Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 237
1
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Today at 04:24 PM »
Of course we should want the government involved in healthcare. This seems to work just fine.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/index.html?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email


Awful, isn't it? They should get gold plated care, those who sacrifice themselves as they do.

When you think about why people want government run health care it makes you wonder the reason behind it. I think it's because they think insurance companies are robbing people, cheating people, etc., and the government will be more efficient. But where is the government ever more efficient? While I'm no fan of insurance companies, it's worse with the government, as they're so incompetent, they have to have insurance companies help them, so you get people like Kathleen Sebelius and her her colleagues, who don't know s***, but get paid huge bucks with huge benefits. So, you pay twice, once to cover the cost of the bureaucrats, then again to the insurance companies who handle and pay for the treatment. Countries that have universal healthcare, have both onerous taxes, and lousy healthcare. Just like the VA. And the coercion involved. All providers get squeezed and many will quit. Then you'll have long waits. And if one thinks NSA snooping is bad, wait til the government has all your health records, tax records, and all internet and cell phone communications. You don't need a Stasi. Delightful. Road to serfdom.

2
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 01:44 PM »
News flash: US an oligarchy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

You might want to add a news flash. Unions are an oligarchy, though that piece avoids that, preferring:

Relatively few represent the poor or even the economic interests of ordinary workers, particularly now that the U.S. labor movement has become so weak.

Unions, public sector ones, are huge contributors to politics. Unions dwarf other contributors. The reason the left doesn't like Citizens United, is that it more levels the playing field. Like unions, companies can now contribute.

Some particular U.S. membership organizations – especially the AARP and labor unions– do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants.

Tim, this is just a complete falsehood. 100% in error. It couldn't be more wrong. Pro choice and pro life stances are unrelated to what the average American wants? And something like 70% of Americans are for unrestricted gun ownership. Registry maybe, but not restricted. As 90% of academics at places like Harvard donate to Democrats, this piece is not surprising. And just how does AARP and labor unions favor the same policies as what the average American wants? Laughable on its face. I guess once a Marxist, always a Marxist....despite the evidence. What's the definition of insanity?

Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of the capitalist state hold that economic classes – and particularly the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production -- dominate policy making and cause the state to serve their material interests. As the Communist Manifesto put it, “The bourgeoisie has...conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of
the whole bourgeoisie.”19 We cannot precisely test the predictions of such theories, because we lack good measures of policy preferences by economic class. (In Marxist theory, neither income nor wealth accurately signals class position.) We can note, however, that certain “instrumentalist” Marxist theories, including the important version put forth by Ralph Miliband, make predictions resembling those of theories of Biased Pluralism: that interest groups and
corporations representing “large scale business” tend to prevail.

3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:49 PM »
I wonder if 200 profs objected. Another glorious move allowed under Spanier. He's a sick dude. Perverted.



Kid:

I offer you this challenge. Either offer some actual, tangible proof of this accusation, or shut the F up on this subject. And by actual proof, I mean just that. Proof. Not your opinion.

Is that speaker being the keynote speaker on campus not proof? If not, what is?

I'm not a moral nihilist, Tim. I believe in natural law and fundamental truths. This country was founded on those principles. Spanier writing on mate swapping, and suggesting that "deviancy is in the eyes of the beholder" is moral nihilism. This is both a fact and common among academics. Let me ask you a question. How much difference is there between the views of Patrick Califia Rice and Jerry Sandusky's actions? Isn't it just a matter of degree? So, if Rice's appearance is acceptable, doesn't that imply his views are at least acceptable views?

IMO, NFW someone like this is allowed to speak on campus. Natural law would prohibit it. But once again, I'm not a moral nihilist. By his statements, not mine, Spanier is. That's proof enough. Yes, it's my opinion that moral nihilism is sick. So be it.

4
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:33 PM »

P.S.  I could also give to sh*ts about what art work people hang on their walls.  It's just art.   Get over it.


