Soxbadger

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 10, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) SAS on his NY station saying that sources tell him "Chicago is a monkey-wrench" in the equation right now. I wonder if we are getting more aggressive or if Melo continues to push a preference one way / trying to see if somehow S&T can happen. Problem is, if Melo feels this way, he'd have leaked strong leans to Chicago, LA, leaving Knicks to really put pressure. Fact that he hasn't done that, makes you wonder (if you wanted the pessimist view). Optimist view says that might be the case he's just being extremely tight lipped right now. The only way Chicago can be a monkey-wrench is if Melo wants Chicago and the Bulls arent meeting the Knicks demands.

Big relief, hopefully he has a great career!

I had no idea what that song was.

did you get permission to use their theme music? And why no Mac character?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2014 -> 11:23 AM) It's really not their fault they managed the franchise around a broken star player. That really is the truth. When Rose got injured it really just was devastating to the franchise.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jul 9, 2014 -> 09:56 AM) ...in a loss. Which was somehow celebrated. They won 1 of 4 games, and got absolutely dominated in their last game. If not for goaltending, that would have been a 7 spot as well. The whole "they tried hard!" mentality needs to go before US soccer can be a thing. The US did well. Internationally they received a pretty good amount of respect with their showing. The US really does not have the technical skill to compete against the best teams on a daily basis. That being said, you never know what will happen. Goaltending is part of the sport, it is the one position where the US has historically been good. So the fact the US relied on good goalkeeping is part of the game. Just like if a baseball team wins because of a good pitcher etc. US soccer will be a thing, not everyone is a bandwagon/frontrunner. You root for your team, but some of us are realistic and dont drink the kool aid. There is no shame in the US performance, and its not about "trying hard". They made it through the group stage in a group with 3 other respected teams. There were many teams that were far more established, who were unable to do that. Making it through your group every World Cup is the start, at that point anything can happen. (edit) How is the loss to Belgium "unacceptable'? They went to extra time and lost to a team that was considered around top 5 in the world.

Even at full strength many would be picking Germany. Its going to be close, I prefer Brazil to Germany, so Ill say that Brazil comes out attacking gets up 1-0 and then gets a second on a counter. Final score 2-1.

When it comes to Melo I could believe anything. The guy seems to vacillate from wanting to win to wanting to get paid.

The hold up is presumably that they keep asking guys like Bosh to take less and less, while teams like Houston are telling Bosh theyll give him the moon. Meanwhile Lebron seems in no rush to actually commit to Miami, which has to leave Bosh wondering what is going on.

The longer it drags the more it would seem that everything wont be status quo next year. Bosh could easily take the Rockets money and turn the off-season on its head.

I have no problems with military members having concealed carry.

Saw Outkast on Sunday, pretty amazing.

Alpha has some pretty solid advice. If you have any specific questions I can probably answer them.

I will say this, if the Bulls dont get Melo that McDermott pick is a hell of a lot better.

Havent watched the fire exclusively (im about to watch a game lol) but MLS is generally a pretty big step down technically. Games can be still fun to watch.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 05:18 PM) You're dong the exact same thing on the opposite end of the argument, yet because it's your view, it's right. Welcome to the world of opinion. I hate when you argue like this. You're better/smarter than that. No Im not. I dont believe any religion deserves special exceptions. Whether I agree with it or not. If the new rule is that anyone can not follow the laws based on religious exception, i would be fine with it. But that isnt what we are doing here, we arent saying "Everyone has the right to opt out of govt regulations if it interferes with their beliefs." If that was the ruling, id support it 100%. Because then I could refuse to pay taxes, follow laws, and do whatever I want in the name of "religion". Fair is fair, but this ruling isnt about fairness, its about promoting 1 religion at the expense of everyone else. Maybe you dont believe it, but somewhere in your heart of hearts you must know that if a Muslim Company didnt want to pay taxes because the US was attacking Muslims, the Supreme Court wouldnt be okay with it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) Not if it's doing so to promote the Free Exercise Clause. Nor does the RFRA really favor one religion over another. It's been applied to a lot of religions other than Christianity. This is the problem. Somehow you think that another person taking contraception has anything to do with their religion. Its like saying that no one in my office can use their paycheck to buy bacon cheeseburgers because its not kosher. Its extreme nonsense. But since it fits your worldview, youll support it to the bitter end. Nothing like a good earth is the center of the universe debate.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) Ya, work production was probably at March Madness levels yesterday. Yeah yesterday I was streaming at work. The office above mine was having some sort of viewing party, there was a slight delay on the internet so you could hear them cheering through the walls whenever something happened before it was on my computer, lol.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:25 PM) Actually, you now do! The 2nd bolded is laughable. how is this bringing more Christianity INTO government? It's removing government from Christianity if anything. Because this rule isnt going to be evenly applied. So it will be a defacto promoting of Christianity. Unless of course my new religion "Soxbadgerism" is allowed to not do things just the same. But we all know that isnt the case.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:12 PM) Giving up on your constitutionally protected and federal law protected right to religious beliefs, for any amount of money, is highly burdensome. Where, as here, the alternative is for employees to obtain relatively inexpensive care on their own, I don't think it trumps those rights. You dont have a right to not pay for things because your money may incidentally go to something that is against your religion. The employer is not paying directly. They are paying a premium to an insurance company. It is the insurance company who then pays for the procedure. There is no direct link. This is entirely to bolster Christianity in the govt. Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion."

