juansavage1

People slump occasionally for their whole lives.

In case you guys were worried, my lower half is 100%.

I think people were expecting a 300 AVG and 35HR per year. He's been pretty close to that. If he would have gotten Hamilton's contract, it would have been worth it. People don't like the last few years of his contract.
I do think that Pujols has character and competitiveness traits that give him a little more value than his stats.

Shes not a kook. The way she thinks is mainstream soft science thought. Remember,the Marxist idea of dialectic emphasizes opposition, whether it's rich-poor, race versus race, or male-female.
If you see these statements through that philosophy, it all kind of makes sense.
If you think that sounds dumb, polls of professors show that more than half sympathize with Marxism.

By the way, my favorite trolling technique, is to say something and back it up with something relevant.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/03/statistical-proof-south-finally-more-integrated/36096/

I don't think this this will happen. To explain, we first have to know why there was a push for gay "marriage" in the first place. 
 
The first reason is to officially sanction homosexual behavior, making it equal to conjugal sex. The second reason is to open a front in the culture war. 
 
If you look at Obama lighting up the White House (FU, half of country) and cartoons using Iwo Jima imagery to promote the rainbow flag, this is seen by many as a cultural conquest.
 
The evidence that this wasn't about marriage per se is that none of the leaders, cultural or political, who support this change ever did anything to support marriage before this. Second, in countries with gay "marriage," homosexuals hardly ever marry (few marry in those countries, but homosexuals much less). Those that do, divorce more. I used to tell people the only good reasons for marriage are children and religion. Gay marriage people have neither. 
 
"They have love." 
 
You can love without marrying. 
 
"Benefits"
 
They were offered benefits. 
 
Now, who are the people who want polygamy? Mainly fringe religious people. Or, uncool people. In other words, nobody will fight for them because they don't represent the next step in the culture war. 
 
The next step is the elimination of gender. 
 
Remember, the Marxist theory is that where they choose, there's no difference and, therefore, any disparity is unjust. At the end, everybody will be equal. 
 
You laugh at me, but the people who make up most of your minds have been talking about this for years. 

I think private universities can do what they want. State universities should be neutral and just accept based on performance.

Let me explain the fissure here.
It has to do with first assumptions.
If God, then life has intrinsic worth. Therefore, intentionally killing someone or oneself is a bad thing for both and should be prevented.People should persevere in sadness.
If no God, then life has no intrinsic worth and there are no consequences to the person dying. Why live if you're sad? Why should society prevent it. The world would be a happier place if all sad people were dead.

And, in full effect. 

I know it sounds arrogant, but I have to address myself to people of good will and those who have none. It gets mixed up. Sorry. 

I was raised in a secular home. We never went to church. I held the religion as cultural control/crutch theory, but without the hate, until about 29 when I started becoming Catholic.
One rule I generally have is that if you have to lie, you lose. Every factual statement I make comes with proof upon request, which I copy and paste from reliable sources. Reason is just processing the assumptions.

I actually hate arguing in general and find arguing with most leftists especially exasperating because of their lack of knowledge and emotional thinking, but I'll stick around to be impressed by your intellectualism. I'm sure it's very novel and not at all like the garden variety Colbert audience member. 

Thanks for the reply. The issue is not judging gays. Marriage is a public policy and all citizens can lend their opinion on what it should mean and how it should be administered. Think about the question I asked about what marriage is. Why should I accept some other definition that's based upon a perversion of Christian marriage (two people, love, etc) and not be able to advocate for the original? 
 
Whether we're a fundamentalist Christian nation has nothing to do with it. If we were a fundamentalist Christian nation, we would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old. We wouldn't necessarily be teaching slavery, however, as fundamentalists both fought against slavery and justified it with a certain interpretation of the Bible (the slavery in the Bible wasn't what was in the South which was chattel slavery. That's one instance where 3000 years later, something was worse). 
 
How? In a fundamentalist nation, all of the judges would have been appointed by fundamentalists and there may have been several amendments requiring certain interpretations of the Bible. 
 
If McCain had won and not nominated two liberal activists to the court, this narrow ruling wouldn't have happened. 

