lostfan

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 08:59 PM) Stats with questionable methodology. They simply look at average conversion rates but don't incorporate actual in-game information such as the Lions lack of a first down in that half and that they had Shaun Hill at QB. It's a very superficial analysis and not anything close to a definitive answer. Or the fact that that is probably one of the weakest parts of Forte's game. At least use Taylor.

I told my stepdaughter that if my car is still in good condition when she is old enough to drive (in 3 years) then she can have mine and I will buy another but she has to find a way to pay for the increase I'll have on my car insurance. Get a job, do extra work around the house, something.

Yeah... I mean really if we are just talking about on-field performance, calling Manny a bum is like calling Frank Thomas a bum.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 04:33 PM) Did you see the Cowboys game when they ran a play with a few seconds left before the half? Yeah, Tashard Choice fumbled the ball and DeAngelo Hall scored a TD which ended up resulting a win. So don't give me that garbage. Stats show Lovie should've gone for it, he went for it, and he failed. It happens. Had the Lions scored a TD (and they came as close to it as you possibly can, actually scoring one and then having it taken away) it wouldn't have mattered. Unless the Bears also converted 2 after that in which case we are lowering the odds. They still had more than half a quarter to play, and the Bears did in fact score later which, had it happened when they had a 2-point lead instead of a 1-point deficit, would've effectively put the game out of reach for the Lions barring some crazy luck with an onside kick or a fluky turnover. The Bears went for 2 after their TD but they wouldn't have had to do that since they'd have already had the 3 points in the bag - the whole bird in the hand thing. I don't think this is being overly critical, nitpicky, or looking at things with hindsight. These are the kinds of decisions I expect Lovie to know he has to make automatically. Like not calling a timeout at the end of a playoff game to give your opponent one more shot to win the game.

Checking my credit report and I realized how close I am to finally paying off my car. Financing a car with no money down for 72 months wasn't the smartest thing I ever did. It's cool though, my car is still in pretty decent shape and doesn't have an inordinate amount of miles on it.

Eh I'm not defending it, but that is hardly the most offensive thing Rush has ever said. I mean, she IS pretty bootylicious isn't she?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:57 AM) Bulls***. The conservative party is just as diverse, but you all like to define conservatives as one crazy religious racist homophobic rich (though sometimes hillbilly) group. Again, you have fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, the hardcore right, etc - all different groups with diverse viewpoints. And while "liberals" might be more diverse, I dunno that it's THAT much more. I'll defer to Balta to find a study on that. But either way, it's not like Republicans are 99.9% white males over 40. No conservatives are not a bunch of crazy dumb racist rednecks (you don't have to keep repeating this btw, not everybody thinks that and personally if I did I wouldn't bother talking to any conservatives) but it's absolutely true that demographics for liberals are more diverse than conservatives. This is not a zero-sum thing we're talking about here, liberals having more women, minorities, and religions isn't saying that conservatives are all a bunch of s***-kicking, sister-f***ing Bible thumping racists. Of course there are black conservatives, Hispanic conservatives, non-Christians, a vast majority of whites who aren't racist, and so on. I guess the internet gives off certain perceptions, but it shouldn't really need to be affirmed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:20 AM) I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party. This happens regularly. lol. I spent about 30 seconds in a couple of Fox News comment sections. It was funny, and sad. I thought Salon readers were b****y, geez.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 11:32 PM) It's probably not that simple, but you're naive to think that the answer is some complex mystery. The democratic party does have a message - it's protect the little guy and let the government help you. That works for some people depending on circumstances, but not always. Most of the time the majority of the country doesn't like government, doesn't trust the government, and doesn't want the government telling them what to do. And you think the Republican party always has a unified message? Look at the "republicans" versus the "libertarians" versus the "tea party." I'd hardly call that a unified message. You make it sound like liberals have been a minority power during its history, with no strategy. It was the majority for a long, long time. They absolutely attempted the "status quo isn't good enough" mantra, what do you think the message was during the Bush years (and now)? Top 1% holds all the wealth, society has left you behind, wall street has failed you, blah blah. And there's 5 conservative pundits for every one of Maddow because, again, the message sells. They're the same people with different opinions. If those opinions resonated with the public, they'd be popular (see, the daily show, colbert report). I'd consider Obama's campaign "liberal," and he caught the attention of a lot of people, including moderates and republicans. Just because liberals haven't created a Reilly (who's really more moderate that people think) or Beck (who is creepy, no lie), doesn't mean that anyone who follows those guys are just morons like Rex thinks. I'm not saying it's some complex mystery. I don't think it's naive at all, just that there's a lot of different reasons going into it. If you picked 10 elected Democrats and asked them to list 3 goals they have in government you'll probably get all kinds of different answers but if you do the same for Republicans you'll probably see that they're remarkably consistent. Lower taxes, smaller government, personal liberty, etc. something off that list. You hear Boehner and McConnell talk on separate days and then you pick a random Republican off TV and they are saying the same thing. I see your point in the lack of cohesion sometimes and the different competing factions in the party (Tea Party rallies look disjointed sometimes when you have people conflicting each other) but I don't think that it's that significant. Democrats are just really, really bad at communicating their goals. Conservatives figured this out a long time ago, before I was born. The conservative message is much simpler and easier to follow IMO, it's spelled out in Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and so on. Sure, Krugman wrote "Conscience of a Liberal" but that hardly compares.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 09:26 PM) Jackson was great for a month, but he's seemed to have faded down the stretch as well. All I know is we're about 3 months away from all wishing that KW would have never made that trade to use the extra money to fill the huge holes on this team that are going to open up. Faded down the stretch? lol Fathom love you but you're talking out of your ass right now. Jackson had one bad start (the most recent one) and the one before that was "OK" (7.1 IP, 4 ER, 6K 1BB). If he has another bad start yeah I guess maybe you could say that but he's only had one. One.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 08:35 PM) Perhaps the obvious answer (bringing this back to the poster's question about why there isn't much of a liberal radio presence), is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the message isn't all that popular? The fact is there's very little difference between talking heads like Limbaugh/Hannity or Olbermann/Maddow other than the viewing numbers. They all give you the good zingers, they often interrupt people and pretend like they're the smartest person alive, they attack the other side and speak in ridiculous hyperbole (all to a varying degree, sure, but they all do it). The only difference at the end of the day is the message. Clearly we know your view on that - the fox news audience is just a bunch of morons. But maybe, MAYBE (i know, big stretch since conservatives are the racist, homophobic idiots), the liberal message isn't all that popular? That (gulp) even intelligent people don't care for it? Maybe? (also, I find it funny that 2 of the 5 news "sources" for liberals are comedy shows. If that doesn't scream irony i dunno what does) No. It's really not that simple, like I said you could write an entire book for all the different reasons. That's just fantasy thinking, and frankly kind of lazy actually. Really there is not necessarily a "liberal narrative" to oppose whatever conservatives might be talking about (it's really not a coincidence that all the different outlets are roughly talking about the same thing at any given time either) and there is not usually a unified message (see the Democratic Party). It's just not how that crowd works. Only recently did liberals start to define things as "us vs. them," it used to be like a world with a bunch of different opinions but now it's two entirely different worlds. Conservatives felt that the status quo wasn't adequate so they just went out and made their own. Liberals haven't even attempted to do that sort of thing (for every Maddow you can name at least 5 conservative pundits)

