Jeebus

Out of respect for my friends, I don't allow Mafia Wars to send anything that would appear on their page. I do feel your frustration. MW is more of a fluke with me, but I can not even stand the thought of playing any of the others - especially Farmville.

Facebook player here. Its just enough game to satisfy my tastes, but short enough to keep me from playing for hours everyday. Plus its free and I don't need console to play it - just a web browser on any computer. Level 352 Health 300 Energy 1375 Stamina 50 Attack 350 Defense 350 Family 106 Achievements 43/52 Mastered New York, Cuba, working on Moscow now. -- I think the Godfather crates are a rip-off. I use all my GF points for extra family members, which helps win fights, which builds up loot. The only thing I would change would be that you could give away the special loot items to friends and get rid of the three classes and just make it the same.

WTF is up with all the name calling!? Is there no more moderation among you people? Speaking of moderation.. Moderators? Gary, man.. you were right.

FTW!

Thank you for the link. Although similar, they are not the same, IMO. The Bush administration may have decided to deny access to certain outlets, but they never made it a public issue like this administration has. With that being said, and knowing Fox's reputation, I can see why the White house pretty much said ____ it, and hit them head-on. Had they gone about it the same way that the Bush administration did, Fox would have quickly realized it and then attacked them on a whole different level. Either way, I still feel that ALL news outlets that are willing to report accurately the business and message of the government should be allowed full access. Even if that means the KKK monthly newsletter or the Al Queda weekly gazette (those of course are two very polarizing and fictitious examples) be allowed access - as long as they report accurately, it should not matter their stance on the issue. Any editorial they might give after the news is reported should be their prerogative. As to who determines the merits, I don't know. I would prefer it not be the government determining which news outlets are worthy of its business - no matter what angle the news reports and no matter what party the White House is represented by.

No, a good cop would do as he did in the call, but with PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY. That is my entire point. As for the specifics of the case, are the police profiling by race, as another poster assumed "young white guy"? If they are, is that not racial profiling that we fight so hard to prevent the officers from doing? Please don't tell me that now that they're looking for a white guy burning down abandoned homes in an improved area of town, they're going to break their own rules.

By showing courtesy and professionalism to the citizens I serve!? Give me a break. You might want to read up on the department and the actions you're defending, starting with their mission statement.

I can't seem to find any reporting of that happening. Could you point me in the right direction with a link? I wasn't aware this had happened.

You seem OVERLY defensive of this officer, and critical of someone who would file a complaint against him, or someone like him (the "crybabies" remark). I would think after confirming that you look like the person in your license, that your plates match the address, AND the address is a few blocks away, then there should be no issue. To continue the call at that point without further explaining himself is harassment. I could understand if he POLITELY asked to search your vehicle, stating that there is an arsonist in the area and its his duty to make sure he doesn't miss anything. If the officer asked me that, I would hand the man my keys. Without the courtesy and explanation though, I would tell him no, and demand his badge number and for his supervisor to respond to the scene if they want to do a vehicle search with out explaining themselves first. Remember that if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime, they won't need to ask your permission, but rather detain you and search your vehicle as they see fit. The thing that concerns me most is that he asked for your phone number. Why would he need a phone number? He has your address! I say file a complaint and ensure that this guy, whatever his problem is, won't bother any more people in the Heights. I can imagine that at worst, during roll call EVERYONE will be reminded to be a little more courteous to confirmed heights residents. THEY WORK FOR YOU.

You don't need his name or any information. Just call the number listed here tell them exactly when and where you were, and they will be able to track down the officer. Until this type of behavior is reported, it is destined to be continued. They work for you, not the other way around.

^ I think the other organizations are starting to realize that if the current White House is successful at stifling a particular outlet's availability to access, then it could happen to them when a different administration take charge eventually. Could you imagine if a Republican White House "waged war" with all they perceive as "liberal" news outlets, allowing only networks like FOX access? I wouldn't want that anymore than the most left of all left liberal would want that. I enjoy that there are news outlets that cover the news from both angles. Freedom of the press and government transparency. Let's see a little more of both.

Try actually "working" while at work. Seriously, if you're posting all this at work, there's no way you're being a productive employee. Its one thing to disagree with the O.P. with valid points why you feel that way. You've failed miserably to do that. All you've done, as evident by Mark's collection of your posts, is sling mud. Apparently this thread has become more about your post count than you providing anything of substance. This thread would have nothing to do with you had you not posted your rhetoric over FORTY times in thread less five days old! Just look at Mark's collection of all your posts. Nothing but name calling in each one, yet you're the first to continue blaming everyone else for the name calling and their lack of patience for it. How much Fox news do YOU watch for this to be your opinion of them? I can't tell you the last time I turned it to the Fox channel, short of some national breaking news, where news was being reported. Are you spending what little time you don't waste on here while at work watching the Fox news channel looking for their flaws?

