Posted by Kristen Hawley | Posted in Just For Fun | Posted on 29-10-2009
0
HA love it!!!!
First I have to say (I was at that MSU game and the second hit was fair – It’s FOOTBALL geez) But Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) was right about the rest – GREAT JOB!!
My favorite part
Your position on owners have the right image, and I would direct it to your statement on the 13th of October where you said, ‘I think it’s divisive comments, or they are not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kinds of comments from people who are in responsible positions within the NFL, no, absolutely not.’ Now, I take you as a man of your word. But I would point out that you have a couple of owners that have performed lyrics in songs that are far more offensive. In fact, I don’t think anything that Rush Limbaugh said was offensive, but with Fergie and with J. Lo, they have, between the two of them, alleged that the CIA are terrorists and liars, they’ve promoted sexual abuse of women, they’ve used the N-word, verbal pornography, recreational drug use, et cetera, and they are owners of the Dolphins
Of course, Goodell’s a total weasel. He had no answer about the Dolphins’ owners so wouldn’t even address the question, and he got on his high horse about how McNabb is a fine player and a fine person and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, when I (a) never said he was not a fine person; (b) never said he was a bad QB — just that he was overrated (which no one should deny); and (c) said the MEDIA was obsessed with the color of his skin (which is also undeniable), not that I was. I RESPECT Donovan McNabb, as I do all the elite athletes qualified to play in the NFL. I’d love to have a beer with him and discuss football. My job on the ESPN pre-game show was to disagree with the panel when I did. The production meeting the day before the show featured two segments on McNabb and the Eagles. The focus of BOTH segments was, “What’s wrong with McNabb?” My thought was that not that much was wrong, that the Eagles defense was not getting sufficient credit, and that I thought the media was hyping McNabb for my stated reasons. — Rush Limbaugh
Posted by Kristen Hawley | Posted in Just For Fun | Posted on 15-07-2009
2
WAIT! What?
Out of a Terminator movie EATR is a machine that will run on biomass. Am I the only one that thinks this could be a very bad thing?
That “biomass” and “other organically-based energy sources” wouldn’t necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they’d be plentiful in a war zone.
Really? Just so I am clear… we are fine with machines eating our dead.
The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.
Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things — a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.
In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through “foraging,” despite the obvious military purpose.
Don”t get me wrong I think this technology is pretty neat and could be positively used. But I just think the part about eating the dead is kind of creepy.