Jake

I don't know if I should be happy or pissed off.

Reid is fairly capable of strong arming but I don't think he had the votes for a major reform here.

I'd say calling people f**gots is not good for discussion. As for banning or not, I don't really care.

Sorry I'm late...been on the pot all day from all that oat fiber

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) He's already come close. I think it's safe to say that if the Hawks can win the Cup with Antti Niemi in the net that Corey Crawford would suffice if everything clicked. NIEMI SAYS NO

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) Too bad my overnight oats kicked in, I countered you throwing me into the mud, and in turn threw you into the mud. Checkmate!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 10:07 AM) Just remember, if anything they ever said about guns being useful in keeping people safe was true...they'd be funding enormous amounts of research on their own to make that case. They'd want the government doing that research. They're not dumb. They know the answer is going to be "you're 10x safer if you're unarmed". They'd rather not have the answer. I'm sure they believe you're safer -- but they also know that research is likely to be at times mixed even when there is a single correct answer. They don't want any mixed messages. Reminds me of Monsanto, who have been behind things like aspartame (completely safe) but never wanted to actually find out whether it would stand up to research or not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) We're not talking about curing cancer, we're talking about doing a study on the impact of guns. A small research firm could handle that task pretty easily. One of your liberal think tanks should be able to do that pretty easily. There's absolutely no reason why the government "must" get involved with that. And yes, the NRA doesn't want it to be researched because the only conclusion is guns kill people when used improperly (shocking!) So of course that's going to sound awful. Biden and Obama and their counterparts will stand up and talk about how guns are killing children and innocent people, and they'll leave out that little statistic about it happening less than 1% of the time. It's absolutely a no-win situation for the NRA or gun advocates so I don't blame them. Pertinent data must be available from the government to have a crack at a useful study

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:31 AM) Cardio is cardio guys. If it's elevating your heart rate, it doesn't matter if it's repetitive, that means it's working, it's burning calories...and that's all it's intended to do. You may become more used to the motion, and be capable of doing it faster or longer, but it's still working. ^^^

Lockout? What lockout?

I have years old voicemails on my iPhone

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 08:33 PM) It's not that simple though. Prado is a guy who put up a 1.6 WAR in 590 PA as a 28 year old and then 5 WAR as a 29 year old. Calling him a 5 WAR player isn't fair, just like calling Justin Upton a 2.5 WAR player like he was last year as a 24-25 year old is a joke. Dude was a 6.4 WAR player as a 23-24 year old and his 22 year old season was 4.9 WAR. Prado's a guy 1 year from free agency who is inconsistent at the end of his prime years. Jupton is a guy 3 years from FA who had 1 down year, who has been an MVP caliber player before turning 25, who you have under affordable contract for his 25-28 year old seasons (and you have his brother until he's 30 in case you can convince him to extend for 2 years). This honestly makes the signing of his brother look a ton better to me. That was a lot of money for a 29 year old BJ. You get Justin to extend for another year or two, or just maximize his performance a bit more from the emotional comfort, and that could be a huge move. Your first paragraph says exactly what I wanted to say.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 06:48 PM) Can a person have a massive following and get NO love? lol

Andy Gonzalez compiled one of the worst combined fWARs of the last decade with fewer than 80 games IIRC

I think, if I'm giving Nuke the benefit of the doubt, the issue is not that he doesn't care about poverty and structural racism, etc. He just doesn't think the government is what fixes those things. I don't know if his solution is time, business, philanthropy, or what....but I think this is what he means.

Hahahaha best news I've heard today

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) No, you're still at the same place. Poverty didn't arise from "poverty culture," and there's an awful lot of different people in poverty in this country and across the world, and there's many people not in poverty who share in the same cultures. It plays right back into that same feedback loop. So what do you want to call it? I'm trying to communicate a name for a really complex problem and we're getting caught up in the name instead of the solution. I'm happy to learn and I always enjoy your posts, but I'd love to see more "do this" instead of "don't do that." If your posting style was a TV show, it would be like the best episode of Law and Order every time but without the verdict at the end. Give me the verdict!

