StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 24, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) The date is clearly 3 years off. 2008 is now 200B, in honor of Barack.

The date looks like 2008 or 2013. Or 200B.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 24, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) Well, I wasn't going to bother, but since others brought up Fox, this long essay in NY magazine on Roger Ailes and how he runs that network as a conservative arm should prove good reading for those who haven't read it yet. They've wholly convinced themselves that their fabricated narratives are reality.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...ar=2011&t=b

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) My realistic expectations are 80 HR's and 2.000 OPS. 50 WAR, minium. And I was just wondering where to go for lunch I still stick by my predictions. And I still might go to Portillo's for lunch.

I'll be content with my first-gen nook until they develop color e-ink.

An interesting article about Republican orthodoxy, its relationship to reality and the shifting of the Overton Window. I hadn't realized that Ryan's Budget, which is hailed as a start to a "serious, honest conversation" about the budget, projects government spending to be 3% of GDP. lol.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 23, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) Which doesn't lead to many jobs. From the sounds of it, if you are on linked in, youll get a million job offers...at least that's what they made it sound like above...only the job market completely sucks right now, so you two must be very marketable. Either that or they're the typical recruitment calls where they want you to take jobs you have no interest in. I've been linked in for years, it's a fine site...it's not better than competing job search sites, either...and it's still not worth what some of you appear to think it is, and if you truly believe it is, then buy it. I have no idea or opinion of LinkedIn's worth.

In Brown v Plata today, the SCOTUS upheld a federal order for California to release up to 46,000 inmates due to 8th amendment violations caused by severe over-crowding. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf Scalia, in a blistering dissent, indulged in a surprising amount of post-modern subjectivism. He also blatantly called for judicial activism and an abandonment of his originalist facade, instead advocating making the law fit a priori "common sense" outcomes. Alito with an awesome fire-and-brimstone ending in his separate dissent:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) Good, I hope it gets warm and stays warm.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 23, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) But it has value in job searching beside just looking for job openings. recruiters/staffing firms dig through it I'm sure.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:47 PM) Curious if you'd be as nonchalant about this issue if he used derogatory words typically used against Hispanics. $100K fine seems a bit much. What does the NBA do with that money? Donate it to a GLBT charity?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) So, regarding the Noah incident, I think it's a bunch of bulls*** honestly. I don't approve of what he said, but at the same time it's a bit unfair for something like that to happen and the NBA to OK (if not mandate) the videotaping of guys in that situation. Noah gets heated on the court, comes to the bench, someone says something and the camera is on him the whole time. If the NBA was really worried about its' role models saying bad things, guess what, stop filming them in that situation. He said that to a fan. Regardless of it getting videotaped, that's not something that he should do and it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

how the f*** was that not a foul?

Hahahaha oh man, those are some awesome burns he gets on those kids.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) I'm still lost. He didn't say "Was it "For" Barney Frank, he said "was it Barney Frank". The only 2 nouns in that tweet that I can figure out that the pronoun "it" 2k5 wrote could refer to are the song or Newt. I can't see how asking if "it" is Barney Frank makes sense referring to either of those. really? "was it Barney Frank [calling]"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) That Newt Gingrich is actually Barney Frank in disguise? No, that Newt had his ringtone sent to Dancing Queen for Frank, because Frank is gay.

He was correct, amazing game.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 20, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Do you stay in hotels for work? If you have bands I can possibly post a great travel workout from One on One with Tony Horton. Yeah, and I try to keep up the routine on the road with the bands. But when I've got a 6AM flight, then drive straight to the plant and don't get back to the hotel until 8 or 9 at night, it's a little hard to get motivated for an hour+ (with abX) workout.

QUOTE (greasywheels121 @ May 20, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) I've been doing this 1,000 push-ups/week challenge with a couple guys from work, in addition to my normal workouts. Last week was the first go at it, and this week I'm at 1,200 right now--doing a variation of different arm widths, leg height/angles, etc. It's a fun challenge, and I love the simplicity of the work-out--being that it can be done anywhere at anytime throughout the day. QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 20, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Add squats and lunges to that bad boy. Ow. Fell about two weeks behind on P90X thanks to vacation and work travel, but still sticking with it. Just finished up week 5.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) The smell of pot isn't probable cause that people are using an illegal drug in the apartment? You're ignoring this key piece to the puzzle. They couldn't possibly claim that they believed "evidence" was being destroyed, and thus fit themselves into this exigent circumstance exception to warrants, if there wasn't probable cause to suspect illegal behavior. Edit: and this is why the dealer is important, because that supports their contention that a known drug dealer was getting rid of evidence. None of that matters since the SCOTUS wasn't ruling on whether there really were exigent circumstances, as Soxbadger points out. It's strictly about the exception to the exception tests. The test the court laid out makes it easier to justify warrantless searches in exigent circumstances, even if those circumstances are created by the police. Also, at least in Indiana, you no longer have the right to resist an unlawful entry by the police. I understand that from a practicality standpoint, but from an ethical(?) one that's pretty terrible.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) Thats why the case is nonsense, it really never got to the heart of the issue, were there exigent circumstances. To make things practical, if the police smell marijuana coming from your apartment/house/whatever they knock on the door and hear you flushing the toilet violently, it might be exigent circumstances. Conversely they knock on your door, you answer the door, and say that they have to get a warrant, maybe its not exigent circumstances. But that is for the trier of fact to decide on a case by case basis, KY''s ruling was a little lazy and I think the Supreme Court wanted to clarify. Either the ruling or the Commonwealth brief clearly said that, had the occupants denied them entrance, it would have been within their 4th amendment rights. I've no doubt they still would have broken the door down and entered, but maybe the rulings would be different in that case. edit: they also didn't hear any toilets flushing, just people moving around. Hell, one guy was still smoking on the couch. If that's the bar for exigency...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) They only ruled that WHEN an exigent circumstance exists a warrantless search is not against the 4th amendment. But there's always been an exception to that exception if the police themselves create the circumstance. The ruling outlined the test for that, which overrode several State-developed tests and ultimately makes it more difficult to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. My first post was a little too hyperbolic, this wasn't some huge, drastic gutting of the 4th. Just another step in weakening it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) So...there is a plane with one of those giant banners orbiting Knoxville right now. I was surprised, because the university is out, so half the buildings here are empty. Looked up...and what is it advertising for? Why, the fact that May 21 is Judgement day. Seriously? It has to cost what, a few thousand dollars to print up a 20 yard long banner, rent a plane, pay the runway fees and registration, then fly it behind the plane orbiting around a small city for an hour. right? Now I'm not a religious person, but from what I do know of Christianity, if you genuinely thought the world was going to end tomorrow, and you wanted to do something with money beforehand...would you blow it on a stupid plane? Or maybe, would you do something like go to the churches and homeless shelters in the area and decide that you were going to make sure that no child in Knox county went to sleep hungry tonight? Which of those would Jesus do? It's based on a bunch of bizarre numerology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...ehin-2011-05-19 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) FWIW, I think saving souls>feeding people. Yeah, that's a problem underlying a lot of missionary work.