Y2HH

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 08:21 AM) He took a very stiff beating. He actually showed some real emotion for seemingly the first time in his career. Him smiling with a full of blood in the face of a monster after getting destroyed was truly great. He managed to be the one to actually take out Lesnar after that. Yeah Lesnar and Rollins were still more interesting but Reigns was great too since he wasn't super vanilla superman. You mean from the blood tab they handed him? I'm not a Reigns hater, but I think the hate stems from what I call the 'modern smart audience infection'. The fan chants you hear, aside from the, "this is awesome" chant, a lot of these fan chants are being started by smarks, and honestly, half the audience doesn't even know why they're chanting it...but with that being said, the other half DOES know why they're chanting it. Reigns has been tabbed as the heir apparent, but he wasn't organically picked to become that because the fans latched onto loving or hating him...he was chosen, and then booked poorly through his artificial rise to main event status. Want to contrast how to properly book someone from nothing to main event player properly? Goldberg. And what's so baffling about that is WCW was terrible at character creation and cultivation...but they really nailed that one, and conversely, WWE has always been very good at it, but they've severely botched this one. The fans are smarter today than they were back in the day when you could throw a s***ty actor out there, call him Zeus, and have him no sell everything to get over. Reigns was largely protected during his stint with The Shield by the more charismatic Seth Rollins, but now that he's on his own he really needs someone like Heyman to help get him over. The fans largely hate Reigns because they want Daniel Bryan in that spot, and honestly, he deserves that spot right now...but the WWE is insisting on forcing Reigns on them before he's ready. The key words in that last sentence are before he's ready. I think Reigns will have his day in the sun...they just need to take their time and stop forcing it.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 10:18 PM) Last hour of the show was brutal. Reigns boo watch: Smarks cheered their #1 enemy Big Show over Reigns. That's low. The problem with WWE programming is what I call Starbucks Syndrome. It over-expanded during an era of wrestling where two companies were pulling down combined ratings over 10.0. Times have changed, yet WWE as a company has been slow to adapt, and they need to recognize there is no use for a Starbucks across the street from another Starbucks anymore. When talking about RAW, specifically, the problem with the show *IS* that final hour, especially since they do a 15 minute overrun every week. That's 3 hours and 15 minutes per week, including commercials. WWE needs to cut RAW back down to 2 hours, keep their little overrun if necessary, and make it more manageable for their creative staff. When it comes to Smackdown, they should scuttle the show as it exists today and make it into special attraction show that occurs once a month or every so often like Saturday Nights Main Event once did, not quite a PPV spectacle, but a special show all it's own. They also need to stop cutting to commercial during matches, this kills the aura of suspended belief for their audience and is basically saying, without saying it, "Meh, this isn't important anyway...we'll let you know what happens." Imagine if the MLB, or NFL, or any other live event cut to commercial right during a play. If what you are broadcasting is of no importance, don't broadcast it at all. There is plenty of room for commercials elsewhere, fit them in during those times...but NOT during a f***ing match. This also goes hand in hand with cutting RAW back down to two hours...you'd have less of a need for filler matches, or matches that drag on where nothing of consequence actually occurs. IMO, the WWE has forgotten that you want to leave the audience wanting more, but as it stands, they leave me wanting *LESS* every single week. ...and THAT'S the bottom line.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 03:51 PM) Y2HH doing his best troll impression. Congrats bro.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 03:04 PM) Not all social issues require money... In this country they sure as hell do.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) You very much did. In no survey ever conducted has road maintenance been a social issue. As much as I find these "what if there was a magical third party that represented all reasonable people" posts to be, they are quite clearly talking about something completely different than you. Way to cherry pick... Fine, I retract the road statement -- the rest stands. AND the rest stands completely counter to a fiscal conservative.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) This post is ridiculous. You make up a nonsense definition of socially liberal and then applied it to the conversation as if that's what people were discussing. I didn't make up a definition of socially liberal...that's what being socially liberal is. It's you guys changing the definitions to fit this weak ass fantasy party. The definition, whether you all like it or not, of being fiscally conservative is completely counter to being a socially liberal -- as socially liberal programs tend to cost a LOT of money.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:54 PM) What? That's crap. You can be a blend of both. You can not care about and/or support gay marriage or abortion rights and still not want the government to keep raising your taxes or spend money on needless things. Those are not mutually exclusive points. A social liberal cares about a lot more than those things -- they tend to spend a LOT of money, mostly via raising taxes, and accruing massive amounts of debt. By definition, a fiscally conservative person does not and WOULD not do those things. This would need to be re-titled to make sense. You can't be stingy on spending money or raising money through taxation if you want to be socially liberal. You are literally changing the definitions of those things to suit your point...

