lostfan

QUOTE (Go_Go_Sox79 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) I think I am missing something..Why does everyone love this guy? He strikes out a ton, low avg. low OBP, granted he has a good glove but so does Rios. Seems like the type of guy this board would complain about! This is what you're missing apparently: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grandcu01.shtml Granderson had an off year last year but he's one of the most exciting players in baseball.

I got an invite but I haven't set mine up yet. I'll let you know when I do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another. Not really, that would be like saying everybody is racist to one degree or another.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) I wouldn't be opposed to it. Me either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) I would like to also say...I really don't have a problem with the existence of these commentators, nor do I have a problem with the existence of something like Fox, which is 99% the mouthpiece of one party. The thing that bothers me the most though is how little attention gets paid to their influence by the other networks and how they're allowed to shape the debate without question by anyone except the Daily Show. Drudge picks up something about how kids in NJ sang a song that mentionned Obama 8 months before, it goes to Beck, the Fox "hard news" people start talking about how its now a controversy, then it migrates to the other channels without any effort to ask the simple questions. Like Lost says, they just play the old "2 equal sides" card, rather than asking "Did the parents approve the thing first" or "What did the school actually do". There's no accountability from the people who are supposed to be the hard news guys. When a Republican comes on and says "This health care system is a blatant takeover of government", the answer is not "Ok", it's "Why do you say that when study x says this and study y says this". When an administration official gives the number of jobs created by the stimulus, the question is "How do you deal with studies like this one". Actually the entire establishment media, especially on the internet, is completely structured around Drudge, pushing things that he pushes, and trying to write articles that get linked by him because they are instant traffic spikers. The amount of influence he has over the news cycle is extremely irritating, especially when he is blowing some insignificant s*** out of proportion or whatever he's pushing is BS.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) CNN is probably the closest to center of any of the network news. However, they chose to get super fluffy the last few years, and their website has a lot less news material than others. During the elections, I preferred CNN, though. Yeah in the past year or so they've really started to piss me off having international news in the same series of headlines as a Jon and Kate headline. During the election they were probably the best though. I'll still take Anderson Cooper, one of the few around that actually tries to ask questions and be a journalist.

When CNN did that they earned the label "Communist News Network" for reporting actual news that didn't jibe with the administration's official lines.

I hate cable TV because they will have a scientist and a right-wing talk show host/blogger who dropped out of college on a panel debating the issue, and they are put on equal footing. Everyone can be an expert on TV. This makes America stupider.

The military's change was far more comprehensive than the surge, that's something the Bill Kristol types still fail to understand. Also there is really no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh s*** I had Paul mixed up in my head with somebody else. He still wants America to be in the state it was in around 1880 or so from what I can tell. No regulation on business at all, absolute minimum of foreign involvement, no external intelligence services, etc.

Paul isn't an actual libertarian, but his views definitely are. He's an isolationist though, one of the people that feels free trade is an infringement on soverignty.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 10:14 PM) No doubt. Michael Jordan would average 50 points against these rules. Considering he averaged something like 37 points one year when they still allowed hand checking I'd say 40 ppg is within the realm of possibility.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 09:55 PM) Well, you need to qualify that. The early and mid-eighties...the game was not especially physical. It wasn't until the late 80's and the rise of the Pistons' "Bad Boy" teams and "The Jordan Rules" that things really started getting physical. The rest of the League saw the success the Pistons were having in defeating teams like the Celtics, Bulls and Lakers and the rush for defense was on. This culminated in 04' and 05' with titles won by the Pistons and Spurs with stifling defense. Ever since then, the League started making rules adjustments in an attempt to encourage more scoring. So as you said, yes, the game was far more physical in the 80's and 90's, even as recently as 5 years ago. But not until the late 80's. In the days of the Showtime LA Lakers and the excellent Celtics teams, the game was definitely played with more pace and less defense. I meant from the Pistons days onward. There's some Youtube videos out there where Jordan used to just get mugged, it was part of the game back then. Nowadays the entire style of defense is just different.

I read rumors that Fox wanted him.

If he has PTSD that would explain a lot, otherwise he is a complete f***ing tool.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 06:26 PM) This is another thing that I just do not like in basketball today, all of the contact. You have to be a muscle bound thug to even have a chance in todays game. I'm not an athelete by any means but I did play a little basketbal in grade school and jr. high, and was good friends with several of our high school team members. That was back in the 60's and early 70's when basketball players were thin and lanky for the most part. I seem to remember getting called for fouls if you barely touched the guy you were gaurding. The 80s and 90s were waayyyyy more physical than today's game.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) The new york post thinks everyone is available. I remember last year when their writers suggested the Yankees make a move for Danks, for a handful of their average players. lol.

The Tigers would have to be complete f***ing idiots to let us have him.

Saw a dumb ass Facebook poll asking if people agree with Obama's decision to call the White House Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree." Apparently based off an e-mail that someone made up. I made sure to comment on my friend's post voting "no" to say it was 100% false and complete and utter horses***. Doing the poll makes more people (who are stupid) believe it's true. Also there was this comment before mine: Why not take Christmas? If we have nothing to belive in, we will have nothing to fight for. It is an attitude that fits socialism quite well. And that is what Americans voted for...isn't it? ^^ Hook, line, sinker

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) Why does the book piss you off? The league itself should piss you off for letting this s*** go on. That's like getting mad at Canseco instead of Selig. Last night's game was a perfect example of the same inexcusable officiating you see so often in the NBA. The fans *should* b**** about these things and call the fix, even if there is no fix. That's called public pressure, and the league needs more of it because they're clearly not policing themselves very well as it stands. The fact that the league came out last year in support of the no-call flagrant foul by Rondo on Miller instead of admitting their mistakes like men just shows how little accountability there is. The refs did let Miller and Noah both knock Rondo's ass to the ground the next game, hard, with no call. It was all the better that Rondo pretended to be hurt and looked like a little b****

I think I've managed to convince a group of female friends to dress up in veils and dance around me/give table dances harem-style. We will see how this goes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) You can't have it both ways on just the things you like. That's what bothers me. The same people who want all elections to be 50% +1 are the same people who want to take away the referendum process. Either we believe in a majority or we don't. Referrendums are well and good on certain things but when you go crazy on them like California tends to do everything has to be simplified to the lowest common denominator. It has to be something specific, like "do you want this? Yes or no" but leave complex legislation to legislators. As far as having it both ways, people need to accept that in our system sometimes they lose. That's just how it works.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) The referendum process is really interesting. At the end of the day it is the people saying what they want. The question becomes, how come practically a generation of California politicians haven't been able to adjust to a pretty consistent message from its residents? See: previous post. This is why we don't have a pure democracy and why it won't work

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2009 -> 07:22 PM) That's wrong. The government can do things for us. But they're not supposed to do everything for us. You know that and we know you know that but I doubt there is a majority on your side that do, either that or it gets lost in translation. People are kind of stupid.

Oh, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world then. He won't do s*** behind our line though.