Hockey’s Finest vs. England’s Finest
2009 Culture Tournament March 17th. 2009, 1:30pm
The second round of the Culture Tournament got underway yesterday, and as expected, Erin Andrews is hurtling toward another title. An interesting matchup today: the NHL’s leading scorer against everyone’s favorite WAG, Cheryl Cole. Also: Mel Kiper against the SI Swimsuit cover girl. Voting for the second round ends Thursday morning.
No. 1 Tiger Woods vs. No. 8 Ben from "Lost"
- Tiger Woods (63%, 660 Votes)
- Ben from "Lost" (37%, 383 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,043
Loading ...No. 5 Cheryl Cole vs. No. 4 Alex Ovechkin
- Cheryl Cole (61%, 492 Votes)
- Alex Ovechkin (39%, 318 Votes)
Total Voters: 810
Loading ...No. 6 Mel Kiper vs. No. 14 Bar Refaeli
- Bar Refaeli (80%, 610 Votes)
- Mel Kiper (20%, 151 Votes)
Total Voters: 761
Loading ...No. 7 Hope and Change vs. No. 15 Vicente Shiancoe's Dong
- Hope and Change (55%, 395 Votes)
- Vicente Shiancoe's Dong (45%, 324 Votes)
Total Voters: 719
Loading ...37 Responses to “Hockey’s Finest vs. England’s Finest”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
i was hoping for Kiper shut-out.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Who the hell voted for Kiper?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I never realized the potential of Vicente Shiancoe’s Dong to fix this country.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Who the hell picks Kiper over Refaeli? Wait…how’s she #14 and Mel #6?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:41 PM
That one’s going down to the wire.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:42 PM
a bunch of young mel kiper fans.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I voted for Kiper and the dong
March 17th, 2009 at 1:46 PM
a lot of dong lovers on this site
March 17th, 2009 at 1:56 PM
If his first name was spelled correctly he might have a better shot.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:57 PM
WHO’S NOW!
March 17th, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Who the hell picks Kiper over Refaeli? Wait…how’s she #14 and Mel #6?
The committee needs to sit down after the tournament and really evaluate the seeding and selction process. This type of malfeance can not, and I can’t stress this enough, can not occur again.
/Packer’d.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I have no idea who or what this is. Is it some sort of Italian bar?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Bar Refaeli
I have no idea who or what this is. Is it some sort of Italian bar?
an Israeli one
March 17th, 2009 at 2:03 PM
If Tiger losses to a Lost character, I’m done with this shit.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I guess that what makes you the most credible source for gay movies
March 17th, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Vicente Fernandez > Vicente Shiancoe
March 17th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
mak – really?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/models/bar-refaeli/
are you aware of the existence of the SI swimsuit issue?
do you watch letterman?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:11 PM
if you’re one of these people, at what point do you arm yourself?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm
go into hiding?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I don’t watch Letterman. When I want to see half(fully) naked women pics, that’s what my laptop is for. Don’t know half of their names either.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:17 PM
What is it about “guaranteed contracts” that people don’t quite understand?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:17 PM
they dont arm themselves they have people who carry guns for them.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Tell that to the murderous mob at the gate.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The part where the contracts should be nullified because the government saved the company from bankruptcy.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Maybe The One should have thought about that before signing a bill that included an executive compensation restriction re bonuses that are contractually obligated.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 PM
What is it about “guaranteed contracts†that people don’t quite understand?
The part where the contracts should be nullified because the government saved the company from bankruptcy.
All the soapboxers in Congress will demand the money returned, which, in turn, lead to a lawsuit by the people receiving the bonuses which will result in the bonuses being paid (with interest), legal fees paid, and damages awarded. That’ll work out well.
You can’t go back and change the rules. Congress can stop AIG from paying them going forward, and they can probably deduct the bonus money in the next AIG bailout check, but they can’t go back and take it away.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 PM
This is a fun and all. But Tebow, or anyone attached to his being, cannot lose this culture tournament. Here’s a salient explanation as to why: http://thismayconcernyou.com/2009/03/17/33-tim-tebow/ …
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 PM
“Dur, dur, Obama should’ve been worrying about illegals and not minute contract details!”
/common Repug diversionary tactic
March 17th, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Did someone just spam the comment section?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:43 PM
mike you should know better than to criticize obama for anything. everything is bush’s fault until the next republican president gets elected and then everything will be his/her fault.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Clown, grown-ups are talking here. If you want to participate, then fine, but at least pretend to have at least a faint idea of what the hell you are talking about.
Obama already knew about the bonuses. Months ago. The exemption was written into the bill, by Chris Dodd. Obama then signed that bill into law. Are you with me so far?
Why then, all of a sudden, is he pretending to be so outraged by those bonuses being paid out?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
So you agree with people getting government handouts, as long as it’s an executive? Congrats on your steadfast conservatism.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I didn’t think you’d be able to address the point, because you are obviously clueless as to what the hell is going on. Do a little more reading on the matter and then maybe you’ll be able to construct an “argument” a little more substantial than a random riff regarding illegal aliens, your apparent area of expertise.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:58 PM
+1,000
March 17th, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Mike NYC this condescending.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:03 PM
My point was they don’t deserve the bonuses, especially when it’s coming from Joe Taxpayer’s pockets. Obviously, you’d like to focus on legal verbiage and that’s fine.
I’d love for them to go to trial on this and see if any jury awards these rich executives their much-deserved, contractually-obligated money.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I’m just saying, why put the language in the bill, sign the bill, know about the bonuses for months . . . and then feign outrage? It couldn’t be to stir up public outrage and divert attention from, you know, the actual bill, could it?
And I think I’ve been quite clear on here that I opposed that bailout from the outset.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I’d love for them to go to trial on this and see if any jury awards these rich executives their much-deserved, contractually-obligated money.
Yeah, juries never pay attention to the ACTUAL FACTS in the case, thank God! They go on what they FEEL should be done, not what is legally correct
/oj’d