, but have you noticed that nobody is buying it? dunderheads such as you, no, but i don't care about your (or their) opinion anyway. it's not semantic, either. these arguments, put forth by the dunderheads, are simply moronic. taks

apparently he doesn't understand how the constitutional process of electing a president works. said person won't be responsible till 2009. taks

um, giving an old title to a new game is in no way similar to "rehashing a series." it was not the "BG series," it was the "bhaal series" that was named BG. sheesh. taks

uh, mostly, yes, they are legally binding. and the "thresholds" are generally things that would otherwise be illegal. the contracts these guys sign, players and the like, make certain that their behavior can impact their employment. the league does not have the right to silence them, true, but they can fire them for failing to live up to their contract. telling the ref to shut up was a nice way of saying "you can keep talking, and we can fire you, or you can shut up and keep your job. take your pick." taks

you either a) can't read or b) don't understand socialism. neither of these is implemented as a socialist entity in the US. i've stated quite clearly why this is so yet you continue to repeat the same mantra. sigh... this also indicates a clear misunderstanding of economics and the things that grow wealth for everyone. taks

i finally watched iron man, han**** and wanted. first, iron man was great. highly entertaining. the last line of the movie had me cheering. i've always been a rdj fan anyway. we're buying this one for sure. han**** was ok. i read a review that was rather negative and, IMO, the reviewer really didn't understand the movie. odd that i would say i understood it and he didn't because some of it left me a bit confused. it is a bit vague and ambiguous at points, and that was certainly hampered by the high level of alcohol that was in my system friday night (after a wedding reception). either way, the points the reviewer made were, well, nonsense, and even drunk-ass me figured out what he didn't. wanted was, well, strange. i slept through a bunch of it so i don't know what went on in the middle that linked the guy to what he did in the end (which i saw). i was exhausted by the time i watched this one, so i'll have to hold out on judgement for now. oh, i was in FL attending my buddy's wedding (on friday) this weekend. we got into cocoa beach thursday and came back yesterday afternoon. i rented a movie every night, in the order listed above. waste of money doing it at a hotel, but it was either that or lie awake all night with crap tv. taks

um, no, the bhaal saga ended 7 years ago (and not very well, IMO), not the baldur's gate saga. there was no baldur's gate saga, since baldur's gate was merely the setting on the sword coast for the first installment, and had nothing to do with second installment, shadows of amn, nor the finale, throne of bhaal. taks

it's not a free speech issue at all. these guys have contracts. they are expected to uphold their end of the contract, which includes media presence. the same goes for players and coaches as well. favre's talking all summer had no impact on how the league is perceived. a ref talking about blown calls, on the other hand, makes the league look bad. taks

actually, the spread is set by the betting more than anything. oddsmakers pick the initial odds (spreads) and then adjust as bets are placed. if a line is 7 points, and everyone is taking the 7 points, they'll start to adjust the spread down until more bets are taking the favorite. this way they guarantee they always break even on the bets, pulling the "juice" for commission. the same thing happens with horse betting. it's almost like a collective consciousness that decides what the spread really is. what gets in the way is unusual happenings like missouri fumbles resulting in two buffalo touchdowns saturday... grrr (missouri still won by 21, but they didn't beat the spread which was 33 1/2). taks

no tuition at state schools if you are a CA resident. taks

dorms usually come with meals, too. CA has free college anyway, right? note, too, that i said "particularly anywhere removed from either coast." taks