Soxbadger

Jay Gruden sucks as an offensive coordinator.

Ive been telling people that Gordon is the most talented running back Ive ever seen at Wisconsin.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 01:20 AM) In Duke's defense, we just talked about what you're accusing him of not too long ago re:police. He said that police are an example of the necessary functions of government. When I'm arguing with people, I like to establish where we are on common ground. Duke and I agree that there should be government. The devil is in the details. Im quite aware. Which is why I found it interesting that he then went to such great lengths to argue that bad things are always going to happen and therefore we shouldnt look to govt to try and help. Its like arguing that murder is always going to happen and thus why have police... See what I did there. Just because you cant prevent every bad thing from happening, doesnt mean you give up on trying to stop any bad thing from happening.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) You know there will always be human suffering. Something bad is always going to happen to someone and there's little reason to it. You've been sufficiently brainwashed by academia and the government to think this mechanism of human existence is preventable or at least mitigatable. So as long as there's suffering (and there always will be) there will be you, the loyal servant to the state who agrees that "Yes! Feeding the government massive sums of money will fix it!" And the problems will go unfixed, and we'll lose more of our freedoms, and they'll ask for more money because the first batch wasn't quite enough, and they'll get that money and eventually youll be mired in an existence of wage slavery--because you're much more useful to the state as a compliant serf than a free individual. And all the people that could stand up to it? Well you took their guns away. You could say this reality is all but upon us right now. The part that you dont seem to want to concede is that unless you are a true sociopath you have to agree that government is ultimately better than no government. Thomas Hobbes understood this in Leviathan (Life was cruel, brutish and short), and so we evolved. We looked at society as humans and said: "This is not good enough", so we changed. And I guess there is a certain irony that our country was founded on the idea that if we came together, we could do better. Human existence is mitigatable. Whether you like or not, it is. Ill fight the govt harder than you could ever imagine. But lets be honest, do you really want this free society? And Im talking extremely free, utilitarian laws where the only thing you cant do is infringe on another persons rights. You can have all the guns, I can have all the drugs, we arent hurting anyone. No immigration, anyone can come to the US. No laws on gay marriage, no laws on marriage period. Because otherwise your words are hollow and you are just fighting for your own vision of "freedom" not actually wanting people to be free. And thats my problem with gun rights. Some of the people who support it are so hypocritical that it makes me want to take away their guns out of spite. I actually used to be progun and I know that in a truly free society people should be able to own guns. Im just being a philosopher king and saying that maybe its safer if no one has them. Maybe thats just stupid rose colored glasses, but a lot of times I think that maybe we dont dream enough. Human existence is so short and we have come so far. Id like to think that there are other people out there who want to make the world better. Maybe there arent.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 08:22 PM) For the Constitutional originalists, I wonder what the Founding Fathers had to say about "likes" and electronic communication via social media. I think theyd give an old fashioned real life thumbs up. But they would also likely condemn facebook for not offering a thumbs down option. As criticism is important

If you are in a deep league and need a RB, Ellington is the guy Id have my eye on. Coach has said he thinks hes an every down back and Mendenhall is hurting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) Serious Q: how good do people think Richardson is? Between him being banged up last year and the fact that he's on the Browns I didn't see or hear much about him. Obviously the Colts saw something they liked about him but does anyone have an impression of what the Colts just got and how impactful it will be? Its hard to tell, Richardson was solid for Bama, but when I watched him I never thought "special".

