lostfan

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) The whole point of praying before a game isn't to have god help you win the game or get a base hit. It's tough to explain, but mainly, from my experiences at least, it's to ask god to help you play up to your abilities and watch over you during the game. As for the sign of the cross and stuff after homeruns and base hits, save it. In my book, that's showing off the pitcher. Just one time I would like to see a player call God out when they f*** up for the sake of consistency.

Do the Blue Jays send a case of Vaseline with?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) Where has this occurred? He's talking about Donte Stalworth vs. Michael Vick I think.

Oooooohhh. I was in 4th grade for that.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) Wow, then why did they do it for the last 8 years and CONTINUE to do it every chance they get (with the exception of about two weeks after 9/11). I agree with you, but they certainly do it every opportunity they get. See Sarah Palin. I may not like or agree with Sarah Palin, but she does get treated a whole lot different then someone with a (D) behind their name. Not to mention Sotomayor... I mean hell, if this were a ® up there, she wouldn't have even made the hearings, she would have been forced out. Kind of like pubic hairs on a coke can, or something. wtf?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 04:24 PM) Children under the age of 10 should not be allowed in a rated R movie even if a parent/guardian is present. No children under 4 should ever be allowed in a movie theater. Period. Along those same lines, songs about sex should not be allowed on public radio before 10 pm and after 7 am when kids are likely to hear them and pick up the lyrics. Let the parents do their jobs, not the radio.

I think if your medical records show you've had 2 abortions and want to go get a 3rd you should get a mandatory hysterectomy because it means you don't want kids. Save everyone's time.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) I remember when Obama called rural americans "bitter" and nobody talked about it. Last spring you may have heard about this guy named Jeremiah Wright if you dug deep enough. Hardly anyone's ever heard of him though.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) The "MSM" hasn't. And obviously those Demcrats on the Hill like to twist it around as "no big deal". lol, bulls***, it's in damn near every article written about her, furthermore GOP senators have been talking about it so it gets covered by default.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) forgot how funny a show The Nanny was. I'm glued to Nick at Nite now. **waves middle finger** Besides, you know you like that show.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) Michael Steele is a f***ing dope. But, it doesn't matter one iota. I was commenting on AHB's point, and it would absolutely be less of an issue if a Democrat (or affiliation) said something racist. Witness this week's SCOTUS circus. Nobody's made an issue out of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment? Nobody?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 03:13 PM) Ok, I will. It would be "misinterpreted" and blown off as the equivalent of a "gaffe". Yeah? Kind of like this, right? I just find it lol-worthy because you'd think Steele would know better. You have most Republicans trying to back off any perception of racist nonsense and about every couple of months or so you hear someone saying something dumb making them all look bad, or doing something dumb (racist e-mail in TN where she apologized not for sending it but for sending it to the wrong people). Then you have Steele saying something that is awfully close to sounding like an ethnic stereotype as the head of the GOP. Facepalm.

lol Michael Steele. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bil-browning...i_b_231534.html

^^I just typed it that way for brevity's sake.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) So the Shah's downfall was that the U.S. didn't stand behind him enough, not the fact that he was an incredibly corrupt dictator who's country was falling apart underneath him? Nevermind that we are the ones who put him in power and they were already our allies before that. Money talks.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) I'm talking about when Jimmy screwed over our greatest Ally in the middle-east and muslim world the Shah because they "violated human rights." Funny thing is because of that, Ayatolla Khoemeini got in power, and executed pro-western iranians, put women back in servitude, etc. Good work there Jimmy! Not to mention he is an anti-semitic... But he now supports women's rights!!! Except if they so happen to be living in a muslim country. lol, this is the equivalent of Juan Uribe wildly flailing at a strike 3 that sails over his head and missing it by a foot and a half. I'm not sure exactly where you got that crazy version of events but here is the abridged version of the sequence that actually happened: Post-WWII Iran is a Western ally and former British colonial interest, private British oil companies are in Iran making tons of profits off Iranian oil. Iran at this time is a pro-Western democracy and US ally although it's close to the Soviet Union. Iranians elect Mossadegh, who decides to nationalize Iranian oil to keep the money for Iran. Brits get pissed off because they stand to lose a lot of money, and try to convince Truman that Mossadegh is a secret Communist (even though reality is Mossadegh hates Communists, just doesn't want imperial influence in his country). Truman doesn't buy it, but doesn't seek re-election and Eisenhower takes over. Brits eventually convince Eisenhower that there is a threat of a Communist takeover in Iran (there's not but Eisenhower doesn't know any better at this point) and in 1953 the US and UK organize a coup to put the shah in power. Now at this point the Shah is basically Saddam, and the human rights abuses happen because of us (remember, it was a Western-style democracy with a strong pro-US population) to keep him in control, and naturally the support for the US begins to fade. So in 1979 Carter convinces the shah to stop beating and torturing and executing people, and when he loosens his already shaky grip his government comes crumbling down. Carter didn't cause it though, it was already happening and to blame him for what happened is crazy talk. The straw that broke the camel's back is when Carter allowed the shah into the US to get treatment because he was dying of cancer. This really, really pisses the Iranians off and led to the embassy takeover. Carter's response to it was bungled, they attempted a rescue mission that failed and was a big embarrassment. The hostage crisis is what did Carter in.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Well I guess in that sense it is, but then every decision by the Supreme Court is judicial activism (overturning/affirming precedent). I would argue though that they WERE following the precedent of previous Supreme Court decisions regarding discrimination. That's part of what me and Rex were saying, that judicial activism is an overused and pointless label.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) Those 20,000+ Pro-Western Iranians say h....... oops. Jimmy kinda dropped the ball on that one. What? Yes the hostage crisis was handled badly esp. when the operation failed but dropping the ball in Iran goes all the way back to Eisenhower.