1) Once again what this means is that if a Dr prescribes something, you are okay with the person not being given medical treatment, because someone else in a company has a religious belief that is in conflict. 2) They can exercise their religion. They dont have to use birth control. They dont have to do anything. But the argument is failed when you try and apply it to indirect money spending. For example, my taxes may go to people who do things that are against my religion. Can I not pay taxes now? The answer is obviously no, because its a horrendous argument that is being applied by the majority religion. 3) Once again, no one is being forced to do anything. Their money is possibly being indirectly spent. Its not about providing birth control, its about whether or not you believe that a company has the right to overrule a dr. Simply put, your answer is yes. Its fine, but its as backwards as the Earth revolving arond the sun. 4) They arent being forced to believe it, but they are being forced to live under someone elses beliefs. No different than if you were not allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger because its not kosher. And this has everything to do with religion over science. Otherwise there would be no argument. If a dr prescribes something for a medical purpose, someone elses religious belief should not interfere with your ability to get it. The only people who will ever argue against this are going to be people in the religious majority that the law is favoring. You may never be able to see it, but they couldnt see it when they imprisoned Galileo either.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:26 PM) Go to planned parenthood. If you can't afford it, they'll let you have it. It's really not difficult. 90% of 18 year old females in college do it. As to your second point, maybe they should? You're Mr. Free Market capitalist, why are you backing legislation that forces employers to do something they don't want to do? And while Christianity is my religion, and I do believe that abortion is wrong, i'm not sure I go to the level of contraception=abortion like these guys. But i'll defend their right to run their business as they see fit. Jenks, 1) Im not sure you understand the ruling. Hobby Lobby does not have to provide the following, regardless of Dr's advice: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin Ill just take the first one I found: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-in...rth-control/iud You need to see a health care provider to get an IUD. Your health care provider can help you decide if an IUD is right for you. You can find a health care provider who can help you with getting an IUD at your local Planned Parenthood health center or at other clinics. The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD, and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose. In general, hormonal IUDs costs more than the ParaGard. Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs. Call your local Planned Parenthood health center to get specific information on costs. Where is that free? 2) Separation of church and state is more important than free market. I dont care if Hobby Lobby doesnt have to provide the above, as long as you agree its okay if Jehova's Witness dont want to provide for transfusions, etc etc. 3) No youll defend your belief system. If this was a non-christian religion it would never have been allowed. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) Jesus, I missed this. Balta 2.0. No one is forcing these employees to believe anything. Yes they are. They are forcing employees to not receive certain treatments because of their faith. But I get it, your just defending your team, its the same old religion > science that has been going on for the last 1500 years.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) Insane ratings given the timing of some of these games. Only game on at a good time was the Portugal - US game. Could you imagine if this game was on a Sat or Sun vs. during a workday? A lot of money was lost yesterday. Had the US advanced they would have played on Saturday.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Well, that's probably true, but they have better, longer-standing law on their side. You guys are acting like some right that we've had for 200 years is suddenly being taken away. Well for the majority of history separation of church and state was not common, but then again, I also dont think we should go back to an era when the Catholic church got to put scientists to death for daring to question their authority. But hey, always works well when religion tells drs/scientists whats best. CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) No, it's inaccurate because no one is stopping them from getting the contraception they want. They might be making it more difficult, but they're not "stopping" them. If they cant afford it, they are 100% being stopped. Its entirely the same idea. If this is allowable, a business run by Jehova's Witness should also be allowed not to pay for blood transfusions through insurance. But like I said, as long as its your religion/position that is winning, you really seem to not care about the consequence.