iamshack

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 10:05 PM) Am I the only one that views her forehead as behemoth?!?! LOL I guess that's what just ruins her for me ...I'm trying my hardest to get use to it though! Some might see that as a good quality of hers...

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) Stop stereo-typing women. Though she is on another level of a b**** that is deemed illegal. Andy Roddick is still a lucky bastard. Hah, I know, I couldn't resist. I was onnnlllllyyyyy kiddddddiiinnnnngggggg

Have any of you guys ever seen the movie Convoy? I'm most of you are too young (it's from 1978), but it was on last night and I watched it at work. First time I've seen it in years. They just don't make movies like that anymore...

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 10:25 PM) Shes nice to look at. Supposedly when the cameras/lights aren't on her though, she is a real b****. As opposed to other women?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 10:24 PM) As compared to the current #1 being bestowed on Russell Brand? Hah, fair point. This is why I don't bring god into this...

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 10:16 PM) As Bill Simmons said tonight, and on the 7th day, God created Brooklyn Decker If such is the case, and he chose to bestow her upon Andy Roddick, I'm more concerned than I was before...

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 09:09 PM) I'd like to nominate Brooklyn Decker as #1. All in favor? I agree! Stop trying to make us pick just one....I refuse to allow myself to be limited in such a way...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) Yes. And? Just making the distinction clear.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 08:31 PM) So? I'm not a party idealouge, unlike some. At what point does the government intervention stop? Oh, I know... when everyone has equal pay, equal housing, equal health care, equal cars, equal number of gallons in the toilet boil, equal CFC lights in their houses, equal food, equal rights (oh, wait a minute... our government doesn't give a s*** about that unless it benefits them...) I'm just pointing out that you can't blame this one on either the left or the right. This is has to do with our government getting into bed with the food industry and causing a huge mess that they are now refusing to admit they were entirely wrong about in the first place. And you guys can say that we can just choose not to eat fast foods and everything will be wonderful. But the fact is that the very vast majority of our food supply is a bunch of processed artificial crap that is making us all chronically ill in the long run.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) As for Starved Rock, I'd do hiking instead of biking, because the cool stuff to see, you won't really see on the bike. Take the hiking paths that go do some of the waterfalls and pools, its pretty cool. As far as parks and wilderness areas outside Illinois, jeez, there are so many cool ones to see. Tell me what you find interesting and I'll give you some ideas. I've done backcountry hikes and backpacking all over the west. NSS, have you seen Ken Burns series on the topic?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) Best scene on TV all summer is Brooklyn Decker at the ESPYs. Oh goodness...I can't even bother to look at her...it just makes me depressed...

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 06:26 PM) Really, it boggles my mind that you think the government should force people to be capable of any effort by giving these same people who exert no effort whatsoever to become anything more then some schmuck with their hand held out. There's a difference between assistance and a nanny welfare state, and the nanny welfare state is obviously what you believe in, and it's disgusting. The ironic part of this is that it was Nixon was the one who set this whole mess in motion with his programs to subsidize crops in an effort to lower food prices.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) I do not believe I ever implied that women are evil ..they are competitive. You don't have to believe me, i do not care one way or the other, but perhaps you should consider that those other women would rather people didn't know the whole, ridiculous truth in that it is all just a bunch of jealousy based nonsense. They, too, like you men, are trying to think too hard about this ...I'm telling you, all that I said is the truth, no matter how absurd you may think it is. I am female, I have 3 sisters and have been through PLENTY of female friends ..none of them would argue with anything I said. Furthermore, I doubt highly that any of the 25 other women to which you are referring, in a one on one conversation with you alone, would argue either!! A woman you do not know who sees you in conversation with a good looking woman, might be intrigued and decide to get to know you ...but more than likely, if you're not a good looking man initially, it's not going to do you any good!! I cannot speak for all women I suppose, but for myself, if I am not attracted to you and you are conversing/dancing with a beautiful woman, I would just think she has bad taste or low self esteem!! I think we are talking about two different scenarios here. I absolutely agree with you that if I have a history with a particular woman, and another woman shows interest, the woman I have a history with will become territorial and/or jealous. It's just human nature for men and women to become somewhat territorial with those they have had a history with. This is why most women and men have a difficult time remaining close friends if they have a history together. What I thought Reddy was trying to say is that a woman can be utilized by a man to help attract a woman he has not yet met or has no history with. It's a pretty well-accepted principle that we attribute value to people or things that our peers attribute value to. It's called anchoring. If a woman sees a man in the company of other women she sees as similar or even prettier/more intelligent/wealthy/etc., she will attribute value to him because her peers have (unless of course she believes he is gay). No hard feelings, I think we were just arguing different points.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:36 AM) Which bars do you recommend in Vegas? The wife and I will be there for a weekend in September. I've always liked Ghostbar. Sqwert, Where are you staying? You can pretty much find the same 4-5 different concepts in every casino, just with a slightly different spin depending on the theme and price-point of the particular casino. I don't go out to the places in the casinos that often simply because it's not really feasible to spend cash like a tourist when you're a local. But I have been out and around enough entertaining friends and what not to have a pretty basic idea of what's out there. Let me know what part of the Strip you'll be staying on and what kind of plans you and your wife have and I will be happy to give you some recommendations.

