Jake

Hope they can overturn the forward pass call. The announcers think it definitely is legal, but without an "official" line to look at, it may be hard to overturn the original call.

Mark Cuban on Bill Maher: "If my tax rate went from 35% to 39%, I'd never even notice." later..."I've never heard anyone mention taxes in any of my business dealings. You just make the best deal you can."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) There has to be some other part of the rule missing. You could never strip with that rule. I'd say the key to enforcement is that Tillman doesn't stand there like a boxer and punch, it is simply part of the tackling motion and thus not a real dangerous maneuver like throwing punches that could cause injury. Not to mention players everywhere are taught to do this when able so it will be difficult for an official to notice it unless it is unbelievably exagerrated

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2012 -> 08:21 PM) Ill take 3-3 after having 3 to's in 4 possessions lol, no s*** defense doing great for us so far, as is Matt Schaub

At least Schaub keeps throwing it up

Now everyone can blame Cutler again

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2012 -> 08:02 PM) W00t, Jennings. Rain didn't cause that Edit: ok maybe it did. Didnt see the wr slip lol your edit beat me

For f***'s sake At least no one will blame Cutler yet

At least the D holds them to 3, which was nearly a foregone conclusion from the start of the drive

f***ing Kellen Davis. Do something positive, please

I'm trying to fly my girlfriend home to me during the xmas holiday. At this point, it appears that it will cost >$100 more than it did last year to do this. Do you guys have any suggestions as to how to save some cash on this endeavor? I don't want to pay $350 for a one way flight.

StrangeSox, why aren't you fixing the economy you asshole?!?! Just because the super-rich won't do the right thing and save us all, doesn't mean you can't!!! ...you don't have the ability to move the market favorably? What? You're just some guy and whether or not you insert morality into your economic decisions doesn't really matter?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) How can you not agree with that? One of the main differences between the parties today is that one thinks the government should provide or assist, the other thinks they should get out of the way. If you have no job or are in massive debt and you have one candidate that says it's rich peoples' responsibility to pay back (and also that it's their fault they don't have a job) and it's government responsibility to create jobs, and you have another that says pull up your boot straps, who are you going to vote for? And in general, young people have no exposure to a lot of the issues that go into those policies. They don't own homes, they don't invest, they don't have their own businesses, they don't have kids...they don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that older Americans deal with. See also, the entire occupy movement - I have no job, f*** society, let me blog about it on my iPad! That principle is not the problem with the GOP's platform. The problem is in the messaging of it. The problem is allowing liberals to paint you into "look at the crazy old man talking about God causing rape!" camp because you pander too much to an extreme crowd that actually believes that nonsense. The thing is both parties say both things. D's - We are going to use tax revenue to give the poor the chance to live with dignity and give them and their children to get out of poverty. Additionally, you should be able to take care of yourself medically and retire with the same dignity that you had when you worked for a living. In the background, we believe in things like building up our country's infrastructure, which will employ some of our poor but more importantly gives us the structure from which private businesses build on. As far as how you live socially, we're not too worried about that. Don't buy illegal drugs, don't kill people, don't steal. Beyond that, we aren't going to tell you what to do. R's - We are going to tax you less and you WILL like that. Your poor friends don't deserve s***! Perhaps a short period to get on their feet, and if they can't get a job after X amount of time it is clearly their own fault (not the rich guys hoarding money nor are the poor sometimes victims of market fluctuation). Spending money on their education is also a waste of time. We would fix the debt with these de-investments, but instead we will grow the military and play chicken with Iran and whoever else wants to bother us abroad. Don't worry though, we certainly won't waste money on healthcare and living expenses for the elderly either, so at least our strangely prioritized, bloated budget will still run a deficit. Socially, the government is your moral guiding light. We seek to make sure the government enforces aging perceptions of morality and religion. Our country is harmed by the gays, the working woman, pre-marital sex, Muslims, and all kinds of other horrible people. We will do our best as a government to hold those folks down. Cliffs: Democrats - "we'll support your life via safety nets and structural improvements, but get the hell out of your social life" Republicans - "we trust the market to save your ass when you become poor, but we will remedy this by dictating mostly church-based morality to you" Do you see why the message that won, won? I believe if Republicans want to compete, they need to drop the latter part of the message in a big way. "The government needs to spend less and it starts with you paying it less" is a very attractive argument for them. Unfortunately, they distract from it with all the stupid social s*** they try to dictate and the poor way they communicate their fiscal message. You can try to say that the ultra-poor vote in Democrats, but it isn't true. Taxpayers are voting in the Democrats and those votes can be changed under the right circumstances, with the right argument. I'll say this: I believe in Barack Obama and generally, the Democratic platform. I believed that given the circumstances of the beginning of Barack's presidency, it makes sense that things did not go as well financially as we/I hoped. I believe that things are getting better. I believe that 4 years was not quite long enough for Barack's policies to show their worth. I believe that Obamacare's measures have to actually come into effect before I can even begin to assess whether it works as well in practice as it sounds in theory. With that said, I expect marked improvement at the end of this term. For the Democrats to get my vote back in 2016, our financial situation will almost certainly have to get better. Civil rights will need to continually be expanded. Our path out of debt should be clear. If not, they are not promised my support.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor? I suppose the death penalty has to be considered. It is murder and it absolutely must be intentional and premeditated.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) It is the economic right to do what they want with their money. I know in your world that doesn't exist, but in mine it does. I don't think anyone argues with that right being there, but it sucks that those few can have that effect and it sucks that they almost certainly will let it have that catastrophic effect. The main thing that I get from this situation is that Bush f***ed up very badly by cutting tax rates. We flourished with significantly higher rates than this in the past -- so it isn't the rate that is the issue, it's the changing of it. Dumb. Shouldn't have changed in the first place.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence... 1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here. 2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder. 3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective. 4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose). I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it. I agree. I think 4 follows logically from 2. This is why I don't freak out too much about how fervently pro-life folks fight. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) I think it would help refocus the issue on to the life of the child and not the rights of women. Right. When you're anti-sex, anti-contraception, and anti-abortion....it is much more clearly a seemingly anti-woman stance. Even if you don't achieve an outlawing of abortion, if you increase the access to birth control and are willing to teach more about sex than "don't do it" you will at least help reduce the amount of abortions that happen. In general, I would like to see pro-life folks find different ways to prevent abortion from happening than lobbying politicians for a ban that is highly unlikely at this point. I would also take the damn churches out of it -- it alienates people that don't identify with the churches. It is a moral question certainly, but not a religious one. The Bible does not conceive of abortion (nice wordplay, I know) so saying that the Church is pro-life is mere coincidence and doesn't have much theological backing save the fact that of course the Church would be against murder. It also helps distance the pro-life argument from the more off-putting talking points of abstinence only education, lack of access to birth control, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently. Do you think if the pro-life party would make contraception more available and encourage more sexual education, this might change?