Its kind of an odd deal. RB values have been going down in drafts so a 1st rounder is a high price. I guess maybe the Colts see Richardson as a Edge type player, not going to blow your mind skills, but solid and gets the job done.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) Just wondering...what exactly is the swipe pattern? Is there a way to customize the swipe or something? Yes you create your own swipe. Mine is the triforce.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 11:04 PM) Oh, and I just sunk about $5-6K of Michael's money in to the stock market. Bought a $1 stock (cheapest you can), I bought the stock that tanks because *SPOILER*, and I bought some other cheap stock that was falling. I REALLY hope that all these stocks aren't predetermined, like I hope that XXX stock in EVERYONE'S game doesn't skyrocket, and XXX stock always sucks. I hope things YOU do in the game as well as randomness can change the stock prices, otherwise I am not going to be able to resist checking online to see which stocks I should buy so I can be a millionaire. I want the satisfaction of being good/lucky. This reminds me of the calculator game drug wars. I also wish that Steve would get back on the horse and write up a quick dreamy GTA review.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 01:49 PM) Conversations like this tend to get heated, and often a lot of what someone means is lost in translation of text. Allow cooler heads to prevail. The issue with many suggestions here, not that they're bad suggestions, is that we're just assuming that when they raise additional money, they'll do the right thing and actually deliver it to mental health facilities instead of shutting them down. What we cannot do, however, is ignore the vast unfunded obligations this state is dealing with, such as the pension system, etc. Many of these suggestions are great, on paper, but in reality, that added money will just be tossed into an endless sinkhole for better education that never materializes and pension bills they'll never repay. And the list goes on from there. And I agree, but my point is that its up to us. Ultimately we are responsible. And if we want to make things better, it means we are going to have to change. I know that my money may be poorly spent, that it will be mismanaged. But I hope that it wont be, I hope that there are other people out there who will do the right thing. Because I really do believe that majority of people dont want to hurt other people, that they actually would go out of there way to help someone else. If I didnt, none of this would be worth it. I have to trust and have some belief in other people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) And churches too I hope? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Damn straight Caesar should be allowed to get his beak wet in tithe money.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) When posing hypotheticals, you never assume people know you're going to just stay with whatever system they already have in place. You never said a word about graduated tax, or tax brackets. You posed a hypothetical that you'd be willing to play a flat 90% tax so long as everyone gets free healthcare. So I agree with him, you've moved the goalposts and added a bunch of disclaimers to what you said AFTER the fact. Of course you agree with him, you guys do the exact same thing where you just fixate on a statement to try and take away focus from the real issue. Or maybe Im just giving you too much credit, and you actually arent being that clever.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 12:41 PM) You never mentioned graduated 90% taxes or just on the top bracket, you just said " Ill sign up for that right now, everyone in the US gets healthcare, no matter what, even if I have to pay 90% taxes." Changing goal posts now? Why would I not be suggesting a graduated tax when that is the only tax system the US has ever used? Last I checked I lived in the US. But lets be honest, this line of argument by you and Y2hh is just proving my point. You dont really want to fix the problem, you just want to place the blame somewhere else. The 90% number is hyperbole, if anyone actually wanted to solve the problem they could easily say: "Well 90% is to high, but maybe an extra 5% in taxes would be a good idea if it meant everyone go healthcare". I just made a statement that I knew would get a predictable response from people, and then I could prove my point that people dont really want to help other people if it means theyll have to pay money. (Edit) And honestly, you and y2hh are just predictably missing the point. Solutions sometimes require sacrifice. Im willing to sacrifice for the betterment of others. Which is why I said "I". Im not expecting that everyone would give up 90% of their wages, it was hyperbole to call people on the red herring. Everyone just wants to blame someone else. Why not step up to the plate and propose your own solutions? You dont want gun laws, you dont want more money spent on mental health...?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) Actually, history, bad for facts, bad for your weak argument, bad for you. Even when the US had that tax rate on the richest of the rich, none of them paid that, or anywhere near it. And yes, if you were taxed at 90% you'd still make more than 50% of the worlds population, and like that 50% of the worlds population, you'd be on the streets. You didn't think this out, and that's clear. Taxed at 90%, the average person here would probably end up with about 320$ (actually probably far far less than that, but I'm being generous), in which to spend per month, for food, bills, utilities, housing, etc...IE, not nearly enough. Go back to the drawing board. Leveraging 90% tax on everyone is asinine. Do you even understand how graduated tax works? The only part you pay 90% is the amount that is higher than that bracket. The top tax bracket now is $400k. Meaning that only dollars made over 400k would be taxed at 90%. http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2...marginal-rates/ But I know you actually do understand that, you are just trying to create a strawman argument suggesting that I was saying a "flat tax", which I never did. Does this type of argument ever work?