I swear by The Local when I am in downtown Minny.

Either way, you can bet the Braves wish they had chosen to keep Elvis Andrus and send Escobar to Texas a few years back...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) We are discussing multiple things. Clearly two different things.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 05:03 PM) I learned this in college, and I wish I had learned it much earlier. There was a girl I was hanging out with a lot and obviously trying to, well, nail. She was sending way too many mixed signals, so it confused the hell out of me. One night while a bunch of us were out, we ran into another female friend of mine. We got to dancing and talking (and there was no effort to get with her, and really no chance because we honestly were just friends). It got the original girl extremely jealous and I ended up winning. But I thought we were talking about using a woman as a wingman with woman you do not know or have not yet met? No one is really a wingman when it comes to women you have already met or have a history with. That is called using another chick to make her jealous, not having a wing. I think you guys are veering off course here.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 10:22 AM) UUHHhh I love ya to pieces, but this is FALSE!!! It has nothing to do with what she realizes she might be missing that gets her interested in a guy another girl is talking to, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that women just don't like other women!! She sees a woman talking to a man that she knows is interested in her and wants that girl to know "hey, back off my s***!" lol ...she doesn't care to be with that guy, but she doesn't want him moving on to another woman. It's a sad and ridiculous reality, but it is, in fact, REALITY! Wedding rings are a red flag for me ..but a lot of women see them as a challenge! This can only be explained by the fact that ..well ...women are scallywags!! And that's the nicest way I can say it! LOL ..Chase DOES NOT wear a ring, even though he'd like to! As far as a woman being a great wing man is concerned, DO IT!! If you can find a girl who is willing and has good intentions, then you couldn't possibly have a better wing man. I have been the wing man more than once and I love it!! Uhh, I love you to pieces, but I'll trust the 25 other women who have told me this as opposed to your theory that women are just evil? Give me a break. That is the biggest bunch of horses*** I have ever heard. Yes, women who have been with you before, or who you have been interested in before and they have passed might feel that way. But women who you have not met yet or who you have no history with suddenly hate the woman you are talking to? That's nonsense.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 03:21 PM) D-Wade: Jerry Reinsdorf is not loyal. I want Miguel back, he was my favorite player when I was 10 because I went to a game, was hit by a foul ball and a rotund lady next to me stole it. Went to Grandstand after the game and got a hat and my dad introduced me to him when we ran into him. Miguel went over, bought a ball, and signed it and the hat for me. I was crushed when he was traded. And Miguel cried too, when we traded him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) Are you kidding? Have you bought groceries recently? Produce is incredibly cheap. You can spend 20 bucks and get a weeks full of produce pretty easily. It has nothing to do with the government. They're not forcing people to buy certain products. Lazy people choose to buy the convenient, pre-packaged products. It has nothing to do with the price. That person isn't hypothetical. It's a pretty good chunk of the welfare recipients I've seen and worked with. Got no job (or have a s***ty job), their food and housing is paid for, but they got cell phones and tv's and other "necessities" that get them through life. When are you going to address the point that the government has encouraged the public, through it's FDA recommendations, it's bs food pyramid, it's plethora of horses*** inaccurate studies, it's subsidization of the same 5 crops which now make up the ingredients for some ridiculous percentage of everything that is carried in our supermarkets to generally become a nation of unhealthy, chronically ill people? The sad thing is that it's been so ingrained into our being that people have no concept of what good health is. A few of you have likened the idea of not being fat to good health. As long as I am thin than I must be healthy! This is how idiotic we all have become. Gee, I wonder why our healthcare system is in shambles?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:26 AM) That's what I figured, and I kinda figure that if I ever have a youngin' I'm going to have to figure out how to afford a private school as well. Hard to imagine that any public school could go organic, or hell even consult the parents on lunches, when they have $2/person to play with. Is it not possible to pack your kid's lunch yourself anymore?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:07 AM) Except of course, there's the downside of being at Purdue. Maybe that's why they dress up in costumes...

