Soxbadger

The replay came after Stone said it was a suicide. I re-watched because I knew it would be a controversial managerial decision.

Looked more like a safety squeeze to me as the runner didnt go immediately.

Its hard to answer the first question. Logically speaking I assume more guns are made then destroyed each year, which means that every year there are more guns. If you have more of something it stands to reason it is more easily obtained. The second part is that places like Chicago, had their gun laws overturned. This is never really discussed, but in 2010 City of Chicago's gun laws were found unconstitutional. The Chicago gun registry program that was started in 1968 had was ended in 2013 due to concealed carry being passed by IL. Generally speaking I would say that laws are trending to make guns more accessible not less. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221 Here is the text of the law: The Obama rule was somewhat controversial as it could have been adversely applied to anyone, but the new law absolutely made it easier for people with mental issues to get guns. That coupled with many other rulings and laws, have (imo) made guns easier to purchase and own in the United States.

Kopech is the easier call to keep down. Last year he pitched 134 innings. If he stays in AAA and pitches the entire season, that is roughly 30 starts. That puts him on pace for about 150 or so ip. I cant really see the Sox pushing him that much past 160 this year, so it doesnt make a lot of sense to call him up for 1-2 starts to burn an entire year of control. That being said, at this point everyone is just rehashing the same arguments over and over.

Free speech protects even those people I disagree with, even if their opinion is reprehensible and not based on fact.

Depends on how you definite "area". By state its not true. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200445/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-us-states/

Most likely yes. When Pence spoke at the NRA they had to ban guns on the floor due to the Secret Service requirements...

Bomba and Carter both had impressive wingspans. Carter .25 inches shorter than Dwight Howard, but with same wingspan and better outside touch. As long as Trae Young and Jaren Jackson goes in the top 6, Bulls would be guaranteed a choice of Bomba, Carter or MPJ. In fact Bulls are guaranteed a shot at Bomba, Bagley, Jackson, Carter or MPJ no matter what happens. So all things considered 7 wasnt the best, but it was way better then dropping 1 more spot to 8.

I think that is the other part that annoys fans in the US. Right or wrong, many US fans thought we were getting 1 of those World Cups. Instead due to all of the bribery etc it went to Qatar with them guaranteeing it would be in the summer. Now they admit its impossible to hold in the summer, so its going to be played November 21-December 18, and go up against NFL Football, NCAA Football, plus the holidays. There was then some more underhanded junk giving Fox the rights to 2026, so that they wouldnt force FIFA to pull out of Qatar. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/fox-telemundo-set-for-500-million-windfall-on-2026-world-cup

Im torn on watching. With all of the FIFA bullshit, the US missing the cut and it being in Russia, part of me feels that I should just avoid the whole thing. Its a pretty sad state of affairs because I can remember previous WC's where I would wake up to watch the matches. Ill probably watch some once it hits the round of 16, but this is definitely my lowest interest level in any world cup I can recall.

Yeah Im just bored and throwing out ideas. But there could be some value in a sign/trade with LaVine (if that is even possible) plus our 2 first rounders. Im not really sure that is a great deal for the Bulls unless they think the guy at #3 is significantly better than who is possibly at 7. Right now I think the Bulls should be going for BPA at 7, then hopefully get a guy like Mitchell Robinson at 22. This random site has what could be an ideal draft for the Bulls: https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/2018-nba-mock-draft-projections-first-round-top-players-2018-nba-draft-order-may-17 Porter at 7, Robinson at 22.

Doncic would be in the draft, just no promise hed play next year.

I like Bagley myself, but a lot of people just arent in love with him. Basically if the rumor is true, it means that the Hawks arent in love with anyone at 3, and are perfectly happy sitting at 7 seeing who falls.

After the top 2, there is a lot of ambiguity about the next pick. Ive been wondering how far the Bulls could trade up if they gave up both first rounders. That seems a little soft for 3, but maybe the Hawks would want someone like LaVine? (Edit) Bulls next year pick is way to valuable given that the guy at 3 is no guarantee to be better than the guy at 7. Most have the potential guys from 3-7 having similar draft grades. And theres no way I see the top 2 falling.