Obviously a puff piece. But "balance"? Total BS. The title of the piece is dead on. But you live in a fantasy land, not the real one, so your mind can't grasp it. Cognitive dissonance. On the art, it just shows the sympathy/longing the left has for socialism/communism. Speaking of two s**ts, they feel the same way of those murdered by the people who made those posters. And you don't own this board, so who cares about your two s**ts? The left would rather attack people like Condi Rice, in just another example of the "tolerance" of the left. They tolerate(actually endorse) murderous socialists(and mullahs), but abuse someone like Condi Rice. Thank goodness these schools  declined to pull the offer(s). But what is the state of American academia if 200 professors at U of Minnesota called for the disinvite? Sort of like the 200+ profs at Duke who convicted those lacrosse players without evidence. IMO, those at Duke should have been fired. What message did they send? Guilty before proven? Maybe they wanted to lynch the lacrosse players.

What does it tell you when schools would rather have this speaker than Condi Rice? Leftists are the most intolerable people on earth. A little side note on Condi Rice on reading. She claims that her parents so forced her to read as a child, that as an adult, unlike Shipman, she doesn't like reading(but she probably reads 10X what Shipman reads). Any picture of her would have 'real' books, not manufactured to create a false impression.

So, someone like this is welcome to speak at a major university. I wonder if 200 profs objected. Another glorious move allowed under Spanier. He's a sick dude. Perverted.

"The keynote speaker, Patrick Califia Rice, is a well known champion of adult-child sex and the pederasty group NAMBLA, whose published works include a fictional short story about a lesbian who performs acts of sadism on her 13-year old daughter"

The rape of the boy in the shower at PSU happened 25 days prior to this speaker coming to PSU.


The Stupid Hounding of Condi Rice

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 16, 2014, 06:00 PM »
Wow. Why anyone would pay for a college which throws money away on BS like this. Good luck getting a job with this c*** taking up space in your head. Psst.....petroleum engineers start at $97k; feminist, environmental and ethnic studies work two jobs and live in their parents' basement's. I have a friend whose daughter, probably 24, is moving back to Vermont from NYC. Her environmental studies degree from UVM isn't landing her squat. She works mainly as a waitress. WTF even is an environmental studies degree? I mean, what do they do, complain about the climate, plundering our planet, polluting our water? Okay, and what job does that prepare them for? Junk like this is both robbery and child abuse.

Krugman to the Rescue

6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 16, 2014, 05:53 PM »

Of course it was a puff piece, but communist posters in their kitchen? I assume those were real but the photographer/editor either wanted them or didn't notice. And why inflate their bookshelves? Of course it was staged, but the need to exaggerate their 'bookishness' is laughable. In short, it's trying to represent something they're not. More than likely, the woman hasn't read a book in 5 years. People that read a lot of books, or say they read a lot, don't need to misrepresent what's in their library. And if they read on a Kindle type device, they'd say that. The title of the piece nails it.

Until you have at least SOME evidence that she isn't reading the books that she claims to be, your ire is way misplaced.

She's reading 3 or 4 copies of the same book?


Let me spell it out for you, since your reading comprehension sucks.

The only claim SHE made was about the books on her nightstand.

The duplicate books were photo-shopped into a picture by some magazine staffer.  They have nothing to do with reality - and were never intended to (unless of course you believe that Shipman and Carney meant for the world to think they hold Sunday press conferences at home in their library with their kids asking questions). 

BTW - the clothes that they are wearing aren't really theirs either.   They are modeling attire for advertisers in the magazine.   Would you like to call them out for misrepresentation on that front too?   I'm sure you can find some wacko stance about why that's also evidence of what's all so wrong with "the left" too.

Mine sucks? You read what you want. Nice you got around to reading about the pile on the nightstand. Funny no comment on the Soviet posters, which are almost certainly real, as they're not highlighted. People who read a lot have no need to multiply their books. She's probably reading romance novels. Fantasyland, but then again, so is Obamacare, and you buy that BS. True believer in every sense.

