Shuke-D

Changing your username to Quram1 in the near future?

Lifer already posted a link to someone with the exact same sentiment. Only Quoner and I replied, and managed to derail it into a small homage to Futurama (sorry about that). Reasonability does not trump ideological jihad on (both sides of) this board.

It was Red Forman's too, and he didn't like foreigners either.

He managed to hit every nail in the box on the head in that piece. Especially these two: "Which leads me to my final point: Chris Elliott was the true genius." "The awesome awesome awesome Billy West!! (you know, from Futurama, among other things)"

George Merkin for President 2012! Campaign Motto: "Even Better than the Real Thing!" Thoughts on an appropriate running mate?

I have a feeling that's one of the points he's trying to make.

The only game I've seen in the last couple years was the WKU recently, so this is just more of a wish than anything else, but I'd love to read on these boards that Jamel Jackson lights it up in the return game. I know he was injured last season and not 'lost.' But, starting field position is so crucial, and a great returner can give his team some energy by breaking off a big return occasionally.

No apologies necessary. I'm actually just thrilled that someone knew what I was referring to. For my money, this board would be a more palatable, humane place if there were more oblique references to pop-culture/cult classic movies and less out and out diatribes/jeremiads. That's just me though.

Not really wanting to derail this thread with a Geek Cred standoff concerning Princess Bride references, but I'm pretty sure it was Montoya to Vizzini: [Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up] Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE. Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I'll grant you that Fezzik produces some of the more refined, succinct pearls of wisdom quote-wise. One that seems appropriate for the football forum here: Fezzik: Inigo? Inigo Montoya: What? Fezzik: I hope we win.

My neighbor replaced one recently. She said that the computer controlling the battery needed to be replaced as well as the hybrid battery. Total cost was $5,000. She said the at-cost for the battery alone was $3,500, before labor.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Infidel! Repent! Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Hope all ya'll clean-shaven MFrs like warm weather: Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. I know everyone thinks of New Testament Jesus as the hippie, but a long-haired, bushy-bearded dude sounds an awful lot like a hippie to me. The whole text is liberal. San Francisco is the New Jerusalem. REPENT!

Not an attempt to derail your excellent point about the current state of civil discourse, but I remember when Jim's Diner changed to that Italian place. One of my favorite (of the many signs) in the old Jim's said "You don't need no teeth to eat the beef in Jim's Diner." I also miss the many, hotly contested but civil conversations had there.

Flipping a coin to decide which of the two possible words I think you were google-searching led you to this article.

He did give a very nuanced version of this in the 2004 Vice Presidential debates: Link Q: You said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions? A: That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. Bush felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Source: Edwards-Cheney debate: 2004 Vice Presidential

SE66. I feel ya on the difficulties of reading that book if you lived in the area at the time. I went to Lee High from 87-90 when it was written and also knew several of the people depicted in it. It is both simultaneously true to fact yet also overblown out of proportion at the same time. Reading it is a weird way to go back and revisit my high school days through fun-house mirrors. West Texas football in general, and the Lee/Permian rivalry at that time, are pretty hard to describe, much less believe for people from other places. Though, it's my understanding that that has changed in the last two decades, and not as big a deal now as then. I could be wrong.

If you're primarily interested in non-fiction that uses investigative research to create an interesting narrative about social issues (Uranium as an example), I'd recommend Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma.

Big fan of Vegas? What's your favorite part of their economy? Hookers, Gambling, or the way it protects the sanctity of marriage? Please choose one (and no, employing Elvis impersonators is not an option. Everyone is in agreement on that).

It is called Rumspringa: Rumspringa There is a fascinating documentary about it: IMDB

Makes Sense. I also thought Mean Worf Green was our most dominant interstellar sack-master ever:

EagleD. I like how any asinine provocation generates spools of vitriolic threads from purportedly serious-minded folk, but a question setting up a dialectical proposition (the sort of stuff we were taught at good old UNT) to invite participation is ignored. I’ll take a stab at it as it is one the first genuine attempts to explore ideas seen in these here parts in a while. I would re-evaluate the locus of your proposition just a bit though. You ask whether a candidate should run on one of two methods of representation. And that’s fair enough. But I would actually be curious to hear how each of us as voters determines what type of candidate should represent us. I remember from Dr. Cox’s poly sci class that there were three traditional methods: 1. Rational Actor model: choosing the candidate who would seem to possess the strongest abilities to understand information/process differences/arrive at decisions regardless of their belief system. Basically, this model emphasizes that there are too many factors on a national/global scale for the average person to fully comprehend, and that only an elected leader who gets to spend 100% of their time devoted to these matters can truly handle them; hence, you vote for the most rational actor in the bunch, regardless of what beliefs/values they have. 2. Trustee model: Based on the sense of trust that the person you are voting for will act in the best interests of your beliefs/values when making decisions. This is the middle ground between models. Values matter, but knowing that it is a difficult job that must find a balance among hundreds, if not thousands, of competing viewpoints, this model trusts that the candidate will advance your value system as much as is realistically possible in a world of multiplicity. Your beliefs might not win all the battles all the time, but you believe the candidate will do his/her best under the circumstances. 3. Delegate model: The candidate has openly expressed values that you agree with, and you are delegating them to represent those values with strength, passion, and power. They answer to you and will faithfully represent what you believe in. Now, obviously, there’s room for slippage in between the three categories, but they do help sort out how we go about choosing candidates. Me, I like the Rational Actor model (guess that’s why I’ve split my votes over the years between Republicans and Democrats), and am willing to go with a candidate that doesn’t believe exactly what I believe, so long as they seem thoughtful, prudent, and respectful of civilized dissent. Of course, how long has it been since either of the two parties put out a particularly good candidate according to that definition? [sorry if this ended up being a hijack EagleD. I do like the question and hope I didn’t derail too much from what you were trying to achieve]

I'm worried about my reading comprehension skills here. I'm sorry to ask this, but I want to make sure I understand your intent. Are you implying the President of the United States ordered an assassination?