You cannot be socially liberal if you are fiscally conservative...the two things are opposites. A socially liberal person spends money (even if they don't have it) on all types of social issues, such as helping the poor, building parks, fixing roads, etc...even if it accrues massive debt in doing so. Therefore...you cannot be one if you are the other, as a fiscally conservative person would NOT spend money they don't have. This topic makes as much sense as the nWo helping Sting at Wrestlemania.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:06 PM) Ya that match made absolutely 0 sense but I enjoyed it. Dumb fun at it's finest. Let's just call it what it was, a way for Triple H to get every last one of his buddies a WM31 competitors paycheck. The nWo defending their lifelong enemy Sting made no sense whatsoever...but for some reason it was awesome. The ending, where you shake the hand of the guy that just cheated you out of a win and hit you with a sledge hammer head...made no sense whatsoever... ...if I wrote that, I would have given Sting a mic and had him say, "Did you see that 'Wrestling Isn't Wrestling' video?", have Triple H nod yes...and then have Sting say, well...the video was right, you STILL aren't as good as Shawn Michaels...just to have HHH flip the f*** out in the ring.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) But that was entirely predictable given that it was HHH v Sting. At the end of the match Sting said "That was amazing" and HHH responded "You should stay for a while." So at this point it seems to be up to Sting what his role in WWE will be. That is probably why they did the whole NWO thing (even though it made 0 sense). I mean HBK inducted Nash the night before. That ENTIRE match was highlighted in the Wrestling Isn't Wrestling video -- every last character facet displayed in that video, HHH put on display during that match, from cheating repeatedly, having friends (namely HBK) rescue him, etc... Still a great nonsensical nostalgic trip.

I have club seats for opening day... ...and my parents live in Bridgeport, so I have unlimited parking passes for anywhere in the hood, yo.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) Anybody on here a trail runner? I'd always run the occasional trail at state parks in the Midwest, but now that I have mountains within 45 minutes of my house, it seems like a natural progression. Any thoughts/tips/ideas on getting started? Yes, here is a thought/tip -- carry bear spray and pay attention. Mountain jogging can be dangerous because dangerous animals tend to live in the mountains. If you listen to music while you run, consider turning it down so you can hear your surroundings a bit.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 24, 2015 -> 10:43 PM) I'd up your calorie intake for a bit. 1500 a day at 222 is ridiculously low so your metabolism is probably all out of whack at the moment. Yea, I agree completely. I'm 5'7" ~157lbs and I easily take in 2500 a day.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2015 -> 10:53 AM) Has anyone punched through the weight loss plateau before? I started this diet on Jan 3rd. I'm eating good, healthy foods, about 1500-1600 calories a day. I end up walking 2-3 miles a day commuting/walking around my office, but otherwise no real exercise other than an occasional elliptical session or walking a golf course. So far i'm down 22-23 lbs, which is great. But for about 2-2.5 weeks now i've been right at 222. Maybe a pound difference in that time span. I figure my metabolism has dropped and my body is used to the 1500-1600 calories it gets. I guess I should start exercising more regularly? Does the plateau eventually go away? If I keep doing the same thing am I just maintaining my current weight? Sounds like you're body has met it's natural equilibrium, that's simply what you will weigh after taking those current factors into consideration. If you want to lose more, you'll have to turn up the exercise...sounds like you have a pretty slow metabolism. If I ate 1500 calories a day, I'd weigh 90 pounds and starve to death (and I'm 158lbs now, which is about 5lb over my target weight).

