Soxbadger Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I agree, which is why I said "If only Obama would be cool" and not "If only the legislature would be cool." I also dont really care what people in Congress think, I care what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Congrats Tennessee, you're one step closer to making Islam illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 30, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) Congrats Tennessee, you're one step closer to making Islam illegal. Best quote: "'If this Islamic political organization does decide to go back through this process again, we will be standing right around the corner, ready to do battle again." -- Lead attorney for the opposition to the mosque Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The 4 minute, anti-Obama attack ad that Fox produced and ran a couple times this morning really is impressive and certainly makes one ask why they haven't declared their whole network a Super-PAC yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 29, 2012 -> 06:59 AM) Edited May 31, 2012 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The party of less government. I look forward to tax dollars going towards this. Money well spent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 1st circuit unanimously strikes down DOMAs3 as unconstitutional.it's a limited, states-rights oriented opinion. http://volokh.com/2012/05/31/first-circuit...doma-section-3/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Spotting income inequality from Google Earth, using abundances of trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Threw this in here since it's from The Nation and has political undertones. Do You Know Your Enemy? Why we should all root for the Miami Heat to beat the Oklahoma City Thunder Dave Zirin on June 11, 2012 - 12:09 AM ET The 2012 NBA finals presents more than a match up of two young, exciting, athletic teams. They present a rooting litmus test. In one corner, we have the Miami Heat, a team scorned for being built around a hastily assembled group of free agent All-Stars Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and the great LeBron James. No player in NBA history has been scrutinized, picked apart, and even despised quite like James. The three-time MVP’s unforgivable crime, now two years old, was neither a felony nor misdemeanor nor even a bad attitude. It was his awkwardly managed departure from the Cleveland Cavaliers and “taking [his] talents to South Beach.” He also earns arrows of anger for his alleged inability to step up his game when the game is on the line. In addition, his patchwork Miami team in the eyes of many is as plastic, superficial, and empty as the city they call home. In the other corner, we have the Oklahoma City Thunder, a small market franchise beloved by the sports media and fans for "doing it the right way." They drafted beautifully and evolved organically toward greatness. They are also led by Kevin Durant the NBA’s most endearing superstar. The “Durantula” is only 23 but already has three scoring titles and he absolutely lusts for the big moment. He also, unlike LeBron, signed a long-term contract to stay in a small market because he wanted to take the team that drafted him to a title. With such seemingly opposite teams and stars, the media is already writing the 2012 finals script of “good vs. evil." It’s an easy, by the numbers narrative. It’s also bizarro world bulls***. This is one case where good is evil and the evil in question resides in shadows where fans choose not to look I would argue that how we choose to see the Heat and Thunder is a litmus test. It’s a litmus test that reveals how the sports radio obsession with villainizing 21st century athletes blinds us to the swelling number of villains who inhabit the owner’s box. And in Oklahoma City, we have the kinds of sports owners whose villainy should never be forgotten. Strip away the drama and the Heat are called “evil” because their star players exercised free agency and - agree or disagree with their decision - took control of their own careers. The Thunder are praised for doing it the “right way” but no franchise is more caked in original sin than the team from Oklahoma City. Their owners, Clay Bennett and Aubrey McClendon, with an assist from NBA Commissioner David Stern, stole their team with the naked audacity of Frank and Jesse James from the people of Seattle. For non-NBA fans, as recently as 2008 the OKC Thunder were the Seattle Supersonics, a team of great tradition, flare, and fan support. They were Slick Watts’s headband, Jack Sikma’s perm, and Gary Payton’s scowl. They were a beloved team in a basketball town. Then the people of Seattle committed an unpardonable offense in the eyes of David Stern. They loved their team but refused to pay for a new taxpayer funded 300 million dollar arena. Seattle's citizens voted down referendums, organized meetings, and held rallies with the goal of keeping the team housed in a perfectly good building called the KeyArena. Despite a whirlwind of threats, the people of Seattle wouldn’t budge so Stern made an example of them. Along with Supersonics team owner and Starbucks founder Howard Schultz – who could have paid for his own new arena with latte profits alone - Stern recruited two Oklahoma City based billionaires, Clay Bennett and Aubrey McClendon, to buy the team and manipulate their forcible extraction from Seattle to OKC. Stern is a political liberal who has sat on the board of the NAACP. Bennett and McLendon are big Republican moneymen who hobby is funding anti-Gay referendums. Yet these three men are united in their addiction to our tax dollars. In Oklahoma City, where rivers of corporate welfare awaited an NBA franchise, Stern, Bennett, and McClendon had found their Shangri-La. Bennett, Stern, and McClendon lied repeatedly that they would make every effort to keep the team in Seattle, McClendon however gave the game away in 2007, when he said to The Oklahoma City Journal Record, "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here….We started to look around and at that time the Sonics were going through some ownership challenges in Seattle. So Clay, very artfully and skillfully, put himself in the middle of those discussions and to the great amazement and surprise to everyone in Seattle, some rednecks from Oklahoma, which we've been called, made off with the team." While Bennett said all the right things about keeping the Sonics in Seattle, a team executive dinner on Sept 9th 2006, tells you all you need to know about the man and his motives. On that fine evening, the Sonics management, all held over from the previous ownership regime, all Pacific Northwesters, gathered in Oklahoma to meet the new boss. Bennett made sure they were sent to a top restaurant, and picked up the bill. As the Seattle execs sat down, four plates of a deep fried appetizer were put on the table. After filling their mouths with the crispy goodness, one asked the waitress what this curious dish with a nutty flavor actually was. It was lamb testicles. Bennett laughed at their discomfort and the message was clear: the Sonics could eat his balls. [see Sonicsgate.com for a full accounting of this theft.] If the Thunder win the 2012 title, the Clay Bennett/David Stern approach will be lionized throughout pro sports. The theft of the Sonics will be justified and cities involved in stadium negotiations will be threatened with being “the next Seattle" if they don't acquiesce to the whims of the sporting 1%. A championship for the Thunder would be a victory for holding up cities