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) Except then the number of people in the highest tax bracket was under 50 IIRC. ? If you take a random year like 1959, the top income was $300k. There were likely more than 50 people who made that (I actually cant find any stat on this). Furthermore, any income over $14,000 was taxed at 39% or greater. That is now the HIGHEST tax bracket. Why are we wasting this time with a red herring anyways. Not many gun owners are going to say "Ok Ill pay more money for mental health if it means I get to keep my guns." Cause if they were, then maybe we can get a deal worked out.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:35 AM) How about no. 90% taxes? I'd be on the streets, as would everyone here. That'd give me about 200$ every few weeks to spend on everything if they taxed us at 90%. But, I see you thought this out. http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federa...justed-brackets Strangely the US had a marginal tax rate of over 90% for the highest class and not everyone was on the street. History, good for facts, bad for people! (Edit) If I was taxed at 90% Id still make more than 50% of the worlds population. Wealth is relative. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040 (Edit 2) That doesnt even take into account the money I would save not having to pay my own personal health insurance as now my taxes would pay that instead.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) My point is that fixing the mental health system will do more to prevent mass gun tragedies than more gun laws. If you want to respond to that specific comment, I'd be happy to continue debating with you. Otherwise, I'm finished with you in this thread. Sure Id be happy to provide free health care an support services to those with mental disabilities. That would require passing a comprehensive health care law and increase of taxes. Ill sign up for that right now, everyone in the US gets healthcare, no matter what, even if I have to pay 90% taxes. Not really sure what that has to do with guns. I thought the reason we cant pass gun laws is because criminals will get guns, not because people with mental illness may not have access to good medical healthcare.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 10:40 AM) Based on current laws, those rights exist and that was the comparison I'm making. But so what? At one point laws existed that stated black people werent equal to a white person. Because that is the law you simply argue for the law? The entire point of this nation was that we dont just say "Oh thats the law so it must be right". And if you do not believe humans have the capability to change, then sure, criminals will always have guns. But I simply refuse to admit that. If I do I have given up on humanity and what is the purpose of any law. Criminals will always break them, so why make law abiding citizens have to play with a handicap? If a few break the law, then everyone has to? The entire point of a law is to de-incentivize behavior. If you never do that, then of course there will always be more guns. Its like saying: Criminals will steal even if its illegal. Honest citizens dont steal and therefore are at a disadvantage. Thus we should let everyone steal. Its not really thought provoking logic. And if you are going to hang your hat on 2nd amendment, at least explain why the 2nd amendment doesnt at all touch "self-defense" yet explicitly states "regulated", yet we read in "self defense" and omit "regulated". I just cant get behind that type of parsing and selective reading. Which is why I personally dont consider what people in 1776 thought as cannon. They had some good ideas (a lot were stolen from Montesquieu and Locke), but still thats almost 250 years ago. Those same guys would have likely thought it was insane to be using something written 250 years earlier as cannon.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) So we're going to take away the rights of all Americans in order to avoid taking rights away from a small percentage of Americans? Gotta love that logic. If you think the right to be free and not locked up for being perceived ill is equal to the right to own a gun, then sure. But then again Ive yet to be convinced that the actual 2nd Amendment protects my right to own a gun. I definitely know that it protects the right of people in the militia to own a gun. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html What is the purpose of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment? If the founders intent was to give everyone the right to guns why wouldnt they simply have written: eing necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. I just can not see how you can reach the conclusion that every individual is guaranteed a right to bear arms without parsing the sentence. You have to give weight to the first part and in the context of the 1776 its my opinion that the actual intent behind the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal govt from having the power to take away guns from state militias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...volutionary_War This interpretation makes sense given that the constitution came after the articles of confederacy, so there was still some remnants of the idea that each state was basically its own country and therefore partially responsible for its own defense.

Got it dvred, will give a chance at some point.

My biggest complaint is that in the age of replay, even if they thought its maybe a fumble, its college, the player is immediately down and the clock stops. Even if the refs f***ed up in the moment, all they had to do was raise their hands and say "The previous play is under review." I feel bad for the players, they have to answer and be accountable. Those refs just walked off the field, as if they didnt even care.

Never use facebook. I want to preen real life people from my friends list.

Bears can have a few uneducated fans. The reality is Cutler needs to be better with the ball. The idea a 1st round pick will be better instantly is kind of nonsense. The better idea is to draft a legitimate back up, who you can groom to be a successor if necessary. You dont need to lose to do this.

I think Wite coaching the Heat would have more championships today than Spoelstra if he coached the Bulls during the same time frame.