Thanks for the reply. The issue is not judging gays. Marriage is a public policy and all citizens can lend their opinion on what it should mean and how it should be administered. Think about the question I asked about what marriage is. Why should I accept some other definition that's based upon a perversion of Christian marriage (two people, love, etc) and not be able to advocate for the original? 
 
Whether we're a fundamentalist Christian nation has nothing to do with it. If we were a fundamentalist Christian nation, we would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old. We wouldn't necessarily be teaching slavery, however, as fundamentalists both fought against slavery and justified it with a certain interpretation of the Bible (the slavery in the Bible wasn't what was in the South which was chattel slavery. That's one instance where 3000 years later, something was worse). 
 
How? In a fundamentalist nation, all of the judges would have been appointed by fundamentalists and there may have been several amendments requiring certain interpretations of the Bible. 
 
If McCain had won and not nominated two liberal activists to the court, this narrow ruling wouldn't have happened. 

He wasn't pitching badly before yesterday's game. ERA of 2.81 coming in, and he threw eight shutout innings against Seattle two weeks ago. The demotion seems more like a punishment for his bad attitude. His manager was not pleased at all with him.

It is funny that people think Europe is less racist than the US.

Have you only loved to be person in your life? Why should the government make you choose somebody over somebody else? Why limit love? What if you were born bisexual? How does somebody marrying two people affect your marriage? Wouldn't children get more care?
Reconsidered?
No?
OK what if like every Hollywood star said it was cool and they made a bunch of TV shows?

Is that how you decide laws? For example, assuming you work, how will cutting welfare impact your life? Would somebody marrying their dog and killing their one-year old impact your life?
 
Most people decide laws on the common good and what they think its right. 

Are you referring to the Latino post above? Is there a majority Latino area in orange county that votes for the more conservative candidate? If not,then its not that dumb, is it?
One correction is that the relevant number as far as elections is percentage of electorate, not population.

You know what? I bet uneducated people watch more sports.

Remember when people on this forum denied they were talking about conservatives? Good times.
OK, so now that we know that the only interest people have in this incident is to bash conservatives (remember how the interest in Gabby Giffords dissipated when the shooter was some atheist loon?), let's go over some things. .
1. Southern culture is responsible. There's no evidence that interracial crime is any worse in the South, despite greater number of interactions between races in the South. One poster said he lived in Oregon and Texas and that the people in Texas were more racist. Another read a book making fun of Southerners.
2. Gun Culture. People who love guns don't commit much gun crime. Almost all gun crime is urban gangs.
3. I have not heard any conservative deny the racism involved. I've heard everybody decry how evil this guy is and how he deserves the death penalty.
Why do people lie about the situation? Because the most effective technique leftists have is demonizing the opposition. Calling Republicans racist and getting minorities to believe it has been the single most successful American political strategy of all time.

You know what's more interesting is that what you said isn't true. My definition of your logical fallacy is from Wikipedia. My discussion of southern versus northern integration is a news article from a neutral source.
You diminish all of us all by thinking that this tactic would make up for your lack of facts.

The problem is discussing the topic in good faith. I think most gun owners are fine with keeping guns away from people who have a history of violence and mental illness.
Some of the regulations make no sense to gun owners and because of this, they may suspect that it's an attempt to restrict guns just because some people don't like guns.
And, you must admit that there are some people who don't think people should have guns. These facts combine to create a little defensiveness in some people.

I have a way to handle this so that most people except those with an agenda are happy. 
 
What was the problem? Teasing. The most common teasing problem in school is against fat kids. Is the way to deal with this situation reading a book about how great it is to be fat or "famous fat people?"
 
The teacher should have just told kids that teasing isn't allowed. You don't have to take sides in a moral debate. 

Thanks for the links. Hopefully, we can settle this calmly. Full disclosure: I had to write a paper (just an assignment, not a big deal) on this so I'm familiar with the subject. I also don't divide the world between men and women. I see women as slower, hairless men without dicks, but I'll play along with your binary world view.
The papers you provided point out that women are less than half of STEM workers (leaving out that many STEM "men" may identify as female). Women make up about half the population.
There are four possibilities:
1. Women are denied positions by sexist bosses.
2. Women aren't as attracted to STEM positions as they are to other fields, like human resources or psychology.
3. Women aren't as good at STEM.
4. Women like STEM, but are discouraged from pursuing those fields by their mothers.
Which one do you think is mostly correct?