20 QUESTIONS DELUXE (YL600)
20 QUESTIONS DELUXE (YL600) Secretly think of an everyday object and the amazing 20Q electronic party game will read your mind! Just answer “yes,” “no,” “sometimes,” “rarely” or “unknown” to a series of 20 questions. Runs on 2 AAA batteries (included). Ages 8 and older. 90-day warranty.
Customer Review: Amazing
This game is amazingly accurate. It tells you to think of something, (so far the things that I have thought of- that it has indeed got correct- are a parrot, milk, shoes, dvd, stove, washing machine, candle) then it asks 20 questions- such as “Is it smaller than a loaf of bread?”, “Can you put something inside of it?” Just real general questions- I have no idea how it can correctly guess the object that you are thinking of after just asking 20 vague questions, but it does. And it’s awesome… I highly recommend this to anyone of any age- this will provide hours of entertainment!!!
-
What is the sound of one Tito fan clapping?
Are Iraqis creatures from a different creator?
by Ben Tanosborn Did Iraqis come to be from a creator of their very own. a lesser god, perhaps? Not just Iraqis, but Palestinians and Lebanese as well! One only needs to ask the two ladies who have handled America’s affairs of state: Madeleine (for Clinton) and Condoleezza (for Bush). Those half-million Iraqi children who died in the 90’s as a result of American-instigated United Nations’ sanctions was a price well worth paying, according to Ms. Albright; and the tragic losses that were being suffered by Lebanon last year in the July War were no reason to call a cease-fire, as that was a necessary price to pay for Bush’s effort to create a “new” Middle East, according to Ms. Rice. Statements such as those made by America’s 64th and 66th secretaries of state are not just horrific, but border on holocaustic when coming from the gentler gender, our always trusted depository for care and compassion. It is little wonder that Rice had been Albright’s father favorite student at the University of Denver. Indeed, birds of a feather do flock together. But, did it have to be at the United States’ State Department? And do these birds have to be hawks instead of doves? Has it ever occurred to Condoleezza Rice that she has been complicit to the tragedy of more Iraqi casualties (civilian dead and wounded) than the number of air miles she has logged, or will log, as a globe-trotting Secretary of State? Of course, Iraqi lives don’t quite count the same way as American, or Israeli. do they, Ms. Rice? Different peoples require - as evidenced by your rhetoric - different abacuses, right? Wrong, Madam Secretary! Unless you are a consummate racist, you should know that human joy as well as human suffering is gifted to us by the same creator. as we have all emerged on this planet as a single species, Homo sapiens. And as an American of black ancestry you are expected to know better and, if anything, should be championing one-abacus for all: Muslim, Christian, Jew. as well as all other people whose certified provenance did not originate with Abraham.
LoL funny video
The Phenom wrote:Havik wrote:Ruthio wrote:Newtons record of 13-12 isn’t looking too impressive though. But I agree about White, I was so confused the entire time they were showing clips since it was all with Chuck. And I’m thinking to myself …everyone looks silly fighting Chuck… I mean his record is like 24-30, I’m sure they could have found other footage of him than against Chuck. His record isn’t very impressive, but look at who’s he fought:Matt LindlandRenzo Gracie x2Ryo ChonanRenato VerissimoAnderson SilvaMatt Hughes x2Pat MilitechPeleDan hendersonKazushi SakurabaThat’s 12 fights right there. 12 world class fighters either at the time or right now. He hasn’t exactly had the easy road. When I think if a fighter is good, I NEVER look at his record alone. A good quote to remember is If you haven’t lost, you haven’t fought the right people. Hav, since its just a funy vid.. and its just for laughs.. out of all the fighters you mentioned I agree with gary goodrige. I dont think he should be in this vid, hes a tough man, and he fought great competition no joke. Even hunt in K1 recently, and i think he lost on decision or something or he won not sure. I will always remember gary goodridge elbowing the shit outta that white guy in the early UFC’s!But as for the other ones you mentinoed, i dont see a problem with carlos in there. Newton was a guy that for some reason couldnt get the job done. He was explosive, had BJJ, had karate.. but everytime he fought any comp btetter than tier 2 it was almost always a devastating loss.Anyways, either way good input. Hope you wernt offended :P(btw you told me a long time ago on a flamer post that respect should be given to ANY fighter in the ring, ANY one.. and i remeber that) Good post. This is exactly what I think about Goodridge, and I’ll never forget those elbows either. Newton is definently more argueable. As far as the others I wouldn’t exactly take them off but I still respect them.
Don’t Blame the Market for the Housing Bubble
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) The U.S. housing market, long considered vulnerable by many economists, is now on the verge of suffering a serious collapse in many regions. Commodities guru and hedge fund manager Jim Rogers warns that real estate in expensive bubble areas will drop 40 or 50%. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are reporting breathlessly about the possibility of widespread defaults on subprime mortgages. When the bubble finally bursts completely, millions of Americans will be looking for someone to blame. Look for Congress to hold hearings into subprime lending practices and “predatory” mortgages. We’ll hear a lot of grandstanding about how unscrupulous lenders took advantage of poor people, and how rampant speculation caused real estate markets around the country to overheat. It will be reminiscent of the Enron hearings, and the message will be explicitly or implicitly the same: free-market capitalism, left unchecked, leads to greed, fraud, and unethical if not illegal business practices. But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy– through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money– caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending. The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.
