HaloMagic

Disagree mt. Although I will say I don't feel very strongly about this flag topic one way or the other. But if I had to choose a side... The Confederates were the POS racist little dicks who fought a war to keep the ability to enslave and force labor from individuals (of a particular race, as white slaves would, as we all know, be supremely unsavory and unbecoming of a developed nation) for their entire lives based solely on the reasoning that life would be harder for them if they didn't. And then they lost that war. Pardon me if I don't show outrage when we decide to not celebrate that segment of "our" history.

I like how you called it a come from behind win. Are you referring to how we were down 1-0 after 2.5 innings? Because up until the 5th or 6th I don't think I use the terms "come from behind" or "comeback". What happened was we had the lead and turned it over to our bullpen. We should have won but then the bullpen almost blew it again so we could have lost but then we ended up winning. I'm not sure how excited I'm supposed to get from that. And then, of course, last night happens. That's why there's no excitement.

Well, it's your right.Just don't drive the tank without a government-issued license, though. Driving is a privilege.

Acro seems like he's ready to bust out. Take that title back Acro!!!

Fake Jew.

Acro and bakunin are making some really solid points in this thread. And it comes at a time when I thought Juan Savage had everyone beat. Thanks guys. You're the best.

This was the entire argument against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Not having it most likely would have ended up worse but clearly the Federalists' fears about including it have become reality. We now believe we only have ten rights. How do we not retain the right if we never gave the government permission to take it? Everything is a right unless we specifically ceded responsibility of it to our government.

What makes driving a privilege and not a right? Because the government says so? Legitimately interested in people's responses.

That's not exactly what happened. It was a 3-2 count and Humber threw a pitch about two feet outside of the zone. The hitter, Brendan Ryan, started to swing but held up. But the chickenshit ump still called it a swing. The ball only got like 15 feet away from Pierzynski. Ryan started towards first because he thought he walked and when he realized it was called a swing he turned to argue. Seeing that ball wasn't cleanly caught he turned back to run to first but then realizing he had no chance he stopped and started arguing more. He didn't casually run on a dropped third strike. He was cheated of a walk and extending the game so Phillip Humber's grandkids would have something to remember him by.

I love bakunin.

I don't think anyone is saying that there was only one reason. Just like every action taken in life I'm sure there were many, many reasons. What people are saying is that religion wasn't one of them. At all. Not even a little. That's all.

Haha. Okay. I guess since you're used to waiting until someone gets 300 at bats before you judge their stats you believe that all stats should reach conclusions in similar timeframes. Sorry this one doesn't. I'll make sure the people who made it are aware of your disapproval.

Again, black and white with you. The boys actions were definitely caused by his own demons. Maybe 1 of our thousands of board members would disagree with that. You are making it seem like every liberal board member is up in arms over that assertion. Everyone agrees his own personal demons are what led to these murders. But is it not entirely possible that he was influenced by the cultural and social trends in his area? And is it not entirely possible that those trends are trending downward and have been for decades? And is that a possible explanation for why most people in the area don't have viewpoints as strong as him? Why is it always either/or? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Are you aware that you constantly and consistently make the same type of logical fallacies that you were rallying against earlier?

You are pointing out that this isn't representative of the views of all Southern citizens and chastising people for generalizing and laying blame to a whole group for the actions of a few. THEN you are using the words of a select few to try to connect this event with some kind of non-existent wide-spread belief among liberals that conservative America is full of murderous racists. How do you see the sample size argument in the first group but not in the second? Do you believe a majority of liberals believe that most people in the South enjoy murdering blacks? EDIT - I reread the thread. No one blamed Conservatives at all. You wanted them to. You asked multiple times. And no one did. Kurt made a joke about how the Republican party sucks. Maybe that was your fuel? The persecution complex is strong with you, though.

What if it's not anyone?

Using 250 innings of defensive stats to judge a player's defensive prowess is like using 60 at bats to judge whether they can hit. It's not the stat that's the problem. It's you trying to use it in a way it wasn't developed for.

Juan Savage is the guy that has a full blown argument with himself and yet when it's all over he still loses.

Interesting that when a traditionally conservative viewpoint wins out it's but when a traditionally liberal viewpoint takes the cake it's Repcons: Always the persecuted, never the persecutor.

No.

Was this guy in a role where he had influence over the hiring and promotion of individuals? If so I would say the punishment should involve removing him from that role for the time being. The comment he made was one that is already a point of concern for many individuals. He didn't make a comment about a viewpoint that no one is saying is widespread right now, like people from poor backgrounds steal lab equipment. That would be a forgivable joke. He made a comment about how women are trouble in the labs. There has long been the notion that this belief widely permeates the STEM industry and prevents females from having the same vocational success as their male counterparts. If I was in charge of the organization he was in I would have to spend a long time deciding whether I could weather the backlash my organization would face with him still on that role. I'd also have to have a serious sit down with him to really determine what his viewpoint in the issue is. I don't know all the facts so I can't say I'd remove him from his role but clearly this organization felt it was necessary to do so. Remember, if he is in a position of authority and they wanted the punishment to include removing him from such they don't exactly have a lot of choices. This person is a Nobel laureate. Asking him to step down is a bit insulting and possibly would result in a worse public image than asking for his resignation.

Wow. Too soon bro.

Between this, the abortion drought, and not letting women vote the Repcons are killing it lately. I mean they are really making some quality, well thought-out points.

It wouldn't really be a $20k roof replacement then, would it?

Seems plausible. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?