bennychico11

By itself, he's just another zealot wacko But here is the disturbing part. wow...wow and to continue the rest of the video Very scarey

Brace yourselves, everyone's going to start blaming Zyrtec or psychological issues!!!!!!

I wonder if the players all like the idea of getting new shoes for the game. Things like shoes can be a very personal taste for a player. The last thing I'd want to worry about the week before a game is having to break in new gear all over again.

Colorado has fans??

They need a new agency then. I've got a good one I freelance with here in KC that does a lot of sport branding...plus I'd love a chance to work on it too Regarding the sound...the sound designer needs to get access to the stadium and do a final mix sitting in one of those seats. But most likely, the ad agency is just having the video editor mix it for them...which is why it sounds like crap.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/no-17-nebraskas-burkhead-questionable-201212827--ncaaf.html;_ylt=AiQrWUAMc_KOxGMV7Q5Erjqt1LYF I say rest him. I'd rather him be 100% healthy for conference play

Caught an article about a Michigan man who just came forward revealing he was the winner of the $337M powerball. I play the lottery every once and awhile. Whenever I'm at the grocery store and have a few dollars in my pockets. Never really played it seriously. But it's nice to dream about what you would do with it all. Then I came across this: http://justwebware.c.../powerball.html And I think I'll just keep my money in my pocket. More beer to buy with it

http://bbqpitboys.com/recipes/item/451/mac-and-cheese do multiple batches or get a larger pot. AND multiply the ingredients by a few

kind of related...but good little video from an engineering professor suggesting 3D printers can be used to build structures such as homes. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/3d-printer-could-build-house-20-hours-224156687.html

First game was in Lawrence in 2001. Beat KU 51-7....I was with a bunch of KU fans. First home game was against Texas Tech in 2005. We lost, but I had a blast tailgating and seeing the stadium for the first time. My heart was racing as I walked up the stairs and finally saw the inside of the stadium. I was smiling ear to ear! My favorite game I've been to probably was also my dad's first game. I got him tickets for the Colorado game in 2008. We got to witness the craziness after Henry's 57 yard field goal.

very convenient isn't it? So is there a reason why anyone should believe until they have experienced the same thing? Meaning it's our fault? Or the Holy Spirit's fault for not providing more conclusive evidence? Why the mystery? You'd think a god would understand the importance of giving his message to his creation and that hiding it so that only a few "experience" the Holy Spirit, is the opposite of what he wants! He's amazingly stupid if he wants to actually achieve his goal through a pathway to truth. And, therefore, he doesn't exist or doesn't care about those who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. But you say there's no way to provide evidence of your experience, correct? So then how should one go about investigating this for themselves? "If you're positing a god that can and does interact with reality, then there will be evidence for this (otherwise, how would you know any interaction had taken place). We can, and do, test psychics and investigate all sorts of supernatural claims. If you're positing a god that doesn't interact with reality... why? That which doesn't manifest is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist." I'm not taking the word of someone with a PhD, nor am I taking the word of someone who proclaims they have seen/been endowed with the Holy Spirit. Unless it's something I can verify with a naturalistic or scientific process...I don't recognize it as something I should be concerned with. The supernatural is at odds with the natural world I live in.

We already have a word for that. It's "marriage." Little girls aren't dreaming of the day they can grow up and have a civil union. Christianity does not have ownership of the word "marriage." Every culture in every period of history defines it the way they see fit. There's no such thing as a "traditional marriage" or this "sanctity of marriage" that Christians think so many gay people are set out to ruin.

First off, it's Thomas Menino...not Mike Second, did he deny Chick-fil-a a license? Is Chick-fil-a banned from operating in Boston? Did the company recently file for a license and were denied purely because Thomas Menino said they shouldn't have one? Or did the Mayor say he would make it "very difficult" and then later state that he actually had very little capability to prevent them from opening restaurants and that he was stating his personal opinion? Yeah, I think it was that last one. Which, if you go back and read what I was saying...umm....that's what I was saying.

The outrage over elected officials infringing on our personal freedoms was only a byproduct of what went down. It was an overreaction by a small majority of those in office. Even as a supporter of gay rights, I had to roll my eyes at their comments. Because they were speaking from a personal position and not a professional one. But it doesn't take away from the original comments publicly made by the COO. They've singled out a specific group of people that they are in disfavor of and alluded that they shouldn't receive the same rights as another group of people. It may not be the legal practicing definition of discrimination, but it is the dictionary definition of the word. He has a right to say what he wants. But we also have the right to criticize his views. In the end I'm less concerned about what an over-priced chicken restaurant (who, IMO, doesn't taste that great anyway) says, and more concerned about the people who actually try to legislate such Biblical morality.

I wouldn't say it's ignorant...just a huge jump to assume advanced life who has perfected space travel and is similar to us humanoids. When we don't have any conclusive evidence. The best anyone can come up with is conspiracy theories about "Area 51" and fuzzy photos/videos of lights in the sky. I think life may be totally possible. But I'm not about to jump the conclusion that it's like us, has evolved similarly to us and developed a sense of self awareness and curiosity for the universe around it. The odds are that life could be out there. But if there is, the odds are probably also more in favor of non-intelligent life than intelligent. Think about how much non-intelligent life is on our own planet.

