They also forgot to mention Hannibal Buress' show on their list last night, a major oversight considered they've been pumping him up for quite some time.
They also forgot to mention Hannibal Buress' show on their list last night, a major oversight considered they've been pumping him up for quite some time.
Yeah but it's been several episodes since that's come up. The patent troll episode (#10) was probably the weakest one thus far. Episodes 5 and 9 were awesome.
Why on earth is Maron season 3 being all but dismissed by the AVC?
Oh, and the Go network still provides the web publishing foundation; while they have not provided the link publicly since 2000 or 2001, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wi… is my newswire bookmark. It's been a decade since they provided timestamps, they used have their own comment section until they switched over to Disqus a…
You are correct as to my reference.
If he repeatedly sells articles to the same buyer, the distinction between hitman/consultant/employee is completely extinguished. Besides, the article clearly states his "contract was not renewed", newsspeak for firing.
His byline or self-anointed name was "The Sports Guy". On espn.go.com.
BS I am recalling something that occurred five years and one 9/11 later.
Nonsense.
Can't get to Europe much less pay the ticket price.
Bill Simmons was most certainly published by espn.go.com in January 1997. Perhaps you are trying to twist the phrase "working for them", but he was working for them in every sense of the phrase.
Dang I'd love to see one of these shows. Hopefully a DVD with performances will come out a year later.
It would a lot better than anything Simmons would come up with.
Well, ESPN could have fired him in 1997 when he trashed New Orleans prior to the Pats losing to the Packers. But the main reason to fire him is that his head was enormously swollen, as are most Boston-area sports commentators.
I have to agree with you on the 45% thing, I misremembered the final vote count.
I largely agree with you though I don't see how any Democratic candidate in 1984 could have beat Reagan, the 1973-1983 economic crisis having finally subsided. Also, I'm not sure that a major party candidate gets 40% by default anymore, and 45% seems like an awfully big stretch.
37.6 million in 1984 is a lot of unpopularity. Further, Reagan oversaw massive tax cuts for the wealthy, not tax raises, resulting in (at the time) the worst debt in U.S. history.
One of the worst, but not the worst. There was significant anti-Reagan sentiment in the country, so the popular vote was 54.6 million-37.6 million. A better candidate might have turned things around, but a better campaign or VP candidate probably would just have changed the statistics, not the outcome.
"Poo tang at the Fox Studios" is quite similar to "Getting santorum at a bath-house on Saint Mark's Place", only the talking points of the former are right-wing.
Indeed I will once my back and swollen fingers heal.
It doesn't sound right on the acoustic guitar, but my highly-unusual custom electric with the TS9 should do the trick.