7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 15, 2014, 11:01 PM »

Of course it was a puff piece, but communist posters in their kitchen? I assume those were real but the photographer/editor either wanted them or didn't notice. And why inflate their bookshelves? Of course it was staged, but the need to exaggerate their 'bookishness' is laughable. In short, it's trying to represent something they're not. More than likely, the woman hasn't read a book in 5 years. People that read a lot of books, or say they read a lot, don't need to misrepresent what's in their library. And if they read on a Kindle type device, they'd say that. The title of the piece nails it.


Until you have at least SOME evidence that she isn't reading the books that she claims to be, your ire is way misplaced.


She's reading 3 or 4 copies of the same book? With people like this, it's all image, no substance. Wealthy background, right schools, right pedigree, and full of s***. I guess these posters were so cool, they just had to have them. Like the idiots who wear Che Guevara tee shirts, unaware that he was Castro's executioner....though he was a boy scout compared to the Soviets. Do victims of socialist government oppression matter to the left?

Soviet Posters


8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 15, 2014, 10:46 PM »
Apparently, you can be a heartbeat away and brain dead at the same time. This is Joe Biden speaking in Boston, to survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing. Can't wait to see Lar spin this.

Brainless Idiot Joe Biden Tells Boston Bombing Survitors "It Was Worth It"

9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 15, 2014, 09:40 AM »

I doubt it.  The much more likely scenario is that the lowly photoshop guy is charged with making sure the photos are artistically appealing, just like every other photo that gets into the mag.   It's got nothing to do with whether the subjects are "voracious readers" or not.

Maybe you should read the article first. Shades of kenpom wipeout. ;) Communist posters are a nice touch too, huh?

The next picture is the one that has been lampooned mercilessly. The Carneys are Democrats, so it goes without saying that they are well-read. (“I always have a pile. I hate to be without books,” Shipman says.) So they are photographed in front of a wall of books.

I read the article.  She's lists the books on her nightstand in a completely separate part of the article.   Big deal.  What does that have to do with whether or not there are a bunch of books behind them in an unrelated photograph?   It's a crappy photoshop job.  Nothing more. 

You know there's probably a pretty good chance that they all didn't just roll out of bed on a Sunday morning when that picture in the kitchen was taken too.  I bet that's staged too (or do you really think they eat all that food in the morning)   Big deal.

It's not like we're talking about fake war zone pictures or something.  It's a damn puff piece filler in a Washington magazine about women in DC.   You could probably dissect every other photo in the magazine and find evidence of photoshopping.   By the way, do you actually think the photo in question was meant to be from their house?  What was it, their morning press conference with their kids?   It's not meant to be real. 

It's funny.  It's not some big scandal like you're trying to make it out to be.

Of course it was a puff piece, but communist posters in their kitchen? I assume those were real but the photographer/editor either wanted them or didn't notice. And why inflate their bookshelves? Of course it was staged, but the need to exaggerate their 'bookishness' is laughable. In short, it's trying to represent something they're not. More than likely, the woman hasn't read a book in 5 years. People that read a lot of books, or say they read a lot, don't need to misrepresent what's in their library. And if they read on a Kindle type device, they'd say that. The title of the piece nails it.

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:16 AM »

I doubt it.  The much more likely scenario is that the lowly photoshop guy is charged with making sure the photos are artistically appealing, just like every other photo that gets into the mag.   It's got nothing to do with whether the subjects are "voracious readers" or not.

Maybe you should read the article first. Shades of kenpom wipeout. ;) Communist posters are a nice touch too, huh?

The next picture is the one that has been lampooned mercilessly. The Carneys are Democrats, so it goes without saying that they are well-read. (“I always have a pile. I hate to be without books,” Shipman says.) So they are photographed in front of a wall of books.

