sorry for your difficulty and the bankruptcy you declared out of pocket.
damn shame
did you ever get another job ?
I do feel sorry that you and family are in a hard time now.
can we just be friends............. pal
KOD
The Weiner Circle - Chicago
- Thread starter THE KOD
- Start date
sorry for your difficulty and the bankruptcy you declared out of pocket.
damn shame
did you ever get another job ?
I do feel sorry that you and family are in a hard time now.
can we just be friends............. pal
KOD
I havnt been able to red card you for years
what the fuck did I say ?
lets just be pals
Scott ? no need to lie pal:
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490889
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375535
Hey pussychops, where did I go 0-4?
No need to respond though. I know you are busy this week ensuring you have a big enough cash advance on your credit card to make your wager this weekend. It needs to be at least double what you lost in week 1 of course. I?m sure by now you have determined the play is Alabama and you are just trying to decide on how many points to buy. Might as well go with 3.5, get it down to 4.
............................................................
Often times these are the games where I play the moneyline dog big .
There is a problem though. I have not seen Texas A&M play a game yet. I have a rule about that.
texas A&M beat both bad teams, but they allowed both teams to score 30 pts on them. That's not good with Rolltide coming to town. Texas AM has their two suspended players back this week into the defense, but hard to say if that will help against the Crimson Tide.
From the game Alabama played with VT I could tell they are not a top tier team this year.
Ohio St, Clemson, Georgia, Oregon look like the big dogs to me.
Alabama without Lacy :scared
Yelper is no where near the running back Lacy was. Alabama offensive line did not play very well. Mac was not comfortable back there. Receivers seem just above average.\
Word is that Texas A&M is going to spy Johnnie Football with Mosely.
Hey they did that last year and look what happened.
The thing about Johnnie M is he is creative and a good enough athlete to make big plays.
so what to do. what to do.
Pooner .... lets hear your take on this game.
I need help here.
I am leaning to not wagering on this game.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
If I miss something please contact me in another thread. This is getting embarrassing. I'm going to unsubscribe.
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW ? RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization ? the United Nations ? was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations? founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America?s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria?s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack ? this time against Israel ? cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America?s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ?you?re either with us or against us.?
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government?s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president?s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States? policy is ?what makes America different. It?s what makes us exceptional.? It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord?s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
..................................................................
This communist red bastid makes a lot of sense.
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW ? RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization ? the United Nations ? was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations? founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America?s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria?s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack ? this time against Israel ? cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America?s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ?you?re either with us or against us.?
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government?s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president?s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States? policy is ?what makes America different. It?s what makes us exceptional.? It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord?s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
..................................................................
This communist red bastid makes a lot of sense.
We may be able to book our ticket to the future someday -- it'll just be a one-way trip.
In a presentation at the British Science Festival, particle physicist Brian Cox said that time travel is possible but only in one direction.
"The central question is, can you build a time machine? The answer is yes, you can go into the future," the University of Manchester professor told the audience during his hour-long speech on Tuesday, according to The Telegraph. "You've got almost total freedom of movement in the future."
Cox detailed how time travel to the future is possible under Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Traveling hundreds, or even thousands of years into the future, could be accomplished if someone was traveling at an incredibly fast pace, close to the speed of light.
Discovery News equated the theory to the so-called "Twin Paradox:"
Imagine twins, one stays on Earth (Twin A) while the other (Twin B) boards a spaceship and flies off at relativistic speeds. Compared with Twin A?s timeframe, Twin B?s timeframe will slow. If time is running slower for Twin B, then he/she will return to Earth where a lot more time has passed and Twin A has aged significantly more than Twin B. The mechanism behind this is ?time dilation? and it has a stronger effect as you travel closer and closer to the speed of light.
Coming back from the future or traveling to another point in the past is much less likely, according to Cox.
Relating his theory to the popular British science fiction show "Doctor Who," Cox explained that the time-traveling Doctor would need to find a wormhole in order to return to the past. The theoretical bridge, or shortcut through space-time, proposed under Einstein's general-relativity theory has never been proven to exist. And, even if a wormhole were discovered or created, there's no telling whether humans could actually use it to travel through time.
Cox isn't the only one to theorize that a wormhole could allow time-travelers to travel backward in time. Earlier this year, astrophysicist Eric W. Davis of the EarthTech International Institute for Advanced Studies said that a wormhole would be the best option for back-in-time travel. But, Davis acknowledged, it would "take a Herculean effort to turn a wormhole into a time machine."
..............................................................
In a presentation at the British Science Festival, particle physicist Brian Cox said that time travel is possible but only in one direction.
"The central question is, can you build a time machine? The answer is yes, you can go into the future," the University of Manchester professor told the audience during his hour-long speech on Tuesday, according to The Telegraph. "You've got almost total freedom of movement in the future."
Cox detailed how time travel to the future is possible under Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Traveling hundreds, or even thousands of years into the future, could be accomplished if someone was traveling at an incredibly fast pace, close to the speed of light.
Discovery News equated the theory to the so-called "Twin Paradox:"
Imagine twins, one stays on Earth (Twin A) while the other (Twin B) boards a spaceship and flies off at relativistic speeds. Compared with Twin A?s timeframe, Twin B?s timeframe will slow. If time is running slower for Twin B, then he/she will return to Earth where a lot more time has passed and Twin A has aged significantly more than Twin B. The mechanism behind this is ?time dilation? and it has a stronger effect as you travel closer and closer to the speed of light.
Coming back from the future or traveling to another point in the past is much less likely, according to Cox.
Relating his theory to the popular British science fiction show "Doctor Who," Cox explained that the time-traveling Doctor would need to find a wormhole in order to return to the past. The theoretical bridge, or shortcut through space-time, proposed under Einstein's general-relativity theory has never been proven to exist. And, even if a wormhole were discovered or created, there's no telling whether humans could actually use it to travel through time.
Cox isn't the only one to theorize that a wormhole could allow time-travelers to travel backward in time. Earlier this year, astrophysicist Eric W. Davis of the EarthTech International Institute for Advanced Studies said that a wormhole would be the best option for back-in-time travel. But, Davis acknowledged, it would "take a Herculean effort to turn a wormhole into a time machine."
..............................................................
naww. its all fair in love and war.
I love this place.
I have lost my desire to post plays right now.
This new house has me working 7 days a week.
My mom , sister, and a newphew are coming in Oct , and so much to do before they get here. We are painting their bathrooms this week.
Yesterday I was on a ladder cutting limbs and
a limb fell and knocked me off the ladder hitting me on the head. Knocked the breath out of me and a lovely gash on the side of my face.
country life
I do know how to land from working in construction.
Thankfully it was only a 6 ft ladder . I had a saw in my hand though and I was more worried about cutting my head off.
Got to get to Home Depot and get me a 30 ft ladder so I can reach the big ones.
There is a science to how far up the limbs should be cut. It does make a huge difference when you do it right.
The other day I seen a huge mound/den in the woods and I am not sure what kind of a animal is living in there.
there is more shooting of guns here than I could imagine. They target practice or something.Its a long way off but can hear it too loud.
At least I know they aint shooting at each other thug ass motherffff\
