Soxbadger

Russell is not the best player ever. Russell is one of the best players at getting to the end of the game, he is one of the worst players at judging the jury and trying to decide who he should take with him to the final. Russell had the easiest choice in survivor history when it came to Natalie, Jaison and Mick. He decided to boot Jaison in favor of keeping Natalie. At that moment the game was over, the likable Natalie would never lose to Russel. Jaison/Mick could have never beat Russell. You cant be the best player ever if you have been on 2 seasons and have not won. Finding immunity idols and getting close to the end has been done before, Yau Man was one of my favorite survivors ever, but he is not the best. Thats not to say I dont think Russell is one of the most enjoyable characters, he just doesnt seem to understand human nature. It seems that Probst agrees with me in that article as he basically does not believe Russell has any chance of winning. Oh so Im a big survivor fan, and if I had to pick a survivor from any season to win 1million for me it would be Tom in season 10. 5 out of 7 immunities, killing a shark with a machete, and winning 6-1, that is domination.

Jemele Hill must not watch a lot of wrestling, because if you want to make a great heel you have them pick out the weakest and destroy them. Everyone hates when a tough guy beats on a little guy. So if Lebron wants to be a villain he is acting the part perfect. Good guys go after the strong, villains take advantage of the weak. This is character creation 101.

There is definitely no way that congressman having guns on the House floor would ever turn bad. For fun:

Its no teach me How to Bucky.

Exactly. Those are the people who you fear will take it to far. The people who dont even realize that Eric Cantor (a Republican) is a Jew. These are the people I worry about when politicians say inane violent rhetoric. People who have a very loose grasp on reality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20...-of-blood-libel Here is another article. I think the scariest part is the comments.

What his "best friend" reports is still hearsay. (Although could be an exclusion to the rules and therefore admissible in court (statement against party interest).) Before I start making any connections between this guy and anything, Im going to wait for the trial (or if he gives an interview.) Even then I dont know what Id believe because its not like I really think this guy is very coherent. So more than likely there is going to be some random answer like reading Catcher in the Rye, than something that has actual meaning to a normally sane person. That being said, do you think violent rhetoric is a good idea? Assuming that this shooter had no connection to violent rhetoric, isnt it still something that we should maybe try and curtail? And that can be applied to both Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party and anyone else. I may disagree with what people believe, what they say, but I would never go so far as to believe that they should be killed for having a different political opinion. So while I may be rationale, one of my followers potentially may not be. So isnt the safest route to just not try and incite open violence against fellow Americans? Im as guilty as anyone when it comes to certain areas, sports being the one that comes to mind. We say kill them, etc, and most of us dont really mean it. But we all have a few friends who actually are rooting for the other guy to be seriously injured. Its those type of people that I worry about hearing the wrong message from political leaders. But making this a political event is more important than self reflection.

There were other ways that they could have made money instantly as well. I just think they should have spread the increases out over more time as well as over different areas, ie not just income tax, but raising taxes potentially on liquor, cigarettes as well. In the end the amount of money should be the same, just not the same sticker shock.

I would have preferred a gradual increase over time, instead of a steep increase with a promised reduction in the future.

It may sound odd, but I know the baseball player example is accurate. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;j...ocId=5002579939 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/business...xes/10base.html Like I said Im not a tax attorney, but I do work with two so I know a little bit about things that interest me.

Im not a tax attorney, but my understanding of tax law for income is that you are responsible to pay the state where the income is earned. Thus if you work in IL, you owe IL income tax. The best example of this on a baseball site, is a baseball player. A baseball player pays taxes to many different states, because they have to pay taxes on income earned in each state. Thus when they play in IL, they earn income in IL and have to pay IL taxes. So if you are on the Florida Marlins, you still pay NY taxes, IL taxes, on a portion of your income.

The only way that corporate income tax would force a company out of state is if they are going to substantially reduce the amount of products that they sell in state. Corporate income is apportioned based on where the income is earned. Thus even if you move your plant from Illinois to NV, you still have to pay Illinois income tax on all income that is earned in Illinois. If you want to hear something really annoying, the state of Illinois is going to try and force Illinois residents to pay back sales tax on goods bought online. In general sales tax is owed to the state where the sale is made. Because Amazon has no physical presence in Illinois, Il residents have not had to pay sales tax as Amazon had no physical location. Now Illinois is trying to set it up that the buyer has the responsibility. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12...e-shoppers.html At least in NY they made it that the seller was responsible if it had an affiliate in the state, but IL just doesnt even care.