11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:59 AM »
This is about the sloppiest photoshop I've ever seen. Are there any books at all? Is this what this party has become, phony images to misrepresent something? Why would a magazine do this, to make them look better read than they are? Phonies. What BS. Why would a magazine alter a picture? Doesn't this destroy their credibility?


Ideology vs Reality


But Lar, as usual you miss the point. This is their house. They've manufactured books to make it look like they're big readers. They'

Yup.  It's a lousy photoshop job.   But only you and your right wing whack jobs would try to turn it into evidence of some egregious campaign to deceive the American public.

It's one lowly magazine staffer doing a lousy job - nothing more.

BTW - I'm willing to bet that virtually every photo that appears in major magazines is photoshopped in some way.


Once again, you miss the point. Yes, the job is lousy, but the point is the misrepresentation. Obviously, they want the appearance to be tbat of voracious readers and their "real" bookshelf didn't accomplish that. Pssst....they're phonies. Even you should be able to see that, unless you have sone sort of bkockage.

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 13, 2014, 12:47 AM »
This is about the sloppiest photoshop I've ever seen. Are there any books at all? Is this what this party has become, phony images to misrepresent something? Why would a magazine do this, to make them look better read than they are? Phonies. What BS. Why would a magazine alter a picture? Doesn't this destroy their credibility?


Ideology vs Reality

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 12, 2014, 11:29 PM »
So this is what the BLM standoff was about. Harry Reid lining his own pockets. Big government in action. Self serving criminals.

http://www.infowars.com/feds-back-down-from-bundy-siege-after-infowars-expose-of-chinese-land-grab/

And these two? Talk about the 1%? Revolting. These two add zero to the economy. Rent seeking lobbyists. People complain about corporate money. At least corporations provide jobs and products that people, uncoerced, want to buy. These two creeps add nothing, but squeeze money for themselves, and raise the cost of products by their skimming by navigating the labyrinth of regulations which their friends put in. And big, big money. How could anyone in their right mind want more government? This is what you get.

Divorce Beltway Style

14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 12, 2014, 10:53 AM »
For those who think national single payer healthcare is the solution, Vermont offers a primer on how this works. IMO, it's always sensible to see how a program like this would work on a smaller scale. Vermont estimates it will cost an additional $1.6 billion. With 620,000 residents, of which maybe 1/3 would be subsidized, makes this attempt laughable. Think about it, the 420,000 of those not subsidized might represent 150,000 families. So it'd cost those more than $10,000 each. In short, it ain't gonna happen. Vermont politics is stupid, but not suicidal.

All of this, whether state single payer, or national single payer rests on one ridiculous premise, that someone else will pay, but not me.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-11/vermont-s-single-payer-dream-is-taxpayer-nightmare

15
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 12, 2014, 09:47 AM »
Classic picture/caption to illustrate the national story:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/04/11/the_most_underrated_college_in_each_state_map.html

New York's is "College of Staten Island"? Never heard of it.

16
OT / Re: "Back the Bucs"
« on: April 11, 2014, 12:33 PM »
Maybe those guys blew out their arms pitching little league/legion/HS ball, etc.  and never made it to the show in the 1st place?   Maybe the only guys you saw in the majors were the ones who made it through all those innings without needing a surgery that wasn't available yet.


According to the expert  who says they have studied it, almost all of the major factors point to the out of control nature of youth sports today.  The "out of control" commentary is mine.
 