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 12:59 AM) Its not McDonald's fault, or CocaCola, or the government. Its the parents and the individual's who choose to eat garbage over a proper diet. People who shove 1100 calorie super-sized meals into their yap with their diet coke of course, and then complain when they lose track of their feet because they can't see them anymore are missing who is to blame. Moderation in a diet is a wonderful thing. Hell some portion control with some common sense and maybe a tad of exercise would do people a lot of good. The worst thing however is that the current generation is preparing the next generation for failure. Happy meals, and sweets, and garbage are quick and easy and in the end people get into habit of just making their kids happy. We need to start from day one and influence our kids food selections. Kids learn from day one from their parents and their eating habits. If you are sitting on the couch shoving twinkies in your mouth guess what the kid wants to do. So if you incorporate fruits, vegetables, and lean meats with the proper portions from day one you should have a better success rate and healthier kids. Sure my kids like a happy meal, but the fact is we may go to a McDonalds once a month if at that. This is generally good advice, but the problem is, studies are showing that even if one eats what the government and their studies claim is a "healthy diet," this isn't necessarily leading to less chronic disease or illness. The long term health of people has not shown to really improve even by following what the government claims is a "balanced diet." That's because the government doesn't really understand what a healthy diet is. Nor do most of our stores provide the necessary foods to follow one.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 12:59 AM) I've got to hear this one. I don't see how the government has mislead me or most of my clients about the benefits of a poor diet and they aren't picking up the tab for eating either. Well, considering that the way people structure their eating habits is based on what the government's daily recommendations are, I think the government has been telling us how to eat for quite some time. Meanwhile, they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They've tried to deconstruct food and reconstruct it with only the properties they believe are the most positive ones. Unfortunately, they end up putting in artificial things that are worse than the natural things they removed. Additionally, only now are nutritionists starting to realize that foods have synergistic qualities that we don't have the capability to understand. Secondly, the government has been subsidizing certain crops that have proven to be the highest-yielding for 40 years in an effort to end poverty and make food less expensive. Unfortunately that means our agriculture is dominated by very few strains of very few crops using very few soil components all treated with the same pesticides. What this has done is indeed increased yields and brought down the costs of food. But it also means our foods are dominated by the same few strains of wheat and corn, and our produce the same few strains of the highest yielding fruits and vegetables. There is no variation. That is not healthy. We are not getting the variety of nutrients we should be. Additionally, our soil has been degraded to the point where our crops are not nearly as nutritionally dense as they once were. They are becoming almost as empty calories as the artificial crap we put on our shelves. How terrible is it that you can't even get the nutrients you need out of the produce that comes right out of the soil? And guess what? That soil is the same thing that the feed that we feed our livestock grows from. So then the livestock is fed a bunch of empty calories and develops into the meat that we eventually eat down the line, which is not as healthy as the meat our parents ate and their parents ate before them.