Don

Well, California is in a really bad Drought.   Tank is petitioning that the solution to the Drought is to fill the reservoirs up with Mt. Dew.  It's his first step in making Earth made up entirely of mountain dew.

Electrolytes man.

for some teenage meth dealer. 

 

Really is pretty horrible.  These things are exactly what the Constitution was created to keep from happening.

But departments will keep on doing it, claim their officers are well-trained (which they may be, but that doesn't mean perfect), and remind you that they're getting dangerous drugs off the street. It's an argument I just can't stand. Fighting a war on drugs from the supply side is absolutely futile, and they put people (including the officers) in danger to perform these futile acts.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/

No knocks are one of the dumbest things police forces do. Breaking into a home late at night with what is effectively a military unit is just asking for mistakes like this to happen. It doesn't help that these guys were a bunch of cowboy assholes either.

I wish Raul the best, as he's a great guy by all accounts. I'm happy for Cron and Green though. They've performed well enough to earn more playing time, and now they should get it.

Although to be fair, the dude is obviously trolling Tigers fans. Even with Miggy's complete lack of defensive or baserunning abilities, there is no way he's the 8th best player in baseball. He's top 5 easily. Maybe top 3.

Yeah, he definitely should be higher than 8, but I also think that speed and defense mean a lot more than some think.

While I agree with your sentiment, I have to take issue with your last sentence.  I don't believe they'll come to a better conclusion.  I believe the Shias will eventually slaughter the Sunnis with support from Iran, with Saudi Arabia then supporting Sunni insurgents to slaughter the Shias.  I do agree that the whole place is a ****ing mess.  This isn't political, it's tribal, and apparently you can't solve tribal

That very well might be how it all plays out.

To explain the last sentence in my other post, I was mainly trying to highlight the western view of politics, which is really more nation focused than culture focused. Western nations have caused a lot of problems in the last century by telling people of different cultures, religions, and languages, "So, you guys are a country now. Here are your borders. Everyone get along and maintain an effective, fair government. K, thx, bye!"

The question was asked, we have our answer.  It doesn't make sense, but he feels he is coming around. What else is there to discuss?  Maybe the next question should be what adjustments does he need to make to hit better?  I don't know, I'm not sure they want to answer that because other teams will counter that with there own adjustments?  I can't solve his problems, maybe Baylor can fix him.

I think the thing to discuss is why does Scioscia believe this despite it being false?

Nope, unless it's a limited operation to secure the airport and get our people the hell out of there ASAP.

After that, air strikes and logistical support NOT involving troops.

I don't know, it's an absolute mess. The abject failure of the Iraqi army is very disappointing, but not all that surprising, given the level of corruption and chaos over there.

I just don't see any reason to be involved at all beyond getting Americans out of the country ASAP. We installed a corrupt Shia government that has alienated a very large portion of its population and is now suffering the backlash. We can bomb Sunni militants (in this case ISIS) all we want, but it does nothing to solve a problem, it only delays the inevitable.

We need to let these people start solving their own problems. It'll be a bloody, long, and complicated process, but western nations have been ****ing around with the borders and rulers in the Middle East for about a century now, and it obviously hasn't worked out. Who knows, maybe it's better for the Iraqi people if they end up divided into three separate nations, or maybe it's better if Iran annexes the Shia portion of Iraq. But I'm pretty certain it's not good if we forcibly prop up a failed government in a failed state just because we don't like admitting we ****ed up the dismount. Whatever happens, if we just leave them alone they'll eventually come to a better conclusion than any one we force on them.

Does anyone remember the "Half Measures" speech from Mike on Breaking Bad? That how I feel about US involvement in the Middle East. We need to stay out of everyone's business there or we need to conquer it. Anything in between is bound to fail.

This seems like a non-issue to me as well. If you're an adult, you should be able to deal with it. If you're disgusted by it, I say that there are plenty of disgusting things we have to see all the time, but we've all developed the proper mechanisms to get over them. And if your children are old enough to ask about some woman breast feeding, they're old enough to deal with an explanation that women have breasts that make milk for babies.

The obvious question: Can it walk like an Egyptian?

Protection is a pretty wide term.  Regardless I would argue the fact that gun owners need no "reason" to own guns.

I agree. I just wish some people were more honest about simply enjoying shooting or working on their weapons, instead of saying I "need" to own weapons. Now, if you live in rural Alaska or somewhere like that, the "need" argument is pretty legit. Same goes if you own a convenience store in a rough area.

I own a gun, but I don't consider it a personal protection tool because I live in an apartment building and I'm far more likely to shoot through a wall into someone else's apartment at 4AM in the dark than I am to hit what I'm aiming for. Therefore, the gun is kept unloaded and locked up at all times. When I feel like it (once a month or so), I go to the range and put some rounds through it simply because I find it an enjoyable thing to do.

