Catwhoshatinthehat

Spurs choked that game away in epic fashion. I don't see Miami losing game 7.

I agree that he's overrated but he's also still only 24 and has only played 3 NBA seasons. He isn't the first young big buy to get by on his athleticism early on in his career and he needs to develop more of a game around the basket. If he's able to do that though he would be the guy you build teams around.

I think the Clippers would be mental to trade even just Griffin for Dwight. When I read that the Clippers were talking about getting Howard, Garnett and Rivers at the expense of Griffin, Bledsoe, Jordan and picks I almost didn't believe it but this is the Clipper franchise we're talking about. The Lakers would be even crazier not to want to trade Dwight to the Clippers because it's the Clippers. Anyways I'm guessing this has little or no chance of happening but for an aging Laker team it's a fun what if.

She definitely deserves some spit in the face.

That's one of the weakest arguements during this whole discussion and its like saying violent movies or video games are the reason why some unhinged kid shoots up a school. Teenagers are going to have sex and the availability of this pill isn't to blame for them having unprotected sex. Punishing horny teenagers shouldn't involve making them go through with a pregnancy because no matter how much you teach them just like tin said some will still make poor choices.

The original knock on Miami was a lack of depth when they signed Bosh and James but they went out and added bench and role players to address their needs. Paul, Harden and Howard could do the same thing for Houston and attract aging vets and young role players to fill needs.

They can legally make some decisions. They can die for their country but they still can't legally buy a beer. How do those types of decisions about ages, rights and so on change? Based on court decisions and legislation. In this case so far the court has decided that being 18 isn't a requirement so until this fight begins (if it hasn't already) and it's overturned the courts have decided this isn't something that requires parental consent. A child being afraid of telling a parent isn't a reason for removing that "right" the parent has to you but to me it's no more fair to tell a minor who is capable of having a child that they have no say if they run the risk of becoming pregnant or become pregnant. As far as I can tell parental consent regarding abortions is a states right issue as the feds haven't required it. The entire thing seems pretty arbitrary given that in Arkansas the age of consent is 16 yet a 16 or 17 year old needs parental consent to get an abortion. Some states are saying it's okay to legally have sex but you don't ultimately control what happens next even if you take precautions. The feds haven't said minors can consent but now a ruling is saying they can get this pill. Seems like the states and this country are all over the place on this one.

Which completely disregards the fact that 18 is an arbitrary age when it comes to some decisions. Nothing magical happens when you turn 18 except you will be tried as an adult, can join the military yet you still can't drink a beer. Barring some kind of medical condition the "average" person can create a child before then yet they can't make decisions about what is done after that moment. No one is advocating that small children should be making their own medical decisions but people who are sexually active aren't suddenly wiser because they're a year older or rather a day older when they turn 18. As to 72 hours that was addressed before - many kids are going to be afraid to tell their parents so no that's not always enough time to take those steps. In a perfect world sure but not in the real world and that's why you hear stories of girls hiding their pregancy from their parents until they go into labor.

I disagree with a parent being able to tell a pregant child of theirs or one that may become pregnant that they can't consider certain options because they require parental consent. It's their body and something they will have to live through whatever choice they make. In the case of this pill there's a very small window and counseling, discussions, etc really isn't feasible. I agree with arch that for something like pregnancy which can occur long before 18 requiring parental consent seems arbitrary. You're old enough to get pregnant but you may have no say in what happens even in an oops situation? Makes no sense to me. As to the story I read the courts didn't decide anything. That family has now let two children die without receiving medical help that may have saved their lives. I guess it's the parents right to decide that to some.

To me the issue is minor or not I don't think a 15-17 year old should be forced to carry a baby to term because their parents don't consent to them getting this pill or an abortion. This thread made me think of a related question - a few weeks ago I read an article about a family who lost a second child when modern medicine may have saved the childs life. For religious reasons the parents do not use modern medicine and they leave it "in gods hands." At what point if any should parental consent not be required for a minor? Is it only in a life saving situation and if so how do you justify or legally take parental rights away then?

I used to play games more but now I have like video game ADD and they don't hold my interest as much. That said Origins was one of the first games I played in a long time that I didn't get bored of that I played all the way through and that's something I hadn't done with an RPG in years. I did the same with DA2 but I defnitely thought it felt like they recycled some of the same stuff just to put the second game out and take advantage of the popularity of the first game. I just had to do a quick search to see how far apart the games were and it looks like they were about 15 months apart between release dates. In looking back DA2 almost felt like it was an expansion pack more than a separate game.

Except unless I'm mistaken the use of this pill has to happen in a small window to be effective. This is the type of thing that some kids would be afraid to approach their parents about in that time frame or even during the period when they can get an abortion. In a perfect world talks about birth control and various options regarding pregnancy would happen before someone is sexually active but we all know that isn't the case. That's why I don't disagree with this being available to people who are sexually active and capable of having a child. One interesting thing to me about all of this is that like everything else 18 is the age where someone is able to decide for themselves or where society doesn't have a problem calling them an adult. Yet in this case most people are able to reproduce 3+ years before then. I get 18 being the age where someone is an adult yet plenty of 18 year olds aren't even in position to raise a kid or make an informed decision about carrying a child to term.

Parental rights to ensure that kids don't have the final say in whether or not they can prevent a pregnancy? All of us here know that when you're a teenager you aren't always prepared and it's hard to check your hormones. The reality is that plenty of unprepared people have kids, some of them are younger and many times they end up getting taxpayer money because they can't support their child. If this reduces unwanted pregnancies for unprepared people I'm all for it.

When players don't perform people are going to talk about it. Doesn't matter how many times it's been discussed. I expect them to come around but the real worry is going to be at the back end of these contracts particularly for Pujols.

Agreed.

Unless I'm mistaken he was in there for domestic abuse related charges. Anyone who's been in a court knows that you don't act like an idiot and you're at the judge's mercy. Don't smack your lawyer on the ass and really don't ever do it when the judge hasn't handed down her ruling yet. The only thing this guy has consistently done is stand out for the wrong reasons and doing so finally caught up with him so reap what you sow.

Please let me know which are the "intelligently run baseball organizations." These guys are above average at their positions, both were extended after having good years and they followed those up with solid years in year 1 of their contracts. 8M a year for above average players at their positions in the prime of their career is not the sign of a poorly run organization, it's the opposite. It's a no win situation for this franchise - sign someone and people piss and moan, don't sign them or trade them and people piss and moan.

Agreed with jshep. I wasn't necessarily a fan of their signings (nor was I adamant they were bad) but they were both extended at reasonable prices by baseball standards while being above average at their positions. The guys behind them were unproven and the Angels were able to lock 2 guys up during the prime of their careers at positions that are fairly weak in MLB. These two are not the problem it's the big splashes who unless they step it up are going to hurt the team for the next so many years. I'm not crazy about these guys and their boneheaded plays at times kill me but I can't say they're bad signings given some of the other contracts on this team.

The New England Patriots AND Tim Tebow? ESPN is going to have to spring for spare boxers for Berman and the rest of the NFL crew.

Erstad batting somewhere he shouldn't have for about a year.

He sounds like Lt. Dan.

You should have laughed. That guy would have appreciated it and rewarded you later when he's your boss.

A few days ago Jerome was top 5 in ERA in the AL amongst qualified starters. Makes perfect sense to put him in the pen.

The yoga class mid day at the gym I go to is full of goregous women. That said it's an expensive gym geared towards professionals that I wouldn't pay for and these aren't the type of women going to the free class at the YMCA.