More people are killed by guns than baseball bats. Ergo, we should outlaw guns!

re: detox diets...http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/detox-diets-purging-myths http://www.self.com/fooddiet/2010/11/detox-diets-debunked There's a lot of myths about detoxing. As one of the links says, we have a liver and kidney for that specific reason. I think what people are wanting, is just to get rid of that icky feeling after eating a sh#t load of food over the course of a short time. For example, I did it last night when I over endulged at a local restaurant that I was trying for the first time. You feel like sh#t. Your stomach feels bloated, you are depressed you ate that much, you feel fat, etc. In my, non-scientific opinion, it's just because you ate ridiculous amounts of food/booze. And the best way to "detox" your body is to just reverse your ways. In other words, STOP eating sh#t and eat healthy food. It's really that simple. Change your diet to simple foods like lean meats and veggies...cut the carbs and high fat foods. Stop eating at restaurants who have high sugar/salty foods. And ditch the alcohol for water! Then add a work out regiment. Crash diets, like detox diets, can only cause problems. The human body, luckily, can bounce back after short periods of binge eating/drinking. Just try and focus on staying healthy. Of course....do as I say, not as I do

...because they are different. http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/07/27/church-bans-black-couple-wedding.wlbt

Not a construction or fire expert...but items in the home are typically fire retardant nowadays. It all depends on how well the assailants lit the fire. As many, non experienced campers can tell you...unless you know what you're doing, sometimes fires aren't the easiest things to get started. I'll admit that I was never a boyscout or anything...but lighting campfires sometimes takes awhile for it all to get going. If the assailants did use lighter fluid, as one who has tried to light a charcoal grill, unless you let the lighter fluid soak in, the fire usually burns itself out pretty quickly. I'm wondering if it wasn't the same with this fire. Only a surface fire that just burned through the lighter fluid before extinguishing itself.

Typically to help reduce sound transmission between theaters they use heavy insulation and/or decouple the adjoining walls, isolating the studs between the two theaters. Providing a sizable, sealed airgap between the two and combining that with sheet rock that has a high STC rating.

i agree with you to an extent. but he did have smoke/gas bombs. this guy was prepared. a well-trained person could have helped (former military, top shot contestant, so on and so forth), possibly; however, i seem to think a ban on extended magazines and assault rifles would probably be more effective. Think about it. A smoke filled, dark theater with panicy people running everywhere. I bet you ask any seasoned police officer or military person and they'll tell you that isn't an ideal situation to pull a gun and start firing it off. You also have to think of the situation. Since most gun carriers attending a midnight movie probably aren't experienced gun owners who deal with situations like the police or military do. We aren't used to seeing situations such as this where someone is coming at us with a gun. It'd be out of place and I know I personally wouldn't know what to do. "Is this really happening to me? Is this a publicity stunt for the movie?"

like the above statements, I have to say that there IS a difference between the two. One is based on supernatural explanations...the other on natural. And neither are gnostic explanations. I personally (as an atheist) think it's possible...but currently can't accept it since there is no evidence of life on other planets nor evidence of UFO's. Of course, let me clarify, no evidence of UFO's containing intelligent life from other planets. The acronym of UFO only pertains itself to unidentified flying objects...not objects that contain foreign life or intelligent foreign life. Scientific explanations don't discount the possibility of life on other planets. In fact, abiogenesis would totally be possible elsewhere in the galaxy. And a totally NATURAL explanation for it. As opposed to an Abrahamic god that created this one planet, the firmament and all its inhabitants as his only "life" creations by supernatural explanations

I'm just trying to figure out how you leap from a few incidents spread over the course of 25 years, which you say are "becoming more common these days" (but I guess not common enough that you can agree we substitute the phrase "common daily"...so I guess really it's not that common? )...how do you get from that to assuming this story is suspicious? Where in this story do you see a commonality with the others you listed where "perps set themselves up to be victims?"

What are the "lots of hoaxes" you're talking about? Are there many cases I'm unaware of several LGBT people claiming to be assaulted but actually making it all up? I said nothing about LGBT hoaxes...Here are some of the hoaxes I was talking about. 1) Tawana Brawley: everyone knows about this one in 1987. 2) Charles Stuart: Stuart and his pregnant wife Carol were driving in Boston in 1989, a black gunman supposedly forced his way into the car and shot them both, hitting Carol in the head and killing her eventually. After suspicions rose, Stuart committed suicide. 3) Susan Smith: In October 1994, in South Carolina, Smith drowned her sons by putting them in her car and letting it roll into John D. Long Lake. She called the police and stated that an armed black man had hijacked her car with her two sons inside. After an extensive manhunt, Smith confessed that she had killed her sons. 4) Duke Lacrosse Team 5) Harvard Hate Mail Hoax: Hate-filled emails were supposedly received by four people at Harvard in April 2007. The source of the emails was one of the people who "received" them. 6) Black Church Arson: In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed white supremacists were burning black churches across the south. In fact, the increase was in white church arsons. 7) University of Wisconsin-Parkside Black Hit List: A black student supposedly found a noose hanging in a dorm suite and a "hit list" of black students in February 2012 that were targeted "to die." The black student who who found it was the person wrote it and hung the noose. There are many others. Google "black noose hoax" and you will see...as for LGBT hoaxes, google "LGBT hoaxes." so these "commonly daily" hoaxes are occuring over the course of 1987 to 2012? More specifically 7 occurences over the course of 25 years? Of course, I know you said these are just examples (the majority seeming to be "black noose hoaxes" which have nothing to do with the LGBT community). So you must have thousands or even hundreds more currently related attempts to substantiate a reason why we should consider this recent claim as dubious, correct?

What are the "lots of hoaxes" you're talking about? Are there many cases I'm unaware of several LGBT people claiming to be assaulted but actually making it all up?