But that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

Plus the evolving Beatle Eras offered different tastes of Beatles music.

In other words, all their music doesn’t always sound the same.  Can’t say that of too many bands.

I read that several NFL players, such as Randall Cunningham would not lend their names to the game. So he is represented by QB Eagles, he was awesome.

I played a season where I attempted to get him a 1000 yards on the ground.

The best commercial for 2009!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0WDb-xzks

now you will fall out of your chair on this next one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4k_PG9a30Y

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

@dezrtfish:

Just curious, is that the day they tell her secret?

you don’t want to know.

It’s simple.  The answer is banana, Silly.  Oranges don’t have doors. :-D

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKBWN9NED.html

Well, are they there … or aren’t they?
Only their camel attendants know for sure! :)

regarding Risk 2110, I have played it and it is a lot of fun. Not nearly so involved as the AA games, but it is fast paced and wildly unpredictable. The main problem of the original Risk - players amassing enormous armies til it was foolhardy for anyone to attack anyone else - has been eliminated with the introduction of the command cards and “energy chips” (money). We got a four player game together, and there was just no way to tell who was “winning” because those damn cards can swing the balance of power in an instant. There’s also only 5 rounds to a game, so a player has to think ahead and yet not bide his time TOO long. Only played twice, but I’d say it’s worth the purchase price.