It makes zero sense to trade Dayan. There is no risk in keeping him. If this is his peak value, I can't imagine its high enough to replace his 25 HR, 80 RBI

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) I find that statement very troubling simply due to the fact that it is impossible for every sperm, or even any reasonable percentage of them, to ever be united with an egg. Yep, one of those sad facts of nature. It's about as irritating as knowing I have to die someday...I could even die any moment now, who knows!

I would contest that a sperm and an egg are very much alive, and depriving them of each other denies them the right to continue living. Scientists are happy to tell you when brain activity starts, when it could be extracted and live on its own, etc. but science doesn't like arbitrary designations which is what the abortion argument is all about. Informed by science, we then make a moral (and hence arbitrary) distinction of what is what. There are some arbitrary measures I'm happy to make (don't abort the baby right as you go into labor), but others I don't feel that science can inform us enough to make them clear. Just because scientists make a distinction between zygote and fetus, that doesn't mean they deserve a moral distinction. They might, but it isn't because scientists gave them different names.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) So if a woman is two days from her due date and she says, "Oh, f*** it, I don't really want this kid", it's nobody's business to tell her she can't have a doctor crush its skull, right? I'm pretty sure that I put in that post that there is a near consensus that after a particular point in the pregnancy, we are very nearly all in agreement that abortions are not appropriate, which is why no one is shouting and screaming about the laws that restrict late-term abortions.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:30 PM) Question: I am conducting a study and want to know which 5 special entitlements or free stuff would make you vote Republican the most. List a maximum of 5 please. Free stuff 1. dead fetuses 2. married gay couples 3. mosques 4. partially burned american flags 5. nukes following giant cuts to defense spending and secret deals with Russia

As we talk about ideology, I figure I'd share one of the more thought provoking passages I've had the pleasure to read as a politics student. How to be a Conservative-Liberal-Socialist

I don't think pro-life folks always understand what pro-choice means to many people. I would call myself pro-choice...but it's not because I love the idea of aborted fetuses. I don't plan to go have a bunch of unprotected sex knowing I can just undo that later at Planned Parenthood. It's an extremely tough question. What rights does an unborn fetus have? What moral value do we give it? It is not value-less nor is it sans rights, I suppose. However, it is not the same as me. It's not the same as a newborn. In many ways, newborns are not the same as me. We have all more or less agreed that children have fewer rights than adults. Why not fetuses having fewer rights than children? Yeah yeah, the right to "life" is a pretty hefty right. I know. I can't imagine that I'd ever allow myself to abort a child I conceived nor would I ever encourage someone else to do that, given some exceptions. If my wife or partner will die because of this child, I will do what I must to save her life. But that's my personal take. I have no definitive, absolute moment when a fetus becomes too human to abort. The line is blurry. If it can't feel pain, is that okay? Does it have to have 26 chromosomes, or is 13 enough (no more masturbating!)? I can understand how a person may come up with a moment in which the fetus is too man-like to wish to abort it. As a society, I don't see us coming to an agreement on that. There is no absolute logical moment, though many latch on to conception. Therefore, this is not the government's business. This is a moral issue with no clear resolution (obviously not as clear of a shared opinion as me not being able to steal from a business, etc). Individuals will have to decide for themselves, save for boundaries that we all share -- most of us don't think that every period or non-sexual emission of sperm is denying a child's right to life. Likewise, an abortion in the 8th month of pregnancy doesn't feel right to most of us. So we have some boundaries.

If a Repub believes that Mexicans will automatically vote for someone because they are a Cuban...they have their head up their ass. If the Mexican vote can be absorbed due to a Cuban running, then I'm going to get sick.