Gary's been an active member of this board for almost 5 years with 2400+ posts, averaging less than 2 posts a day. You however have been here less than 2 months and have already racked up over 500 posts at an average of 11+ per day. By your own admission you state that you were indefinitely suspended from another forum of similar content. You seem like the type looking for a fight. I'm sure you will argue how I am wrong though. You think Fox news is not news. You think Sotomayor's statement of being more apt to come to a better conclusion as a hispanic woman, than would a white man is not racist. You post a link to a website accusing a man of rape that provides no proof and then later post a graphic picture of a lynching, all in an effort to prove your point of view. Nothing more be said. Seriously. We get it. Your point of view has been 100% absorbed and understood by all here.

Why? Its not like they PREVENT homicides.

Speaking of polls.. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/

Yet there are more liberal and left leaning shows than you can shake a stick at. Who's watching them?? They're obviously not listening to the radio either considering the dozens of conservative talk radio shows with millions of listeners, compared to the two? (NPR and Air America - which I don't even know if its still on pay-to-listen satellite radio anymore..) liberal talk shows? What was the audience share before Obama got elected?

I read your post many time and it still makes no sense. Your example of a tall person being more apt to properly determine how tall doorways should be only shows that the tall person will show favoritism towards other tall people. Of course your example is not accurate to Sotomayor as well because all people shorter than the tall person making the door height determination would not be negatively affected by his decision, since anyone his height or below would make up what would most likely be considered the majority group (as it would be unlikely that there are more tall people than other people combined). The point is that in this politically correct society where race/ethnicity is one of the many factors that are NOT to have any bearing on a person's qualifications to be hired, Sotomayor was wrong to try and use her race/ethnicity as reason why should would be more qualified to do the job, than a person of another race/ethnicity. If you walked into my office and told me that as a __________ you are more qualified than the other candidate sitting in the waiting room who is a __________, I would call your comment racist. Can you tell me where in the modern American workplace this would be allowed or where that statement would not be considered racist?

Using your example of "tallness" makes no sense. Sotomayor's statement that she can make a more informed decision because she is Latina infers that being Latina is superior to that of any other race that would attempt to make the same decision. Her being Latina should have NOTHING to do with a Judiciary position, except perhaps to help teach children 100 years from now how archaic our society still was at the beginning of the 21st century. So you're confirming that all Polls are only that: a poll. At least we agree on something.

Everything of value you bring to this thread is continually invalidated when you try and use this as some sort of example of how Fox News operates. Hopefully, when this debate is said and done, this will remain the paradigm.

Epicly WRONG. This is what happens when you google "disco kroger" and grab the first story (third link) on the page. I guess he was too busy to notice all the references to Atlanta on the search results page, or even the url's name of BUCKHEAD!

So there are no old, more concervative, bi-weekly shoppers that use the "DiscoKroger" on a regular basis - and you defend this reasoning by inferring that the suburbs would be the only place this type of shopper would dwell? I seriously doubt this group scares anyone - except perhaps those with real dancing ability. I said they do likely ANNOY however. There is a huge difference between the two. Either way its the management's job to ensure that paying customers are satisfied. What are the odds that any of this group made a purchase after dancing their jigs in each of the stores? I would bet the probability is lower than the probability of at least one customer walking out without finishing their purchase.

Call it what you want, but the ratings speak for themselves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html

You ask "really?" as if I already proclaimed my disgust and desire to never return to a place where I might have witnessed a random event of happiness. The honest truth is "no", I would not "really" be offended, "really". But I can imagine some of the older, more regular, weekly/bi-weekly customers that drop 50 to 100 every visit could be offended enough to not risk enduring the pain of poorly synchronized group dance again. In that case, is this group going to pay Kroger a performance fee since its more likely that Kroger would lose business than gain it? If their stunt was indeed a revenue generator, then why have they not been booked to perform by any local grocery store? Surely in these hard times the management of a grocery store would be willing to provide their customers with live entertainment if it meant bolstering business. No I have not been to the Disco Kroger. Does this location offer something beside groceries? Apparently the management of this Kroger is out of the loop as well, per the video. Perhaps "corporate" forgot to pass them the memo about their Kroger's "Disco" status?

What right does this group have to do this in a grocery store? I agree with the other poster that while a group like this is seemingly harmless, there's a reason why people go to the grocery store: to buy groceries. Is this group willing to repay the lost profit from offended shoppers who leaved and do not return to shop there again? I get that's its all in fun, but business is business. The management is just doing their job, ensuring the PAYING customers are satisfied.

I agree. I took an informal poll of my friends at a birthday party tonight, and the most common reply was "Old Chinatown" and "The Warehouse District". Whatever it is, you can't make me call it "Eado" no more than you'll make me call the Galleria "Uptown". Here's the link: http://www.eadohouston.com/ :barf: