Jake

No reason to pass there, especially that stupid play with nobody short. How many times does it have to backfire before Tice quits calling deep drops?

We're filling the box and making the passing game really easy. That said, that bogus penalty set up their entire drive.

I have used an oral anabolic steroid. These were and in some cases are still available over the counter and account for a good deal of the "I tested positive from something at GNC" cases. The social stigma associated with steroids will prevent them from ever getting really widely used like you assert in the OP. There are all kinds of people at every level of sport (and even hobbyists, amateur bodybuilders) that just refuse to do it because they think they are immoral. The war on drugs has declared that injectable anabolic steroids are just as bad as drugs like heroin. This is a strong deterrent, even if it is completely asinine. I say they should be made legal and you would pay out of your pocket to use them with doctor supervision, just like you'd do if you wanted fake tits or whatever else you want to look better. Also, don't conflate HGH and steroids. Big difference.

When people pitch around you to get to Prince Fielder, you're having a pretty special year.

I'm still not giving s*** to Trout. Last year, in a close game, you KNEW Cabrera was going to beat you. You just had to hope and pray that when he got up, your lead isn't so small that he can chew it up with one swing. Trout had a great year, but it just wasn't what Cabrera did. Cabrera didn't win MVP because he won the Triple Crown, he won the Triple Crown because he had an all-time great season at the dish. Trout beats out Cabrera easily on defense, but it doesn't add enough value to overcome how much better of an offensive player Cabrera was. Trout just wasn't scary. He was pesky. A great hitter who was fast too -- awesome for him. Cabrera was f***ing scary. Like I've said before, Trout was arguably not the scariest hitter in his own lineup. Missing a month of the season counts a lot too. It makes it more impressive that he racked up those numbers, sure, but he wasn't helping his team all that time. It doesn't matter that it isn't his fault. Cabrera didn't miss anything, he was playing without a left foot for quite a while there. The Angels were only a few games away from the playoffs and Trout wasn't there early to win them those games.

When I turn my phone's alarm off: email, twitter, politico When I get on the computer: facebook, soxtalk, bodybuilding.com

People don't even moderate anymore We're all too civil End the oppressive swear word filters

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 18, 2012 -> 10:56 AM) Didn't Israel have a stance where they said they'd bomb everyone in their region if they ever got hit with a nuke? If so, anyone know the name of the policy? mutually assured destruction? only semi-joking

I'm on the Keppinger train. A guy that makes a lot of contact like him is something our lineup could use.

I'm interested in those that talk about how we're trending to a world in which no one needs to work. While we're far from that end, the need for human hands is certainly lessening as we get better at automating things.

This could wind up being a very big deal.

what

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) Increasing polarization of the Senate: Both sides have gotten more polarized, but moderate Republicans have pretty much disappeared. There a lot of reasons for that. I could send you a book about it, I spent a whole summer studying this phenomenon

My class (the middle) is already protected, provided I'm not gay (I'm not, sorry). The point isn't to make homosexuals and other alternative sexualities protected, but instead to boost their rights up to mine. They should be able to get married, not be discriminated against in hiring, etc Nashville TN recently passed a local law to prevent sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace and the state found a way to overturn it on a technicality. Just another reason civil rights issues aren't best left to the states. Even when a small group tries to do the right thing, another small group shuts it down.

If I'm the US, I'm going to economically f*** this country as much as I can

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Ugh Democrats are openly talking about raising the Medicare age as part of a "grand bargain" http://boldprogressives.org/democratic-sen...anced-and-fair/ Never mind that the CBO has studied this and found that it's impact would be negligible because you're cutting out the group that tends to be the healthiest. This would be terrible for most seniors. Those two sentences don't seem to pair well.

People read? In other nudes, should I get a Kindle for Christmas? iPad? Something else?

It's Miguel Cabrera. You reach a level of excellence at which the numbers simply don't tell the entire story. Miguel Cabrera was an absolutely fearsome player that changed the way everyone on the field approached the game. Trout had a great year, but compared to Miguel Cabrera I don't think he was feared at all. As a matter of fact, I don't think he was the most feared hitter in his lineup. Cabrera was so good that he'd burn you when you tried to walk him.

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 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.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 12:39 PM) Excuse my ignorance but are there really programs like that? That sounds like a cool idea, almost like reverse gentrification. My family and I have been displaced twice while living in Chicago, first while living in Roscoe Village, and second living in Logan Square, the property taxes skyrocketed to unrealistic amounts and we were forced to take whatever money they offered and run with it (to a lower income community). Yep, they haven't been mainstreamed yet but they've been successful according to current research. Most significant effects are in children, who are much less likely to end up in jail, drop out, etc

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Whatever success there has been has come at a price. Talk to people who lived in these neighborhoods before they were integrated and they rue that day. I need more elaboration. Are you talking about neighborhoods that have become completely low-income over time (like the one my mother was raised in) or is this just "When I see a black man, I see my property value dropping"

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 his main point was that there is a general movement towards the strengthening of federal government. This isn't authoritarianism or communism (which, by the way, is meant to be zero government) but rather reflective of our changing world. There are fewer and fewer things that only concern the local. This is why the Constitution had to settle the issue of every state having their own currency -- states' rights, woo!! No -- some things can't be left to the states to decide not because Illinois can't make decisions, but because 51 different decisions are not compatible in a world where even national boundaries are easily crossed. State and local governments play an integral role in implementing national policy and can still make decisions that it actually makes sense to make. Does my hometown, Pontiac, need to boost funding to fill in some potholes? Sure, we won't run that one by the President. In 1850, interstate travel was near crazy talk unless there was a very particular and important reason. Now, the federal government necessarily manages the interstate highway system because we cross state borders all the time and honestly, nobody outside of Texas really gives a s*** about what state they live in. The most irksome part of this is that states' rights arguments are almost always made in context of social regulations. We continually leave civil and human rights arguments to the states, like the rights of racial minorities, women, gays, etc. should really vary locally. Bulls***! Likewise, we have a complete clusterf*** with the marijuana issue now. Not only are we now allowing states to make decisions on this, we are letting them make decisions that directly contradict the federal law. In this case, we need to first remove the federal restriction and yield to the states. Further down the line, the federal government needs to make a decision on it once people are more comfortable with the idea. Unfortunately, given the current setup, the only legal thing the federal government can do is crack down on all these violators of federal law in the states. The system is s***. This also applies to all this BS like alcohol regulations -- in one state, kids can drink under parent supervision, in another you can have an open container in your car, in another you can't buy it on Sunday, somewhere else you can only sell certain types of alcohol in certain locations. That's stupid, there is no good reason for that to be different every place you go. Etc.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) I'd say that Pat Buchanan does adequately sum up why Republicans aren't getting the minority vote, just not in the way he intended. I agree. He makes the perfect argument as to why the Republicans are wrong on these issues -- and not just why they aren't getting votes. The premise of "equal opportunity" is that systematically disadvantaged groups, particularly immigrants and the group of people that we enslaved then segregated for 200 years, will get assistance from the system that oppressed them to rise out of being oppressed. They're not "takers," they just want a chance. When you have such huge portions of a race that are poor by the fault of your government, it is the responsibility of that government to help them and particularly to help them out of poverty. The vast majority of these people are willing to work to change their situation so getting preached at by the Republicans about how they are either "takers" or simply need to work hard and everything will be better doesn't resonate -- they DO try. I would even contest that we contribute to the culture of non-effort as well by providing so little to get these people out of poverty. If the school sucks, the neighborhood sucks, there is no money, no medical care, no positive influence at all...where is the impetus to hope? If you've never seen a successful person, you may be skeptical that it is possible to be one. This is why there has been measurable success in public housing initiatives that don't simply stuff a building/neighborhood with poor people and instead integrate poor into middle and higher income areas. Unfortunately, neither party will really address the war on drugs but the R party has become synonymous with it. When your dad or your brother or whomever you know is a fine human being is locked up or otherwise impeded due to what should be minor drug charges, you're probably going to vote for whoever will change that. More importantly, the fact that we're doing it is just yet another factor that puts roadblocks in the way of a successful generation of people and of course is another factor that leads to systematic racial disadvantage. Poor people tend to go to prison for drugs. We have made minority groups disproportionately poor. Now you have prison populations that hold more black men than we ever enslaved and an overall prison population that exceeds the height of Stalin's prison era. Not to mention all this s*** is a waste of money.

Take the Skyfall talk to the Films Thread