I'll reserve judgement AND comment until all the facts are known. I know, I must be f***ing crazy to not jump to a conclusion based on crack American media reporting.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 03:45 PM) I actually gave up alcohol for a month (baby steps, I'll be in Chicago for opening day.. but not drinking AT ALL until then.) Here is my current diet: Meal 1: 8oz skim milk, 1 serving of protein, 1/2 cup of oats, dried strawberries sprinkled on top. Meal 2: Protein shake with half a cup frozen fruit, and water. Meal 3: Chicken breast, (cooked on a skillet, using olive oil) 75 grams (when uncooked) of 100% whole wheat organic pasta, 4 spears of asparagus baked Meal 4: Quest Protein bar Meal 5: 3 whole eggs scrambled This is spread out between 12 hours. I usually workout after Meal 1, but sometimes depending on work, it goes Meal 1, Meal 3 [workout], Meal 2, Meal 4, Meal 5. What kind of changes to this diet and my routine would benefit me in reaching my goal ? Based on your size/body weight, you don't need anywhere near that much protein. You could literally cut 1/3rd of that protein and drink a few beers in its place as the calorie trade off and lose nothing in terms of size. Strict diets are good and all, and believe me, that's strict...but your goal shouldn't be a month of strict dieting and no drinking before reverting to bad habits and undoing all the work. Your goal should be to find a happy medium...not a diet in the traditional sense of the word, but a way you eat normally, just better. Instead of shifting from 3rd to 6th for an arbitrary and limited amount of time in terms of "diet", find a way to shift into 5th permanently...that way you don't have to diet ever again. Believe me, there ARE ways to eat healthy more often than not and still have the ability to drink some beers or stop at McDonalds. The entire concept is control...and the best part is we all have control, we just have to exercise it.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) Good point, the soccer league is by no mean anything close to professional where I would modify my routine strictly for the sport, but tweaking it where it becomes a lot more cardiovascular will help me in the general goal which is loosing fat and leaning out. Thanks. Nothing to brag about to be honest, I didn't get into working out till my twenties and I've made very slow progress until present day. Im 30 now. I'm 5'9" and 175lbs, looking at the numbers it doesn't seem bad but I'm about 18% body fat, and I would love to get down to 12%. I love my beer and I love to eat so it has been a constant battle with the diet, but sometimes I get so burnt out I hit the gym hard for week, two then on week 3 I get in there and just go through the motions. I have a Vegas trip coming up in June and I would like to be able to take off my shirt and feel 100% comfortable, no body builder here, just want to lean out and have an athletic physique. The bold is the good news. Really good news. You're still young enough that you aren't fighting age, so if you want to do it, you can...you just have to decide shedding that bodyfat is worth more to you than eating/drinking whatever you want. Vegetables and lean meat/protein (if meat is your thing) are your new best friends. Beer is also, and I know you don't want to hear this, but beer is bad. The bang for the buck makes beer an absolutely terrible trade. And by bang for buck, what I mean is, the bang is the buzz and the buck is the sheer amount of dead calories you're ingesting to get that bang. Take up vodka and diet tonic w/lime, or something of that nature...far more bang, far less buck. After you get to your goal weight (or even before), drink beer when you're with your buddies and the girls poolside, or at a ballgame...otherwise look at it like a treat you don't otherwise drink...but if you want to do this -- and I mean really do it -- you'll have to exert a certain amount of self-control along the way. I'll also reiterate what Rock said above...you're current routine is for packing on size, not toning up or slimming down.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Mar 16, 2015 -> 05:55 PM) Quick question/dilemma... I work out regularly, typical Chest/Back/Legs/Shoulders/Arms split. An opportunity presented itself and I might be joining a soccer indoor team, that plays every Thursday. I've played a ton when I was a kid and I'd like to get back into it. How would I modify my workout split so my legs are not completely dead come game time? Usually, when people refer to working out, they're doing so for the sake of being in good general shape. This allows them to do pretty much any kind of working out, which burns calories, builds muscle, sheds excess fat, etc. Keeping that in mind, when a person is working out to better themselves/their performance at a specific task/sport, working out is no longer generalized, but specialized, and it should be tailored to that specific sport. With a sport like soccer, which is very similar to interval/endurance training, I'd either do a very light leg day, or skip it altogether and start concentrating on interval training, or some sort of combination of both (light leg day/interval). Jogging/sprinting interval training, stair master, box jumping, etc...as soccer requires a LOT of that type of movement, it would be more beneficial to incorporate such movements into your usual leg day, which would increase your endurance astronomically as compared to what you're currently doing. Simply lifting heavy weight to the point your legs are "dead" isn't going to translate to much on field performance (if any at all), mostly what that's good for is a general "bodybuilder" look and base strength, but as for actual on-field performance, if you aren't a running back that has to churn through bodies trying to tackle you, I don't see much use for a traditional weightlifting "leg day" in the common sense of the word when applied to soccer, hockey, baseball, etc...

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 14, 2015 -> 08:14 AM) So TIME creates a cover that will get people to notice their magazine. Will this help or hurt Hillary? Loved the subtlety of making her look like the devil with the placement beneath the M.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 11, 2015 -> 03:04 PM) LOL http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6cf022289...tch-accessories

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 10, 2015 -> 08:23 PM) Tell me how my vote makes any difference living in NYC? The majority of older people vote, while a minority of younger people vote -- so every younger person that votes, such as yourself -- counts as the voice of the next generation of Americans.

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 10, 2015 -> 07:23 PM) I don't like the "well the Republicans have the stones to do something like this!" argument. That's why I don't like the Republicans. I don't want the party that most closely aligns with my interests to get caught up in that bulls***. Then nobody would be trying to do things that approximate reasonableness. Throughout history, there are times both sides make sense, there are times neither side makes sense, and there are times only one side makes sense, but there are no times where one side always makes sense. And this is my problem with people. They're sheep, with a D or an R next to their name, and what's worse is they convince themselves this only applies to the other party. People talk about one party needing to grow some balls, but IMO, it's a lot of you voters that need to grow some balls and start thinking for yourselves, instead of thinking like a letter.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 10, 2015 -> 04:33 PM) In NO world is this true. It's the congress that paid to be there. You don't think money talks? Both sides have a lot of money, but it's still up to the voters to actually get out and vote...the younger generation didn't show up this election, and that was the difference. This is excuse making, whiney bulls***. We have the exact congress we voted for, in a f***ed up system, run by f***ed up politicians, bought and paid for by f***ed up greedy corporations, no matter what letter sits next to their names. The sooner you all realize both parties are bought and paid for the better.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) Man, I may buy the two light set and play around with it. That's quite expensive considering the sheer amount of these I'd want.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 10, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) I don't think that's fair, you could only blame me for having Alex g. lose to Kirk. I can't win all the states. Find a way.