Yeah it sucks, and I doubt Ill vote again for anyone who approved it, but I am definitely not moving to Indiana or Wisconsin.

It may be wrong to blame Palin and others, but it is definitely not "right" that this could be compared to blood libel. Blood libel is a patently false accusation that is based on myth. The fact that she compared what is being done to blood libel actually suggests that Jews were even remotely connected to killing children. Whether you believe Palin et al had any connection to this crime is a matter of debate, but there is absolutely no debate that Palin has used violent rhetoric. Whether or not there is a connection between violent rhetoric and violent crime is a strained argument at best. BUT, there is an argument. There is absolutely no argument that Jews were killing Christians to bake matzos and therefore deserved to be KILLED by Christians. There is an argument that violent rhetoric may cause violence and perhaps politicians should choose there words more carefully. How she can compare herself to a group of people who were murdered and massacred over lies is in my opinion reprehensible. Its not even libel, its opinion.

One of my friends worked for Braun's organic food business before it went under. Braun stopped paying all of her employees. Then recently when she started to think about running for mayor went and paid them. My guess is that stuff like that is just the tip of the iceberg. All things being considered its odd that Braun was the choice over a guy like Davis.

In the end no matter what I think of the refs all Wisconsin had to do was hold the ball instead of attacking the basket at 135 left. Rob Wilson just made a mistake there and he will never hear the end of it. Before this game started I said that it wouldnt be worse than the football loss to MSU, but I dont know this was just terrible. The good news is they appear to be a tournament team, just I think this game was the difference between a shot at the Big 10 title.

Your rationalism has no place in this forum good sir!

Not really as there is no guaranty that Starks wouldnt have been on the practice squad and claimed by another team.

Hoke appears to be the new Michigan coach.

The article lost me when he wants students to completely stop caring about finals. Argue that the season should start sooner (in August) and therefore the season should end before finals. But to argue that schools should completely discredit finals so that he has something to watch on Saturday is absurd. Furthermore unless they go to a 12+ team playoff format, its going to end up being worse for non-aq teams than the BCS. TCU was 3rd and was a Auburn/Oregon loss away from a NC title chance. If you go to a playoff (4 team or 8 team) the spots are going to be reserved for the large conferences. No way is the Big 10, Sec or Pac 10 going to agree to anything less than an automatic bid in the playoff, thats 3 of 4 slots already, now if you get ACC, Big-12 and Big East involved you are looking at 6 conference champions being given automatic spots for 8 games. That would leave 2 open spots for all at large teams as well as 2nd teams in major conferences. A way to try and get the bigger conferences to commit would be to offer a bye to the champions, but now you are talking 4 byes for potentially 6 conferences. There is just no way that everyone is going to be happy, so instead of worry about who really is the best team (none of the teams that played last night) we should just enjoy the show and hope for the best for these kids. Most of them wont ever go onto the pros and for many the biggest moment will be a bowl game victory, so let them have it. The NCAA tournament is fun for basketball, but you still have people who argue that its unfair based on seeding, match up, pod location and a million other reasons. There is just no way you are ever going to really know about teams, when they play such diverse schedules. Im not sure Oregon would have even finished in the top 3 in the SEC, yet they get a shot. Alabama who seemed like the most talented team, never gets a shot because of 1 fluke loss to Auburn and a schedule where they play @LSU @Ark, where as Auburn played those 2 games at home. Nothing is even in college football. I just enjoy the games for what they are. Im not against a playoff, I just think that its unrealistic given the current dynamics of college sports. Youre more likely to see the power conferences come up with a deal where 4 of them agree to have their conference champs play a 2 game playoff, then a system where everyone has a shot.

I hate McCarver so much I didnt even want to mention him.

Yeah im not going to do strictly play by play, but I think Spielman is one of the better announcers, also like Troy Aikman. I hate Joe Buck.

I think Alabama was a better team, I think Stanford may have been a better team, TCU was pretty good and Id obviously take Wisconsin against anyone (even if they lost to TCU, but I think that was a pretty good indication of how good both teams were). None of this really matters though its all just to waste our time.

I cant listen to Gus Johnson anymore because of Madden (he is one of the announcers).

Because of the glove it just was hard to tell where the wrist begins and the hand ends. Had they said he was down that call would have likely stood. I think the slightly better team won, but I dont feel that either of these teams were the best 2 this year. I think we can all agree that TCU is to blame.