Jerksticks, I hope that Trump does try and do something. But I have not seen any indication that Trump or his administration have any real interest in helping. Mostly what I see (and its just like my opinion man) is Trump wanting to do the opposite of Obama. If he does actually do something good about prices, then I would hope people would get passed fighting for their team and give credit where its due.

Now Im confused. I presume you meant protecting consumers against collectors, but Im not sure how that relates to writing off debt. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that requires creditors to write off debt. My understanding is that the creditor makes this decision based on different factors around the ability to collect versus the cost of collection versus the amount gained by writing off the debt. Now I could be wrong, do you have any information on this law or the regulations as it pertains to creditors being forced to write off debt.

I was going to write something similar, but I loved the "ethical debt" practices. Ive actually never heard that one before.

You keep saying the ACA crushed everyone, do you have anything to support that? Im not saying it didnt negatively impact some people, but you and a few others are the only ones who say that they were hurt. I presume that means that most of the people in this thread were not "crushed". As Ive said multiple times, it had no impact on me and the same can be said for most of my clients and people I know. Again, this isnt to diminish its impact on you. Its more that you cant say "everyone" got crushed. That being said, what people's motivation for voting in the last election was is the past. What we have to do now is fix the problems we have, The Republicans have had legislative and executive branch. What have they exactly done to make ACA better? What are the doing to make medical care cheaper? Prescriptions cheaper? Better cheaper healthcare, thats what Trump said, where is it? At some point we have to ask why it isnt being done if its something most people want.

Well isnt that the same argument for people who complain about the ACA? Cant they just pick a different plan? If we are going to compare apples to apples, lets compare. Some peoples rates got jacked under the ACA, some peoples rates got jacked because of the current administration. To answer the question, yes there were worse plans that I could have chosen. The worst plan is now more expensive then the best plan was last year. I chose to keep the best plan because a few thousand worth of up front costs was worth the potential savings if I had a major medical issue. Just like people under the ACA could have chosen no insurance and paid $500.

Where can I get that 15% increase? As I said before, last year (same plan) it was $220 per month for me. This year its over $500 per month (im actually rounding down). A 15% increase would have put my payment under $300 per month. When our firm contacted BCBS about the crazy rates, our rep told us it was due to the instability of the market and that originally the increase was going to be significantly less. And how can I answer what happens to the hypothetical poor person. That is a question of fact and depends on a lot of variables. Some poor people have medicaid or an equivalent, which means that their healthcare is paid for by my taxes. Other poor people dont qualify and they cant pay. The hospital then will determine (or its lawyers) whether they think they can collect. Some people are lucky, they just write it off as a loss and pass the expenses on to people with insurance. Other people are not so lucky, the hospital comes after them and they may have to file bankruptcy. So not sure how I can answer it, because its like asking "What happens to the person who doesnt pay their credit card bills?" It could be different for each person, there is no definitive answer. But the real question is, why are so many people opposed to trying to create a healthcare system that is affordable for everyone, that has affordable medicine and treatments. Why are we still making marijuana illegal, etc. Those are better questions than, what happens to the hypothetical person that we can all create to support whatever argument we want.

How can you legitimately say "without bias." and say "ACA stripped every working American of affordable insurance and low deductibles." My insurance doubled this year due to Trump. Under Obama it went up very little. So you cant say "it crushed everyone else" because that is a biased statement that is not supported by the facts. Im single, I personally pay over $500 per month and that is with my employer paying over $250 per month. Last year the exact same plan, I paid $220 per month. BCBS told us the reason was due to the increased chance of ACA being repealed. I had 0 insurance claims last year, 0 health problems, so my risk didnt change at all. /shrugs Just because I dont fit into your narrative, doesnt mean I dont exist.

You seem to be missing my point when you keep grouping me with others. Trump can say whatever he wants. Other people can complain/love/hate/whatever what he says.

Be fair, I was the one who made that comment. And I think Trump can say whatever he wants (just like the Cheesecake people). I also think that Trump (like the Cheesecake people) can be called out for what they did. Fair is fair. Although I think that the President of the US should have a little more tact than a random Cheesecake employee, but thats just my opinion. If you think the President should act like random people, youre entitled to that opinion as well.

WERE ALL ANIMALS. Trump was being inclusive. :D

I dont recall saying it was debunked or not, just that was something that explained where the term "spirit cooker" derived from. I have no idea about any of it, but it gave some background to what you were referring to.