Texsox

Are you using any calorie counting programs? I'm down about 25 pounds from 9 months ago. I've stalled a little bit, but getting back on track. The myfitnesspal app worked for me.

I tried the delayed open feature, but must have goofed somewhere in the set-up. Yes, but, I've been watching the Truman Show with my classes. If I don't see you . . .

Cocktails anyone?

So what's for lunch?

And for those grumpy people out there; since morning ends at noon, this will close at the appropriate time in the central time zone.

I just thought I'd wish everyone a good morning.

I watched the play about ten times and the hit doesn't seem that hard. (still wrong, but from some of the comments I was reading elsewhere I expected a flagrant cheap shot) But if you look at his left skate he seems to lose his balance just enough. Landing into the boards like that meant his left side took a much bigger hit than if he was in open ice. Dammit

Good five minute read. Thanks for posting. He seems like a good candidate for coaching.

^^x2^^ Stealing is nice, but chicks dig the long ball

I thought someone dug up an old thread

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 11:32 AM) He's a Christian. He's also an extremist/psychotic one with a warped and distorted understanding of Christian ideology. Not sure why this is so complicated. Obama isn't forced to label ISIS members broadly as just Muslims. He can say they're extremists, terrorists, etc. And you're still not getting it. I want Obama to state the facts regarding their motive. E.g., like today, ISIS kidnapped 90-100 Assyrian Christians. It wasn't a "random" kidnapping. It was clearly deliberate. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/...N0LS0MH20150224 It's complicated because you treat religion like race or nationality, something that you are born with and can't change. I don't believe that. People are lead into religions all the time, and away from them. Christians convert to Judaism, Jews accept Jesus, and as we have seen, some people move from Muslim, to something not Muslim. Religion is a belief and when you stop believing in that religion, you stop being that religion. That doesn't seem complicated to me. When you distort a religion to the point you no longer believe in the mainline principles of that religion, you should not be labeled with that religion. And once again I ask, how will Obama stating the facts as you believe them help to stop the growth of terrorism? That should be the goal. Stopping this stuff. I've stated why some people believe that by carefully not insulting mainstream Muslims for the acts by those who have distorted the religion into something else that helps to stop the some of the fringe Muslims from becoming radicalized. Keep it simple for me, what is your counter argument? Also, by your definition there are no random crimes. The Colorado theater shooting wasn't random, he planned it. The Oklahoma bombing wasn't random, he planned it. You get killed in a drive by in Arlington Heights, not random because someone planned it. Other people see randomness in those crimes. They view non random crimes when someone targets a specific victim. If the Colorado shooter went into the theater to kill that b**** usher who made him turn off his cell phone, not random. If the OK Bomber wanted to kill those children who walked across his lawn, not random. If a murderer wakes up this morning and decides to kill the first person he sees who isn't wearing gloves, is that random or not? Your argument is that is not a random crime, it was planned out and he selected a victim based on a criteria. There probably needs to be a better word than deliberate or random. I agree random is not exactly what it was, but the specific persons were not picked out. Anyone fitting that description could have been killed that day. So these guys killed any random person who looked like they believe in Christ. Oddly, the terrorists seem to have a way of knowing who has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior when abducting them. As a Christian yourself, you certainly see the differences that other people see? You might not accept them, but at least you see where people seethe randomness in finding people on the street, thinking they are Christian, and kidnapping them.

Too subtle?

FWIW

So he is still a Christian, then would you say that Christians are committing those crimes? If you decide that God is telling you to kill all non Christians, is that considered a Christian act? If someone seeks revenge and kills in cold blood a murder and justifies it as an eye for an eye, are they doing it because they are a Christian or they are evil/mentally ill/ etc.? And if he did make the statements as you want, how will that help end terrorism? The argument against is it causes some Muslims to fee, offended by the US and radicalizes more of them. Even if that is not true, how will saying that Muslims are using terrorism against non Muslims going to stop the violence?

Anyone know off the top of their heads who has done it before? I guess I never really noticed a team stacking relievers.

That just doesn't seem right to me. If Gacy said he killed all those boys because it is the Christian thing to do and he's a Christian, we'd call it a Christian killing? When you have a billion people on one side and a thousands on the other, it just doesn't compute with me. I still like Bush's message, we are against evil, not Islam. That has carried forward to Obama. I don't know, but we've probably have nothing left to explore with the topic. In the end it is the action we can take that will mean more than the rhetoric that surrounds it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 11:34 AM) They ARE Muslim. No matter how far they distort and twist the religion?

There is a fine line between getting maximum value from a pitcher and overwork. Plus, not all innings are equal depending on weather, how you feel that day, your body doesn't heal from the previous outing at a consistent rate . . . There are ridiculous amounts of innings that Sale could pitch, 220 may be the upper number, but so to is a lower number. Having him pitch only 125 because you are "saving" him is equally ridiculous. I tend to agree with Balta that there should be a concern, and I am certain there is. But if the starting point of planning the rotation is how often can we rest Sale, we're doomed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 09:53 PM) Well, one thing they also will deal is get you to agree to certain financing terms that are worse than what a bank actually qualified you for, and then keep the difference. How that is legal, I have no idea. Commission for them. On the other side, I accepted a $500 rebate for financing with Ford, then two days later moved the loan to USAA at 1/3rd the interest rate never paying any interest to Ford.

I'm wondering why we are so easily lead by political parties and special interest groups. It seems like this is a more recent phenomenon I believe is being brought about by media and especially out social media activities. Obviously in the political realm both parties formulate strategies to have voters vote for them. They bolster that through various avenues. It starts with a concentrated point where all the party leaders are on the same page and making the same attack. Quickly the party faithful pick up the theme and keep repeating it. We accept it faster than an add for a commercial product. Or a special interest group has a self serving idea they want to make public policy. The create a good story, find a couple scary scenarios, and again we jump on it like it was the public's idea. Are we really thinking for ourselves or finding the best story and going with it?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) If my manager continually gave canned bulls*** answers like that, I'd lose a hell of a lot of respect very quickly. Really? Popovich seems to have made that work for him. I'm more interested in what the manager is doing and what is happening on the field. Some people do like the Ozzie style press parties.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 03:10 PM) The responses don't have to be exactly the same, but when it comes to expressing to the American people and world your disgust/condemnation, I don't see why leaving out motive when it comes to terrorists is a bad thing. Everyone knows they're a religious based group even if it's a distorted and twisted version of one. Hell, express that in the same statement as you explain how the targets were not random but intended based on religious beliefs. It'd be one thing if we didn't know who committed the crimes or why and were just guessing that it must have been wacko Muslims. But that's not the case here. And it's not a legal case. There are no sides. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that these acts were terrible and should not have happened. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that targeting people based on their skin color, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. is terrible. Couching the response is unnecessary when everyone is on the same side. This I mostly agree with. Have you considered that once something is so distorted and twisted it ceases to remain something? Even if the President's statements contain the words distorted and twisted the American people hear "these people are distorting and twisting the Muslim religion to meet their own agenda". Perhaps that is a reason why not to label them Muslim or paint this as a Muslim against all others battle. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world and a very tiny percentage distort and twist their religion to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Adding that label to the terrorist description fuels anti-Muslim sentiment around the globe and fuels the anti-American fire. It's along the same lines as why I dislike hate crime laws. Who cares why, it happened and needs to be dealt with. If you want continuity between these two crimes I'd rather drop the motive from the domestic matters. Cops are killing people, perhaps unnecessarily in cases. That should be enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) David Lennon ‏@DPLennon 2h2 hours ago Re: A-Rod return - Girardi said he doesn’t know what it’s like to be on PEDs, so doesn’t know what it’s like to be off them. #yankees Take your head out of your ass and look around Girardi

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 11:56 AM) They both involve hate crimes and race or religion, something that we don't condone in either situation. Our response should be the same - world, these targeted attacks are not acceptable and we condone them. No one should be targeted for who they are, what they look like or who they pray to. Obviously we disagree that the response should be the same. I believe every situation is unique, even two different shootings here, or two different terrorist events. I think a "we always do this when this happens" is a poor policy. Would you apply the same strategy to every criminal case you take on? Always have the same opening? I believe each situation should be evaluated for the best possible solution. That doesn't seem to fit with a process that starts with -- well we have to do this because we always do that -- no matter if we think it will help or not. Now if you want to debate if the approach being used is the best possible approach we are probably closer in agreement than disagreement. If your point is our approach on domestic hate crimes is working and we should also apply it to international terrorism, that's a different debate. If neither approach is working, why should we duplicate it?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 03:28 PM) I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous. Having two different strategies in dealing with international terrorism and domestic issues is ludicrous? I would think that treating each and every issue in the same manner no matter the circumstances would be ludicrous. Different people involved, different solutions available, citizens versus terrorist groups, etc all seem to lead to a different handling.