OWGP R1 - NW: Tim Silvia (5) vs. Matt Hughes (21)
OK, which two of you said Matt is gonna win by submission? LOL!!!
America’s 2 Illicit Addictions: Drugs & Immigration
by Ben Tanosborn This last junket by Bush may have been considered a tour de force for US relations with Latin America, but it wasn’t much of a tour and definitely provided no feat; in fact, it was a total waste. Uruguay’s and Brazil’s heads of state, both in the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bush, were forced to appear diplomatically courteous, probably wondering why Condi Rice had cast them to play in this five-act farce. The stops in Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico did make a lot more sense since those nations are major suppliers for America’s top two illicit addictions: drugs and immigration. Uribe (Colombia) and Calderon (Mexico) have a good compa in Bush. Not the other leaders. It was a meaningless trip for a meaningless dignitary to an already lost part of the world (in terms of special, neighborly relations). Latin Americans, at least the 80 percent who are dirt-poor, have realized that the US has never been their friend, only a detached stepmother; and that any future overtures probably carry price tags they can ill afford. Why would the United States help Latin America. it never has! For a century all the programs and money invested in the Iberian Down Under have been either minuscule (programs) or have had exploitative results (investments). To hear Bush speak and say that the $1.6 billion sent last year went for “social justice” causes is going from the ridiculous (the small amount) to the sublime (stating that it was for worthwhile causes), back to the ridiculous (as most of those funds were used for military purposes to fight the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, or for the interdiction of drugs). In fact, Venezuela with a population one-twelfth that of the United States provided last year far more help to the people of Latin America, when you add the price breaks on oil to the direct aid, than the US. So stop the on-going deceit, Mr. President, social justice causes, you say? But even if America of the North has never felt compelled to help the America to the South, it recognizes that the Latin folks play key roles in the US’ two great addictions. For better or for worse the Latin and Anglo parts of the hemisphere are linked in many ways; and that’s a fact that politicians there and here know quite well. Politicians who proselytize supply-side economics have played working Americans for suckers for over a quarter of a century with their trickle-down economics. But, what’s just as bad is that politicians who refuse to acknowledge our demand-side realities have played all Americans for suckers twice that long. Republicans and Democrats, both! We have been “at war” with those who supply illicit drugs to our population for more than two generations, failing to admit that drug-addiction is mainly a demand problem, not supply. Having a Drug Czar and our war on drugs to defend our purity has been but a crock. If we stop being hypocrites and call a spade a spade, our level of success with this biological-social problem would be far greater domestically - at a much lower cost - and we wouldn’t have to cause so many problems to nations in Latin America that supply us. This is an issue where most intelligent people, capitalists or anarchists alike, would find total agreement: that it is nonsensical to treat the alcohol-drugs problem as criminality. But politicians have preferred to keep their eyes closed to this reality.
Interventions Without End?
by Pat Buchanan “Whatever happens in Iraq, retreat from the world is not an option,” wrote Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens last weekend. Why not? Because a world map highlighting those regions where the West’s vital resources are located would exactly overlap a map highlighting those regions where state power is crumbling, disease and poverty are pandemic and violence rules. “The implication of this is obvious,” says Stephens. “We can proudly declare ourselves isolationists, resolve to eschew ‘imperialist adventures,’ decry liberal interventionists such as Britain’s Tony Blair and damn the neoconservatives around U.S. President George W. Bush. But, one way or another, the West cannot avoid getting involved. On this, moral impulse and hard-headed interests are as one.” We are fated to intervene forever. “The reality of interdependence of a world shrunk by globalization cannot be wished away.” Put me down as not so sure. For if America is defeated in Iraq, as we were in Southeast Asia, who will ever again intervene in the Middle East? As Stephens writes, Europe’s “eternal role” seems to be that of the “concerned bystander” to disasters anywhere. And, revisiting the 20th century, the United States did not declare war on the Kaiser’s ally Turkey in 1917, despite the Armenian massacres. Nor did we did confront Stalin over genocide in the Ukraine. FDR recognized Stalin’s regime as it perpetrated that holocaust. Nor did we intervene to halt Mao’s slaughter and starvation of millions of Chinese. America looked on during Pol Pot’s genocide. Clinton stood aside in Rwanda. No one is calling for the 82nd Airborne to be dropped into Darfur. No matter, says Stephens, the West cannot abide the emerging new world disorder. But, again, that begs the question: Who is going to intervene? If Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the U.S. investment in blood and treasure, end in defeats, who does Stephens think is going to send troops to rescue imperiled “liberal democratic values”? In his second inaugural, President Bush declared that America’s national goal is now to “support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny on earth.” Are Americans still willing to support that utopian mission with blood and billions of dollars? In a Gallup poll this year that posed the question, “Should the United States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy when it can, or should the United States stay out of other countries’ affairs?” - by near five to one Americans said, “Stay out.” Fifteen percent said “yes” to the Bush commitment. Sixty-nine percent said to stay out of the internal affairs of other countries.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