It would certainly not hurt the team to have Garland in the rotation, I'm just saying it's not like KW traded away an ace or sold low on him or something like that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) Well, frankly the HAMP program has been an abject disaster, probably the single worst policy thing they've done since taking office. A whole lot of people are stuck in negative equity foreclosure situations still paying money on the mortgage while the bank tries to sell the house because of that program. (Somehow I doubt it was directed at that program though). I think where I was going with that is if you're b****ing at President Obama about your negative equity situation then presumably you want the government to get involved with a heavy-handed response... a Tea Party rally is not the appropriate place to be trying to make that argument. That is, if I understand anything at all about Tea Party rallies.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) I agree, if there is one criticism for Lovie on that play, it's perhaps not giving it to Chester Taylor who was your biggest offseason acquisition last year. Maybe put him in a two back set with Forte. That's nitpicky considering the day Forte had, but it's valid at the same time. Not really nitpicky considering Forte's big day came from receiving. On the ground he was meh, mediocre actually 17/50/2.9, 2 fumbles and one lost.

What's this I read yesterday, about the FCC opening up the white noise spectrum that got freed up from the conversion to digital signals? They are making it sound like there is going to be another tech boom or something but I don't see how it's going to change existing WiFi technology. Maybe it will help carriers roll out some new long-range wireless internet but the household stuff? I don't see it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) I'm sure when my kid is a teenager, I will encourage them to get involved. Before then, yeah, its a little creepy to have them out there holding signs saying something they don't even understand. Its manipulative. lol at that "I'm about to lose my dollhouse" sign. What in the f***. What does President Obama have to do with you having negative equity anyway? I'm under by about the same amount but you don't see me marching on the steps of the Capitol holding angry signs about it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:00 PM) Get used to that thinking. It underlies basically all of our tax policies and has for years. Ever read "The Big Con"? This type of thinking has only been mainstream for about 30 or so years. Pretty easy to debunk most of it with simple charts and graphs but that doesn't really matter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Mitch McConnell with the comment today that the top tax bracket were those hit hardest by the recession. How do Republicans win elections? Seriously. eta: also, I have to laugh at Fox's "news" coverage of this. The entire segment is just Republican talking points about how bad the Democrats are and how they hate rich people (but they're not really rich, anyway!) and how the good Republicans are fighting for Americans. lol that's so bad that it's almost f***ing funny. I don't know where to start. So a guy with a net worth of 85 million, he might only have 73 million to his name right now (and gradually recovering it since the stock market bottomed out)! Oh but the millions of people who got laid off in the lower tax brackets, yeah they don't have it as bad as those rich people.

Garland has been almost exactly average, nothing to mourn especially considering the Sox replaced him with a better pitcher pretty quickly.

I don't know why there haven't been more awarded from these wars, I mean I know there have been soldiers who could've theoretically been awarded them and there's just been 6 or 7 awarded posthumously.

Watching this video and reminding me of these plays makes me feel a little better about that play yesterday, just to show some consistency. Yes I know Larry Mayer is a total homer but watch: http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/mul...amp;play_clip=Y Yeah, it was bulls***, but turnabout is fair play I guess.

Does anybody remember last year, like week 4 when everybody was sucking Sanchez's dick because the Jets were winning? Not because he was looking impressive, just unwarranted hype.

This Jets offense is just sorry.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Sep 13, 2010 -> 01:36 AM) And that's not even adding the fact that Kotsay has been -.7 WAR. Thome instead of Kotsay is roughly equal to 4 wins to us. The last time I checked it Thome's WAR was actually more than Kotsay, Jones, Pierre, and Teahen COMBINED.

I think this is the first time someone's been awarded the Medal of Honor non-posthumously since Vietnam. I don't really know why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2010091004668