for public money. It would be a victory for ripping out the hearts of loyal sports towns. It would be a victory for greed, collusion, and a corporate crime that remains unprosecuted. Clay Bennett and Aubrey McClendon don’t deserve anyone's cheers. I don’t just want the Thunder to lose. I want LeBron James to make them wish they’d never left the Emerald City. That is why no matter how much you dislike the ill-fitting “Dream Team” in South Beach, or swoon at the sight of Kevin Durant, anyone who cares about the relationship of teams to their cities and decries the way pro sports is used as an instrument of corporate looting, should know who to root for and who to root against. Without equivocation, all true NBA fans, in the name of Slick Watts, should sound three words this championship season: “Let’s go Heat.” LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 While Bennett said all the right things about keeping the Sonics in Seattle, a team executive dinner on Sept 9th 2006, tells you all you need to know about the man and his motives. On that fine evening, the Sonics management, all held over from the previous ownership regime, all Pacific Northwesters, gathered in Oklahoma to meet the new boss. Bennett made sure they were sent to a top restaurant, and picked up the bill. As the Seattle execs sat down, four plates of a deep fried appetizer were put on the table. After filling their mouths with the crispy goodness, one asked the waitress what this curious dish with a nutty flavor actually was. It was lamb testicles. Bennett laughed at their discomfort and the message was clear: the Sonics could eat his balls.What the Hell? Someone actually wrote that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I'm not sure how much national coverage this gets (my guess is "some" for now but will increase to a "metric s***-ton" by the time the vote rolls around), but Minnesota has a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage. I've seen a few law firms say they're against it, but now General Mills is coming out against it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 At the same time, the National Organization for Marriage, a key group supporting the marriage amendment, sent letters to 50 of the state's largest companies, urging them to remain neutral on the measure. On its website Thursday, the group, which is boycotting Starbucks for its gay marriage stance, blasted General Mills for declaring "war on marriage." I don't understand...what war? I'm married to a lovely woman. If two men or two women get married...how does that affect me? Am I in danger? I don't think so. John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, the group pushing the amendment, said he was also very disappointed. "Marriage is in the interest of children, because it is society's best way to help children experience the ideal environment where they are raised by their mother and father," Helmberger said. "It's ironic and regrettable that a corporation that makes billions marketing cereal to parents of children would take the position that marriage should be redefined." Someone should ask the tied and gagged kids in Nebraska about "ideal environment." This argument is such a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Remember when marriage was defined as only allowing people of the same race to marry? Remember when marriage was defined as something that was forever and divorces would result in excommunication? Its sad that people think the past is a good rationale for why we do something today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Remember when marriage was defined as only allowing people of the same race to marry? Remember when marriage was defined as something that was forever and divorces would result in excommunication? Its sad that people think the past is a good rationale for why we do something today. Lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) What a thoughtful comment. I think "baah" would have been more clever. Edited June 16, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 10:48 PM) Remember when marriage was defined as only allowing people of the same race to marry? Remember when marriage was defined as something that was forever and divorces would result in excommunication? Its sad that people think the past is a good rationale for why we do something today. No, I don't remember that because it never happened. Marriage was also never used as a way to sell off your daughter to a guy who wanted a young girl to add to his collection of wives. Marriage has always been the exact way it is now. One man and one woman uniting with each other and with Jesus of Nazareth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) No, I don't remember that because it never happened. Marriage was also never used as a way to sell off your daughter to a guy who wanted a young girl to add to his collection of wives. Marriage has always been the exact way it is now. One man and one woman uniting with each other and with Jesus of Nazareth. If you believe marriage was always the same as it is now, you need to go do some research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 If you thought that was a serious post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) If you thought that was a serious post... Well, it wasn't in green so I'm going to assume it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) Well, it wasn't in green so I'm going to assume it was. I feel at least half the sarcastic/non-serious posts on Soxtalk are not in green. I mean, he was talking about the Jesus of Nazareth and getting married, seemed design to provoke laughter.... Edited June 18, 2012 by farmteam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) I feel at least half the sarcastic/non-serious posts on Soxtalk are not in green. I mean, he was talking about the Jesus of Nazareth and getting married, seemed design to provoke laughter.... That's the problem with text. Sarcasm can be lost on people that don't know you well. Also, it wasn't funny...so there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 what is wrong with Michigan: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012061...vagina--comment Brown, a West Bloomfield Democrat and mother of three, said a package of abortion regulation bills would violate her Jewish religious beliefs that pregnancy be aborted to save the life of the mother. "Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,'" Brown said Wednesday. Brown's comment prompted a rebuke Thursday by House Republicans, who wouldn't allow her to voice her opinion on a school employee retirement bill. "What she said was offensive," said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. "It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company." man I can't believe that woman had the audacity to use the word "vagina" in 'mixed company' during a discussion about women's health and reproductive rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) what is wrong with Michigan: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012061...vagina--comment man I can't believe that woman had the audacity to use the word "vagina" in 'mixed company' during a discussion about women's health and reproductive rights. I don't think the use of the word vagina is what made it offensive...it was probably that she used her own vagina as an example, and inferred they were "interested" in her vagina, in specific. And anyone that doesn't realize how that could be offensive to someone is playing make believe...exactly like you are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts