farmteam

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 20, 2012 -> 09:20 PM) I banned someone. Everyone guess who it is. I bet it's someone who doesn't guess.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 20, 2012 -> 09:44 PM) In other news, the Va Tech AD said he'd be interested in talking to the SEC. Other conferences smelling blood in the water with the ACC?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 19, 2012 -> 01:24 PM)

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 20, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) Penn State's Tim Frazier out for the year with an Achilles injury. Sucks for him. I don't know how competitive PSU was gonna be in the B1g this year anyway, but now they have no chance. I have no idea what their underclassmen/incoming recruiting class look like, but perhaps now he can take a medical redshirt and maybe, just maybe, make the NCAAs next year? Or maybe they'd be even worse next year.

I immediately check the weather on my phone. On my computer... Facebook/EMail/Soxtalk/Google Reader/Other Email/Sporcle

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 19, 2012 -> 10:01 PM) I know it seems we say this every other year or so, but it's astonishing how awful the talent in college basketball is this season. I don't mind rooting for IU and think Cody Zeller is a good basketball player, but him being in the position of Preseason Player of the Year is scary. I remember being surprised when the Zeller-for-Player-of-the-Year talk started. Don't get me wrong, he had a great freshman season, especially in just the absurdly calm manner he handled all the hoopla. He's just not the eye popping guy you usually see get talked up. I don't think he'd get nearly as much talk if he wasn't the "IU savior." IU needs to start the game better to beat Georgetown tomorrow. We should win on paper I think, but it will definitely be a game, and we must get it going quicker than today. Waiting until the game is nearly 75% over isn't going to cut it.

I really like reading these dog owner stories, though I definitely wouldn't get a dog that big. As to the dog ban stuff, in general I don't think municipalities should have any ban, but I'm cool with individual condos or subdivisions or something not allowing certain breeds (or even dogs altogether, if they want).

Indiana definitely played terribly until around the 12 minute mark in the 2nd half. And I'm not sure I've ever heard a commentator slurp on a player as much Knight did on Hulls that game. Hey Crean I love Hulls too, but I'd be mighty impressed if he made it into the NBA.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) Yep, had a very good career at Stanford. Yeah, then he played overseas some. I think he was first team all-state as a QB, and had a 90+ fastball too. His senior year though (the first year New Trier won a championship in ANY of the Big 3 sports), he couldn't locate it well and New Trier had enough good pitchers that he just played First Base because, surprise surprise, he could hit the crap out of the ball. The basketball team that year also had Todd Townsend (who later played at Marquette; the Lottichs adopted him [or the Dad was the legal guardian, something like that] after he played his first year or two at Morgan Park); they could have been the only basketball champion in New Trier history, but they ran into Darius Miles and East St. Louis in the quarters.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Stanford is the hardest to get into for an athlete, as you have to be admitted there as a regular student I believe. Not sure if that's changed the last few years. IIRC, when Matt Lottich went to Stanford in 2000, I heard he had a 26 on the ACT. Basically, they just want you to show that you're reasonably intelligent, but you don't have to be up to their regular admission standards.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) Enough already. I'm an ND fan as well, but you're outrageous at this point. Oregon is ahead of them because they clearly appear to be the better football team. Same with KSU. This has zero to do with pre-season rankings this late in the season. If you have watched all 3 teams play, and think ND is better than either of them - then you're just a homer. Hell, even if you haven't watched them play, look at the results of the games (as the article went through), you'd have to put Oregon and KSU ahead of them. Put another way:

The only Hostess outlet store I've ever seen/been to is on the way southside of Bloomington. A solid slice of southern Indiana.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) Sink that part of the world into the ocean. It's been nothing but trouble for, what, 5000 years? They're clearly never ironing out their differences. f*** 'em both. Then the argument would be, "Alright, which nation gets to push the button that sends them to sleep with the fishes?" It never ends.

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2835142.shtml?cat=1

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) A friend with weed is a friend indeed. A friend in need is a friend indeed, but a friend with weed is better. I think that's the actual line, haven't heard that song in a while.