I'm not saying anyone needs to go full on prepper with a 2 year water supply or anything. I just thought the idea was interesting in that there are many ways one's family can be threatened that don't necessitate you defending their lives from other humans or animals. It just helps to argue that protection is only a stated argument for some gun owners, when the core reason may sometimes be that they simply like them.

I'm always floored by people who put a price on cars and say they won't even entertain offers for anything less. Just a dumb way to go. He'd do better if he just said $90k without any commentary.

I read something the other day that brought up an interesting point. Basically, the idea of the article was how many people are there who own weapons to "protect their family" that don't know basic first aid (CPR, tourniquets, hypothermia counter actions, etc...) or don't take other protection precautions like natural disaster preparedness, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, and the like. Obviously, I'm sure there are lots of gun owners that do these things, but I'd also guess there are plenty that don't. Therefore, if the true point is protecting one's family from harm, I would think these things would take first priority.

Maybe we have different opinion of few.  I would say less than 1% of folks who believe in gun rights.

I think some people probably fantasize about it in some sort of unrealistic, glorified way. But if it were to actually happen, they'd quickly realize what a horrifying prospect that is. There are plenty of examples of that change in personal accounts from the Civil War, WWI, etc...

It actually makes a lot of sense business-wise. They're effectively outsourcing R&D at a dramatically reduced cost. It's a simple process. Release your ideas, let smaller outfits develop on them, then buy those smaller outfits and fuse their ideas with your more advanced infrastructure.

It's mind-boggling to me how a ragtag force of 500-800 fighters can so easily take a city defended by some 30,000 troops.

 

The total number of ISIS "troops" is estimated at 4,000...and there's NOTHING the Iraqi army can do about it?! Or the U.S.?!

 

Obama is going to take a few days to think about "options" while these maniacs overrun the country and kill everyone in their path. This is absurd!

There's really not much we can do. Sunni extremists are on the offensive all over the Middle East. Kill 4,000 in Iraq now, and we're just delaying the inevitable for a few months. We just need to consider our actions in Iraq failed and moved on. Short of killing every living thing between Lebanon and Pakistan, there's nothing we can do.

You would think that shooting a missle at someone would at least be on par with shooting a gun at someone, and not something that you get off on $5000 bail and released.

I think "missile" in this context basically refers to any flying object.

I'd take a game loss just to get the chance to see Aybar throw an inning.

It would be great entertainment. Dancing after every strike, refusing to stand on the rubber, crossing up his catcher just for fun.

Obama is right about the fact that it's impossible to get even the tiniest gun control measures through congress. And it's really all because hard line gun rights supporters fail to understand shades of grey. You won't get any Republicans to vote for a hypothetical bill that limits magazine capacities to ten rounds because the hard line gun rights people in their district will say, "That guy is pro gun control." Thus, that politician is immediately placed in the camp of "Wants to take my guns away". Unfortunately, there is no space in the conservative voting world for a "Wants to enact reasonable safety measures" camp. If you're a Republican politician, you only have to choices. You're either the guy that wants no change in regulations, or you're the guy that wants to ban guns completely. Obviously, they are forced to choose the former, given their constituency.

The NRA represents all/most gun owners just like NOW represents all/most women.  I might also add that not even all NRA members agree with everything the NRA pushes.

As a gun owner, I can tell you that I hate the NRA's "If you give an inch, you give a mile" philosophy. While I don't want guns banned outright, there are definitely things we could be doing to reduce the amount of harm they can do to innocents. The NRA, however, won't even entertain that idea. Frustrates me to no end.

The strange reason is because they have trained/armed personnel at EVERY school.  Our Nation will eventually go that route too in my opinion, and sooner than later.  It will be either a Police Officer or contracted-security.

 

I don't have time to list sources, but I believe violent video games (in concert with lack of discipline and mental-illness) ARE a factor in these shootings with juvenile-offenders.  Of course, we all know these statistics/studies are usually slanted to whatever side is doing the finding.

 

It also comes-down to, "If you see something; say something."  The red-flags are glaring after the fact, but they must have been visible prior to these incidents as well.

I really believe that it's almost always a combination of factors that lead to these things happening. Can violent games be one of them? Absolutely. But I don't think that they're ever the singular cause. If you take an average 16 year old and have them play Call of Duty for a few weeks, it's pretty likely that won't come back to bite you. Now, if you do the same thing with a schizophrenic 16 year old that happens to have access to weapons, you might be creating a dangerous situation.

What a weird thing to get pissed over. Donaldson's tag was clean. Maybe a bit harder than normal, but Machado tried to jump out of the way and Donaldson had to lunge at him with the glove quickly. It'd be one thing if it was a dumb misunderstanding and everyone moved on, but purposely throwing a bat at another player over something he was wrong about in the first place was pretty chicken shit.

I'll be the first to bring up THE platoon to end all platoons: Mathis/Napoli.