My parents went to Midway this morning to pick me up, didn't notice that the itinerary said PM, not AM. Duhhhhh

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) I missed the boat a little on this thread, but how was this decision judicial activism? They refused to create a higher standard on an already existing law. They told the city you created a neutral test, you got the results, you didn't like the results because it didn't have enough minorities, so based on that (race) you decided to throw out the results and not hire a certain race of people. To me it would have been judicial activism to extend the law to allow such a practice in the name of equality (i.e., it's cool to discriminate against whites/hispanics so long as you have a reasonable belief that you're discriminating against blacks) The law being that the city had the right to throw out the results because they didn't like it, and the Supreme Court said no they didn't (overriding the precedent in the federal district). In all honesty it's incredibly easy to predict who is voting for what when certain issues come up, as of right now only Kennedy is the one that's hard to predict sometimes.

Sotomayor on the New Haven Case: ding ding ding, lostfan is right again (although I think Rex was the first one to make that point in this thread)

17 is the age of consent in Illinois, no need to feel guilt. Is Shawn Johnson that cute girl in Rock Raines's avatar?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 10:49 PM) Man, Sotomayor's ass must be all wet and nasty from all that ass-kissing that was going in the Senate hearings today. I really don't care about her, Barry could have nominated anyone he wanted to and they'd get into the SC. I just would prefer not to see her paraded around as some godly woman because she's Hispanic. How about you focus on s*** that matters? They still have the rest of the week, they will

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 06:45 PM) my paper keeps having these discussions about the online comments continually being derided by racist and ignorant comments. I just tell them that if they don't want hate-filled, childish, racist commentary in their comment section, they shouldn't have a comment section. The only times it works are in niche sites, usually involved in the technical aspects of something rather than general politics, fueled by emotion. You ever read a Yahoo sports blog that has something to do with Obama or Bush and sports, but isn't political? Man it's like people just can't help themselves from mentally taking a s*** in it. There's never any discussion about what the blogger actually wrote, it just turns into political stereotypes of commies and fascists. I try not to read but I'm a little masochistic.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 06:33 PM) So, in other words, there are acceptable reasons to quit while others are not acceptable? Yes and no. This is America so anyone can quit their job anytime they want to (unless you're in the military, etc) and they shouldn't have to justify it to anyone. But let me give you an analogy and we'll see if this makes sense. Right now I'm a federal contractor, been working in my current position for a while now but I'm not bound by any contractual obligation to stay at my current job and I could resign whenever I wanted. Let's say hypothetically another contractor (or the federal government) offers me more money and/or a position I like better, so I take it. No hard feelings, it's business, and at the end of the day the only person I need to look out for is me, right? That's fine, happens all the time. But 6 months after that I get another job offer and I leave, maybe for a similar reason. Then 2 months after that I say nah, I'll take a year off so I can finish up some school. If you were a hiring manager what would you think? I haven't shown much of a commitment in my previous jobs the last couple of years, why would I be different now? That isn't the best analogy, but I'm trying to give an example of where quitting can be frowned upon.