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) http://www.empowernetwork.com/m3l/files/2012/11/tumblr_mcrj7tC2kt1qf7t4o.jpg Best product name ever, you have to admit it

B1G Y U NO MAKE SENSE

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) Organic is a piece of crap term in general. Buying local from farmers markets is the way to go. and regardless, we're not really talking about nutrients, but the "extras" like those pesticides that come with it. And no, in small doses, the pesticides probably don't matter. But my concern is over continued low-dose exposure over a LONG period of time. Obviously that's harder to test, but I just feel like 50 years from now we'll be looking at GMOs the same way we look at leaching. That was good for you too. ... I'm certainly not against the organic movement, the notion of buying local, etc. but we must also insist on efficiency and not be anti-science because of fuzzy notions on what is and is not natural and the idea that unnatural=bad. It makes sense as a consumer to not consume things that logically could harm AND are not researched. As a keeper of the Earth, we must also not shut out artificial methods of sustaining human life, though. Basically -- watch the Penn and Teller Bullsh!t episode on Organic Food and then watch Food, Inc. and then tell me how your brain feels

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) This is bulls***, gonna quote someone from another mb: So can we say "poverty culture" and get on with solving the problem?

There is not sufficient evidence to show that organic food (which is necessarily non-GMO) is more nutritious than non-organic (which is usually, though not always, GMO). The following study, which was actually an analysis of 250 other studies, from Stanford found that there is no demonstrable difference in nutrient density between these two sorts of foods. There were more pesticides in non-organic foods, though both had acceptable amounts. There were more instances of antibiotic resistant bacteria in non-organic foods, though both were considered acceptable amounts. They were equal in terms of the organisms that cause food poisoning. I highly doubt that most GMOs could harm humans, but I am not against researching things. Lots of things that make sense don't hold up to scientific inquiry. edit: link for perusal http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:22 AM) English - specifically, grammar. Any time I hear or see somebody use grammar improperly, I generally forget what the hell they're talking about for a brief moment and just think to myself, "God, what an idiot." Verbally, the double negative kills me. I also hate that people don't understand the difference between there, their, and they're, were and we're, your and you're...just say it out people. Some of the s*** you see on facebook is terrible. I think a lot of folks associate good writing with over demanding teachers -- they never wanted to put the effort into writing well in school, which means they never tried hard enough to make it come naturally. Now, their way of being an independent adult is saying f*** the teachers I can write the way I want when I'm not being graded.

There are certain aspects of what you might call "black culture" (I know, reductive) that contribute to the disproportionate crimes rates and even some of the poverty problems. Unfortunately, these are problems made by white people for enslaving, segregating, and discriminating against these people for the vast majority of their time spent in the USA. There are issues beyond getting them to make more money since we basically forced a huge group of people to live in and accept poverty, for sure, since not everyone can simply decide they want the WASP dream of college, car, house, wife, 2.5 kids when that isn't part of the culture they grew up in. I'm sure the most efficient way to fix this is still to get these folks higher paying jobs. I'm interested in some public housing research that has been done and I assume is still being implemented. Instead of housing projects, they do housing vouchers and try to focus on locating these poor folks in middle and higher income areas. In the research I've been privy to see, the children raised with public housing vouchers in middle or high income areas have had much better rates of behavior, academic success, and other important factors. Interestingly, the parents didn't have any significant improvements in terms of crime rates, income, etc between those placed in low-income vs middle and higher. In other words, it is important to raise at-risk children in such a way that they are exposed to more successful role models. Once they get older, it gets much trickier. So this will be a slow process but a big first step beyond a policy focus on ending poverty is ending segregation. This has been mentioned on here before, but Chicago is a perfect example. It is extremely segregated and we are at a point where the people in bad parts of Chicago are raised too far removed from the great parts to see a legitimate way out.

There are reasons to inquire and be skeptical of GMOs, but you can't deny the utility of crops that are less likely to die and produce more food. This type of innovation will certainly extend the amount of time man can spend on Earth.