psyco1

Saw a Lambo Countach by the lake in New Orleans that said XITEME. It fit the car.

It'll go anywhere, and nowhere quickly.

I remember that thread, funny stuff, although I liked the offensive breakfast cereal one more. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/offensive-cereals.php?page=1

Tag

I'd imagine that there would be a huge outcry by these same people that say this is BS if a Muslim teacher had the kids kneeling toward Mecca and praying to Allah.

I really liked it and was surprised that this was the first movie that the main guy has been in since I thought he did a pretty good job. Oh, the weapons, holy crap.

Glad you're still functional, that sounds like it had the potental to keep you down permanantly. It's gonna suck for a while, but just do what the Dr.'s tell you. Do the threapy if it's needed, I found out it works. In October I wrecked my KLR and ended up with 2 plates in my arm, a plate on my pelvis and a plate and two rods in my left leg. Yesterday I did a 365lb deadlift and a 595 rack pull from knee level. Therapy works, I'm sure taking extra calcium, protien and Vitamin D & C didn't hurt either. You're pretty young(i'm 42), you should heal even faster.

Cafe it.

From what I understand, he went home to sober up and they got him the next morning.

Still waiting for Harry Potty And The Prisoner Of The Ass Kabin, well not waiting but I bet it would make for a good photoshop.

Yea, the alternate ending changed the whole idea of why and to whom he was legend.

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I just saw it. I used to work with her dad, that family has had a lot of bad things happen to them in the last few years, he had a couple of strokes, they got a divorce, lost his job, he had to have open heart and a pacemaker, now this. He told me they had been to a bar then got into a fight, he goosed it and she came off the back. No gear of course.

I put a 150 on my ex500 right before my trip down to New Orleans in March and it doesn't seem to be wearing quite as fast as the Pilot Power I had on it before and it gripped well in the rain on Deals Gap on the way back.

Yea, they're generally considered far right leaning, although they did grab a few left leaning ideas. IIRC, they had a massive industrial privatizing campaign in the 30's, well before privatization became a popular buzz word. Pretty much everything that the Weimar Republic nationalized they let loose on the private sector. Ahh, here. http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2009/200915.pdf

And? You're saying since it has the word socialist it's a left wing party, by using the same logic, then the Republican Guard in Iraq was in line with the Republican party in the US.

Right wing authoritarian http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/358px-European-political-spectrum.png

Saddam was a right wing dictatorship like the banana republics in central america, only a stones throw from fascism, to the right of the right in US politics. Nowhere near a liberal democracy. BTW, Glenn Beck's a nutcase http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3163855

Frequently Raised Objections There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common. "America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent. Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America. The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea. "It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare." You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit. As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC. "This is socialism." It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position. "I don't want more government bureaucracy." UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state. "Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help." It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services. The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow. "Doctors will be paid less." They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education. It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go. "Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced." It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased. Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending. "With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up." This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system! "Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs." This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD: Canada: 17.7% Germany: 15.2% Iceland: 13.3% Australia: 13.3% US: 12.4% Sweden: 12% Ireland: 11.6% In Conclusion Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.

From a somethingawful.com thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2732476

Fuck it, I'm gonna spray my chains.

2 car garage bitches, they go out there, i drink in here.

Hell I was just there yesterday, wish I'd seen this thread earlier. You want boots, they got'em.

I like that thread.

If you want cheap that work well enough, JVC HA-34 Marshmallows for $20 at Walmart, low profile, isolating and don't sound too bad for the price. If you want good sound, Etymotic ER-6 for about $80. Excellent sound, excellent isolation and don't stick out too far from your ear. For great sound, Etymotic ER-4P for about $200, the best sounding phones I've had. More detail than my Sennheiser HD-580, 590, Grado SR-125 and Beyerdynamic DT-770, all damn good phones in their own right.

Go to newegg.com and look at the customer reviews.