HaloMagic

I am somewhat split on this one. I don't mind the idea that, in an extremely rare situations that will probably never occur, the government uses drones on targets within the US borders. However, I don't think those targets should be US citizens. I would be in favor of being able to charge citizens and conduct public trials in absentia and revoke their citizenship upon a guilty verdict. Then I wouldn't be opposed to drone strikes in situations where it is deemed completely necessary, provided the risk to extraneous human life or damage that could lead to undue hardship is effectively 0%. In that case other approaches should be taken. Unfortunately our current Constitution doesn't allow trials to be conducted in absentia so there would need to be an amendment made to allow it. Short of that I don't support targeted drone strikes on any American citizens anywhere.

We all value different things out of the number two spot. For me, I go: 1. Callaspo 2. Iannetta 3. Aybar 4. Kendrick That best matches the attributes I view as important for a number two hitter.

But are we saying we shouldn't trim our fingernails or that we should but not claim we lost weight afterwords?

So just to be clear, the money for the tours doesn't need to be cut?

Filibusters are gay. But I do tend to respect people that keep it old school. So I'm torn on this one. Not surprised it was Rand Paul to do this, though. I don't think I'd vote for him but I respect a lot of what he does.

Couldn't care less that some advertising companies use my browsing history to send targeted ads. Doesn't affect my day at all.

Yeah, cell phones and webcams are how I want my nation's leader to interact with his state's and citizens.

I agree. The President doesn't need to actually see any of the places he is in charge of,

So we don't trust them. Got it.

Yep. The President should absolutely never visit any of the states or spend any money at their businesses.

It was 10-378.

I doubt that we gave him a lessor contract as a punishment for him not accepting the initial offer. But if we did that's absolute garbage. If we made an offer and he rejected we should have just made it official without his signature. No need to be bitter about it.

Oh, shit. I didn't know the A team was playing today.

If there is just and legal cause to slaughter Chinese farmers in my backyard I would not be opposed to it.

Good to see YoT is still holding onto that "Sabean's just lucky" thing.

Oh, do we trust the CBO now?

With the added weight I'm not sure Trout can run for his money anymore. Probably why the Angels low balled him.

For the record, I'm okay with Tank getting less if it means I get more. Sorry buddy. I'll buy you a steak and a Sprite with my increase.

I'm with Tank, still. Hopefully the money isn't worthless in the end but even if it is I still want it. A little bit of nothing is better that nothing of a little.

Not 2.5 in the last 3. In 2010 his ERA was closer to 3.5. And if you're going to do the half thing it should be worth noting his ERA was above 3 in the first half of 2011 as well. So it's 1 out of the last 3 seasons. Good pitcher, though. Glad he's on our team and I'm happy with the contract, at least right now. But your numbers are wrong.

Soooooooo...you don't like it?

I'd be down but I'm super worried I might get Sarah Jessica Parker in my sandwich. I bet it would be super tough and leathery.

Well I don't know who has a grudge against anyone on here but I can't imagine why a change of forum design would impact the way people interact with each other. I know mt had a little break from the board. For most other people it's been business as usual all the way through. I can't imagine why they would just decide to act differently. If they are acting within the board's guidelines (which admittedly sometimes we don't always follow) then I don't see the problem or the need to change.

What I meant was that just because it's a law doesn't mean if actually creates a safer society. The law may have been put Ito place in an attempt to do so but the enforcement of the law doesn't actually make society safer at all. Examples would be the now defunct anti-sodomy laws or current laws that restrict the use of marijuana by adults. Some laws are just silly and don't have any positive impact at all. Other laws, like marijuana legislation, actually make society more unsafe as they prop up a black market and criminal enterprise out of a product that could be perfectly safe on the white market. Laws aren't good just because people voted for them. People vote for stupid stuff all the time.

Are you arguing GM isn't better today than 4 years ago? Or are you actually not understanding that his reference to "Detroit" had nothing to do with the actual city and that he was referring to car companies. Yes, GM has a continued influence on the City of Detroit's economy. No, the City of Detroit isn't doing good. Yes, GM is much improved fiscally, as are other American car manufacturers. No, the fact that the City of Detroit is financial insolvent doesn't have anything to do with whether the US car companies are doing well or not.