StrangeSox

Yeah, we don't actually know that Kromer has confronted Jay this directly in private previously. If he hadn't, doing it anonymously through the media is pretty crappy.

Jenks I can't tell what do you think of Jay Cutler?

A look into the accuracy of ESPN's points projects http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-accurat...ions-1669439884

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 12:19 PM) Upon hearing this news I thought (1) Why the f*** apologize for telling the truth? (2) Why out yourself when no one would have found out. (3) He's looking to get fired and out of Dodge as fast as possible. That's not exactly a strong way to start off the interviewing process.

bunch of cool SR-71 photos here: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/rare-high-defini...bird-1670184930

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) If you are gonna fire the whole cavalry, is there any benefit to doing it now instead of waiting until December 28 at 3:01 PM? You have to play these 3 games no matter what, somebody's gotta coach them. It's not like you will hire anybody before the regular season ends. (Unless you go the CFL route ) Since you can be pretty sure that you don't want to just have Kromer do it as an interim to see if he'd be worth keeping around, I don't know who'd they could even have stick around that would be worthwhile. Maybe a position coach?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 06:43 AM) I'm looking at it from the standpoint that the President and the Senate Budget Committee chair signed off on this bill, knowing full well that it would take some House Democratic yes votes to overcome the House Republican no votes. It would have been a failure of the Democratic Party not to get those votes. You can't honestly say that the House Democrats don't have some responsibility to help pass the bill, knowing full well that any bill that could pass the House without any Democratic votes would be a bill that you would find even more objectionable than this one. In any case, the bill has now passed the House, so it's now in the hands of the Senate. This is why it's more fun not to affiliate with either party--I can be on the right side of the argument in both 2013 and 2014. Well that's why it's silly to say that it'd be the Democrats' fault if the bill had failed. At worst, it'd equally be caused by the Democrats who didn't want Dodd-Frank changed and the Republicans who wouldn't vote for a bill without immigration changes.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 06:00 AM) The party with the minority in the House has to help approve the bill because not enough Republicans will vote for it edit: the most you can say is that enough members of both parties needed to compromise and pass this bill. Trying to lay the blame solely at the feet of the minority party in the house of Congress that does not have a filibuster is just silly, though.

That was only true for a grand total of about 60 days when they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The house has no filibuster and thus the republicans can pass whatever they want on a straight party line vote.

Lol, trying to blame it on the minority democrats in the house. Republicans don't need a single democrat to vote yes to pass this in the house.

This study and the previous study used different definitions for what counts as sexual assault, so that probably accounts for a majority of the difference.

That's good news if that study is accurate. Disheartening that 80% of college and 62% of non-college sexual assault crimes go unreported, though.

what? edit: and her friends still maintain that something had obviously happened to her:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Just never saw you pointing them out when the Democrats were crafting them is all. This bill is the result of the current Congress, which has a Democratic Senate and a Republican House.

For whatever it's worth, her real name was outed and it actually is Jackie.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 08:05 AM) And we should. Yeah, I am sure we can all find things we don't like in any budget bill. I don't see what's wrong with pointing some of those out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...-to/?tid=pm_pop sigh ugh I'm sure both my dad and HH will be out spending lavishly now! How. How is this still a thing. This sounds horrible. Republicans seem to actively hate nature.

Jenks, you also didn't explain why who the CIA was torturing matters.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 05:07 PM) Um, because you die painfully and definitively, whereas with rectal feeding you probably won't? I'm gonna go with life 99% of the time. That 1% of the time is probably when you're being tortured, sometimes to death.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:32 PM) Because members of the Taliban who capture American soldiers wouldn't do worse things? "America: Not Quite as Barbaric as the Taliban!" Actually that's exactly what your first sentence does. It's at least a partial justification or excuse for torture. I'm not sure what sort of perspective would ever cause me to lose my moral revulsion to torture, but okay. This causes us to torture people or makes it okay because? Why is it any more acceptable to torture a bunch of 'randoms' as opposed to foreign military? A smidge, that's about it. Death would probably actually be preferable to some of the prolonged torture that some of these people were exposed to. Some of it actually resulted in death, anyway. And there were numerous other horrific acts than "just" a solid week of sleep deprivation (which will literally drive you crazy) and forced rectal feeding (seriously, wtf). And not that it should matter anyway, but some of these people hadn't actually done a damn thing. They were picked up because somebody else the CIA was torturing gave them their name.

It's not "by mail" but I play Mafia occasionally on some other forums (and a few times in person in college)

yeah I'm trying to say it in my head but I'm not sure, and now I'll probably be conscious of it next time I say it out loud.

People often pronounce often "offen"

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) That stat is also a very incomplete way to look at the impact of a manager. Pythagorean W-L has value as a stat, but I feel like it's way to simplistic to say that the manager is purely responsible for whether a team over or under-achieved based on how many runs they scored and gave up. There's also margin of error when calculating pythag W-L. Wikipedia says the latest formula has a root-mean-square-error of 3.99. So the pythag W-L might be calculated as 90-72, but you could think of it more as predicting a team record somewhere between 86-76 and 94-68 (this is probably not the 100% accurate way of describing the detailed statistics but it at least gives a 'feel' for how accurate a prediction might be). Trying to say a team over- or under-performed their pythag is tricky enough, and trying to tie it to a single variable like "manager" is just ridiculous.

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Consider that based on "that stat" Joe Maddon isn't listed in either top-5 but Rick Renteria is... "I’ll be ranking Managers by the difference between their team’s Pythagorean wins and actual wins." I've never liked that method.