1. Year-round baseball
2. Playing in more than one league at the same time where rules don't count

Others:
In showcases for scouts, they try to overpitch and they get hurt
Poor mechanics continues to be a problem
Throwing breaking balls at an early age
"The radar gun is always a problem, too, because these kids are always trying to throw 90 miles per hour"
Minor injury in one's youth sets him up for a major injury when he's an adult
[/quote]

That may be it. My son did the showcase thing. Plus, played 50 legion games each summer, and about 20 HS games. The 50 legion games included tourneys, but that's where the damage comes in. Coaches use their best pitchers as much as possible. I forget the restrictions, but they're pretty bad for a kid's arm. It's something like 9 innings over 72 hours. So, you can pitch 6 on Sunday, 3 on Tuesday, then 6 on Wednesday. Pretty bad, though not sure my numbers are exact, but you can really wear a kid out. And the comps in regionals is pretty high level, so no easy outs.

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 11, 2014, 12:27 PM »
A decision I'm in 100% agreement with by the USDA. Now, I'm not sure how it would fair in a court of law but anything that is being done to get our children fitter is something I am all in favor for provided they are reasonable in implementation. This is very reasonable imo.

http://fox59.com/2014/04/10/hello-fruits-and-vegetables-junk-food-banned-from-schools-july-1/#axzz2yZgyYKmO


While I'm on board with a better school lunch, there's no fat in that diet. Low fat milk only? NFW. No nutrients. Fat is good for you, satisfies hunger. I lost 10% of my body weight, and my main place for dinner is a polish deli. Pork tenderloin, veal franks, meat loaf. Awesome. mjg turned me on to this kind of eating, with his recommendation of 10% milkfat Cabot yogurt. I add blackberry jam and pistachio nuts. The texture is between cream cheese and whipped cream. That 0% c*** is horrible, and loaded with sugar. Sans fat, you crave food all day. Feed kids pork, dark meat chicken, beef, butter, whole milk, eggs, cheese cake for dessert, and they'll be satisfied and won't be craving snack food between meals. Of course, have healthy portions of veggies and fruit, but cut down the carbs big time, and IMO, whole grains overrated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/opinion/bittman-butter-is-back.html?_r=0

18
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 10, 2014, 12:14 PM »
Today's interesting stuff (and kid bait, no doubt):

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/heres-some-stunning-and-unexpected-good-news-about-obamacare

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/what-can-we-do-about-junk-science-16674140

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/half-americans-believe-least-one-conspiracy-theory-78613/


Can't open the 3rd one, but on the first two? Yeah, kid bait.

On junk science. As I'm not a scientist, I think the tipoff is when those who promote a certain view can't defend it against criticism. Calling people racists, tobacco deniers, getting editors of science journals fired for publishing opposing research, banning speakers, calling for jail, etc., enough of a sign that the science is indefensible. When German scientists published "100 Scientists Against Einstein", he replied, "I don't need 100 opinions, just one fact." This is how it should work. He was confident in his work. If you're not, you use smear tactics.

On ACA, no time to read, but I've seen charges of cherry picking. My view on healthcare is that of Milton Friedman's. It should be patient centered, not government centered. Until the first question you get asked upon entering a doctor's office goes from, "What insurance do you have"? to "What's wrong"?, I don't see much hope. In terms of actuarial science, charging young people more to pay for older/sicker people is indefensible. Young people pay more on car insurance due to actuarial stats, they should pay less on healthcare due to positive actuarial stats. The government has damaged education, housing and healthcare enough. Once again, I'll stick with Milton, "If the government ran the Sahara Desert, they'd run out of sand in 3 years." Venezuela, Argentina and Cuba are good examples of what happens when governments run things. The more government, the less overall wealth, the less freedom, the more ruin. Though not as extreme, Club Med(Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece) and France not looking so hot either. So, yes, I'm for less government, not more. The ACA is more, so fundamentally against. Just no evidence that our government is capable in running things.

19
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 9, 2014, 10:06 PM »
Anyone know the author of this:

"Let me define the difference between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."

Which party's negative?

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 9, 2014, 06:34 PM »

Holy cow, you can kill a conversation before it even starts.  ?Communism, socialism, government coercion, blame games, old tricks?  Wow!  I just posted an article that I thought presented and interesting perspective on people understanding each other a little better and you come out firing shots across the bow.  Sorry I offended you.