QUOTE (Joxer_Daly @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) 5. I'd say if you post a picture of said girlfriend on here we'll be much better placed to help you... ODB.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) I'm saying that those disagreements did continue. Jefferson and Hamilton (and the factions they represented) were at each other's throats for years. The easiest example was Hamilton's push for a US Mint and national bank and Jefferson's and Madison's opposition to it on Constitutional grounds. I don't think we're really disagreeing much here. The people who wrote and signed the documents couldn't even agree to its limits. So as you said, it's foolish to say "This is what the Constitution means" as if there is or ever was some singular, objective meaning. You're right. I think I'm just placing more weight than you on the fact that both Hamilton and Jefferson ended up agreeing to and signing the same Constitution, even if reluctantly.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) I think part of signing it was with the knowledge that it would be malleable and the government might look rather different, even without amending, based on what people wanted. They'd certainly be flattered at the religious fervor with which most Americans see it today, but it really is sad. Americans don't ask "what is the best way to run the country?" They say, "what is the most constitutional?" This is not to say that we should go directly against the Constitution, but rather we should seek to make the Constitution run the country correctly. If it doesn't allow that, we should try to amend it. If we can't amend it, we'll have to wait until we can. Whether or not anything we do is in the "spirit" of the Constitution is really irrelevant though. That was just too long ago. I'd rephrase those questions, and combine them. "What's the best way to run the country that's also constitutional?" I don't think it is irrelevant. The Hamilton/Jefferson arguments that SS was talking about are still happening today, are still relevant to the constitution, and are still relevant to the best way to run the country. You are right that if the Constitution doesn't allow the way we've determined is the best way to run the country, we could amend it -- but good luck on getting everyone to agree on what to amend it to. Every society necessarily has a rules structure; the Constitution is the backbone of ours. If you're unable to amend it (or create an entirely new one), I think it's better to work within the existing structure than discard it entirely, which is the logical end of your argument if I understood you correctly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) But that's where I disagree. Even after ratification, Hamilton and Jefferson had very, very strong disagreements on the proper role of the federal government. They don't exactly mirror today's, but they come strikingly close. Jefferson wanted a minimalist federal government with an agrarian society, Hamilton wanted a strong central government that actively invested in industry. I think Jefferson would agree with framing the Constitution as limiting the government as much as reasonably possible but that Hamilton would not. Of course they disagreed, just like everyone else. My point is that at the end of the day, they decided to sign their names to the Constitution we have -- those signatures were the agreement that this was the way the country would be governed. Otherwise, the debate would have continued. EDIT: As to your last two sentences, that's more reflected in how the Constitution was/is interpreted after its initial passage, I think. Hamilton had a really good interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause that I like. I can't remember if it was part of the Federalist Papers or not, but I think it was.

This squabbling seems pointless. If Notre Dame (or any team, really) and their fans really want to consider their team elite, then they should be walking all over the Navies and Eastern Michigans. Sure, maybe they'd beat Eastern Michigan by 30 and and Navy by only two touchdowns, but the point is either way they should easily win the game. Fortunately, I don't have this problem, since my Big Ten team loses to Ball State and Navy. Woo hoo!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) I think Hamilton would have disagreed with that description of the constitution. He probably would have. So would Jefferson. And Madison. And Adams. But Hamilton wasn't the only architect of the Constitution. There were many. It's impossible to look at one, or even a few, of the most influential guys at the Constitutional Bongresses and say "This is what the Constitution means" because the Constitution is the end result of years of debate, and no single person could say that end result was exactly what it should be...but as a group, they could. EDIT: "Bongresses" was obviously a typo, but it's a funny one that provides a great mental image of what was REALLY going on in Philly in the late 1780s, so I'm gonna leave it.

Watched Wedding Band last night. It was exactly what I expected: one hour of mindless entertainment that was pretty funny. Brian Austin Green is actually a pretty decent singer (if it's really his voice) -- not Grammy worthy by any means, but exactly what it's supposed to be, a wedding singer with a bunch of different styles. The best comparison would probably be Franklin & Bash, right down to the 90s TV star(s).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more. I think you're both kinda right. The Articles of Confederation were seen as a failure, in part because the federal government was not strong enough. However, the Constitution was still set up to limit the federal government as much as it reasonably could be. Don't forget the importance of our constitution being written, either. Not all are.

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:07 PM) Here are some interesting names in my book: Brandon Wood Omar Luna Yangervis Solarte Kleininger Teran Walter Ibarra Mario Lisson Wasn't Brandon Wood that "can't-miss" prospect for the Angels like 3 years ago?

People who know more about Hockey than me: Do you think we'll have a season, or not?