StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) Response time of 2 minutes is not realistic. Who cares, he shot a woman in the head for knocking on his door. And a couple of months back, we had a police office shoot another young black man to death who was running to him for help after crashing his car.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Again, who has [rationally] said this? Lots of people have said this because this country has a substantial amount of racist s***heads in it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) Yikes. Though there is this: I'd imagine a judge knows sentencing laws better than AL.com. If those were really his choices then I can't blame him. 20 years without parole is pretty harsh. But if that's the case, change the law. Community service/probation is pretty terrible. Raping a 14 year old is pretty harsh. I also didn't see anything that says the judge had to give him the length he did as a mandatory minimum. There's also this awfulness at the end of the article: How are these people judges. What the hell. A similar case happened in Britain earlier this year, too. Rape victims get f***ed by the courts all over the world.

Rivers vs. KC or RGIII vs. SF?

this is awful http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/1...raping-teenager In related news, Alabama currently jails 49 people for life without parole for nonviolent drug offenses. Best Justice System In The World!

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 11:08 PM) It was the right call as the ball was under thrown. The defender contacted Gronk but did not impede his path to the ball. It was essentially uncatchable which is why they came together and waved it off. It was a bad pass and brady was fishing for a call. Also the 13% trestman was talking about stands throughout the whole series. In the end the odds are they will not score there. The bend but don't break philosophy. That 13% definitely doesn't stand throughout the drive. If you've got first and goal from the one yard line, your chances of sliding aren't going to be determined by where you started the drive at.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:23 PM) His explanation doesn't make any sense. The whole 13% is out the window at that point, it makes no difference where the drive started. If he actually thinks it makes a difference and we're reading it correctly, he's pretty stupid. You're wanting to save time there no matter how they score. You really need it if they scored a td because there aren't any outs like there are if they got a fg. My take was that you needed to really protect yourself against the td there. Well, if he's right that they'd only have 18 seconds (versus 10 or 7 or whatever) while giving the ravens the ability to change their packages and call a wider variety of plays, it makes sense. I just don't know if he's right about the time that'd be left.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) He knew that. He's basically just explaining what his beginning state of mind was, which is that there was no expectation of them scoring a TD. By the time that seemed to be a possibility to him, he explained the other things that affected his decisionmaking. I don't think it's clear, but this line makes me think he was still sticking with the "13%" thing even when they were in the red zone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) Additionally, the 13 % thing really annoys me. I LOVE that he is aware of that data, but I certainly hope he understands that those percentages are constantly changing with each play. It is a misuse of the data to not change your strategy based on events occurring within the drive, rather than to act as if the drive simply operates within a vacuum of a 13% success rate. Yup, the percentage might be 13% when they're at their own 16 to start the drive, but that probability will change with each and every play.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) And here I thought he was going to argue that by not calling time outs it potentially limited the Ravens play calling because they had to worry about time running out. Odd explanation.

I can't even imagine how awful that feels.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) Had more favorable match ups with rbs who haven't screwed me all year. more favorable than [any RB in the NFL] vs. the Bears?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) sigh, sat rice for first time. Didn't want to root for him. you had to know that was a bad idea.

everyone looks like they're a step slower

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 01:01 PM) Being fully honest, I never bought the reason he stated as why he stepped away. I still think there was either more to the residency thing, or something else was going to get out on him. I'm sure his paycheck is substantially larger.

Nah. I have good, affordable health insurance and have my entire life. But I'd still love an actually-socialized health insurance system, even if it meant my personal taxes went up. That would apply to my views on the whole range of social welfare programs.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 14, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) And push the Soviets over the cliff in the process. Taken together, that may have been the best thing he did as President. But it is really not a "conservative" method, since he was spending a ton of government money. Furthermore, he also dramatically increased spending on roads and infrastructure, as well as block grants to the states. He did a bunch of things that are often characterized as liberal policies. Reagan didn't kill the ussr. He also had some really awful foreign policy in Latin America, plus the whole "ignore aids" thing. He was pretty terrible.

It's not so much anger as "lol how does this man still have a job at a major newspaper writing his opinion?" There are multiple things wrong with it. First is that the rest of the article is really just boring, generic conventional wisdom. Second is starting off the paragraph by saying "this group isn't racist" and then saying a few sentences later that they need to suppress a gag reflex if they see an interracial couple. That's about as basic as racism gets. Third is that ascribing that view to "conventional" does an awful lot of work. Opposition to interracial marriage is somewhere in the 15-18% range, so it's really not the "conventional" conservative view. His article several months back on Trayvon Martin and the "uniform" had some similar language that seemed to be sneaking in his own personal views as "conventional" or common. Then when you combine it with his pretty long history of writing terrible things when it comes to race (just last week he was shocked, shocked! to learn that slavery wasn't a generally benevolent institution), you really have to wonder why this person gets paid and has been paid for decades to write his opinion. I think Alex Pareene over at Slate covered it pretty well: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/12/richard_co...please_fire_me/

Inevitable, maybe, but not necessary.

Cohen wasn't talking about gay marriage, but about interracial marriage.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 08:14 AM) Some of you guys should really read Woodward's books, or other pieces on the Iraq war. First, if Daddy was a factor for W, it wasn't the way you think. HW made a point of staying out of things, and the one time he talked to his son about it, he warned him off of it. Second, I think it is pretty obvious at this point that the thought process that got the Iraq war machine going: 1. Wasn't Bush - it was the people who convinced him (RUmsfeld, Cheney and others) who got things going. 2. Was founded on neo-con thinking for sure, but more specifically, there was a belief that if you could turn a middle eastern country into a shining democracy, you could both bring the war to you AND cause a wave of democracy that would consume the region and make everything OK. I really see no evidence it was "avenge Daddy" or anything of the sort. But I would say that the general thinking in point 2 above certainly does have racist undertones. Basically, we can "fix" you by making you more American. Sure sounds like he surrounded himself with incompetent people...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) You didn't get digital copies of everything? That was a must for us. Make sure you back that up as well. I just lost almost all of my photos from about 2004 until 2011 due to a hard drive failure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 08:35 AM) Richard Cohen didn't realize slavery was all that bad until someone made a movie about it: How is it even possible for someone to live in 2013 as a political opinion writer who;s been in the industry for decades and is at one of the most prominent papers in the country to not realize the horror and brutality of slavery? And Cohen's supposedly one of the liberals at WaPo. It's not like 12 Years A Slave is even the first movie to depict the awfulness of slavery. http://wonkette.com/533655/terrible-column...ally-really-bad So is Cohen trying to get himself fired or? http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/1...l_marriage.html

Obama announced his campaign in January of 2007 iirc. Hillary was sunk by hiring that idiot Mark Penn and of course the Iraq war vote. I don't really see anything comparable for her at this point, and I don't really see any strong up-and-comers. I'd definitely back Warren but I don't know that she could hold up in a national campaign. She isn't a natural politician. Who knows on the republican side. Probably Christie, but he'll have a tough time in the primaries.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) Oh let me get the handkerchief out for you two whiners. boo f***ing hoo....l "Stop pointing out how transparently bad my argument is!"