Sorry, as your post was legit. It's just if I see one more cognitive study as to why people don't believe in AGW, think negative thoughts, etc., I think I'll pass out. IMO, there are issues in the world. Some people say red, others blue. But it's the merits of the positions which should be debated, discussed, argued, based on empiricism. Not questioning someone's mental ability, cognition, negative outlook. Whether it's the minimum wage, women's vs. men's wages, AGW, there are facts, empirical studies, etc. Seems to me that questioning someone's outlook is really admitting desperation. In the old West, you had charlatans selling hair tonic which would make hair grow(or so they said). It didn't matter what the seller thought, how he viewed things, nor his opponent's views. What mattered were the results. Did it work? Same with using leeches for cleansing blood. So, when I see these cognitive studies, it's a tipoff that those offering such have a weak argument, and can't defend with facts. I mention Communists, because this was what Marx did. And his successors have used propaganda to perpetuate a system which has been disastrous, all built on lies and no empirical studies to support its use as a system. When Marx was asked by the economists at the London School of Economics about how the system worked, as they didn't understand it, his reply was, "that's because you have a bourgeosie mind, and you need a proletariat mind to understand how it works." This is not an argument, nor facts. It's BS, lacking an argument. Is that not a similar cognitive argument to what Hibbings suggests? Did he not say, conservatives have a "negative mind"? Marx is suggesting "preconceptions" making one unable to think straight or logically.  This line of reasoning is dangerous and should be avoided. I don't see these cognitive studies as anything but the same as Marx tried. What is the difference?

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 9, 2014, 03:20 PM »
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiology-ideology

"And when you combine Hibbing's research on the physiology of ideology with waves of other studies showing that liberals and conservatives appear to differ when it comes to genetics, hormones, moral emotions, personalities, and even brain structures, the case for politics being tied to biology seems pretty strong indeed."

Negativity bias? This is absurd. Isn't it the left which thinks everything is wrong and needs a government fix? Isn't that a negative outlook? How about the view that humans are the problem? Or that the world is going to end due to AGW? I'm not surprised they avert their gaze from horror. They do the same thing with places like Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina. People like Michael Moore, Sean Penn and Krugman think those places are great.


Well I suppose you just took Hibbing's "silly idea" that understanding why we make the choices we do might make us more tolerant of each other and shot all kinds of holes in it.   ;)  So much for increased tolerance and compromise.


I don't care why Communists did what they did and do. I care that they do it. I don't want to understand them. I want them stopped. Socialism is coercion. I want that stopped. Forcing people to buy government healthcare is coercion. I want it stopped. I don't care why, nor do I want to understand. I believe in freedom, and coercion isn't freedom. I don't see that as negative.

Buckley had it right re his new magazine 60 years ago. The left has no patience with those who disagree, and try to blame it on the thought processes of the "right brain", rather than look at their own disastrous policies, which are indefensible. It's an old trick.

It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223549/our-mission-statement/william-f-buckley-jr

22
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 9, 2014, 07:53 AM »
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiology-ideology

"And when you combine Hibbing's research on the physiology of ideology with waves of other studies showing that liberals and conservatives appear to differ when it comes to genetics, hormones, moral emotions, personalities, and even brain structures, the case for politics being tied to biology seems pretty strong indeed."

Negativity bias? This is absurd. Isn't it the left which thinks everything is wrong and needs a government fix? Isn't that a negative outlook? How about the view that humans are the problem? Or that the world is going to end due to AGW? I'm not surprised they avert their gaze from horror. They do the same thing with places like Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina. People like Michael Moore, Sean Penn and Krugman think those places are great.

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 8, 2014, 11:01 PM »
Global Warming Panic explained

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: April 8, 2014, 08:55 PM »
First Wall Street, now Silicon Valley. Revolution in the air.

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/04/06/vanishing-point/

IMO, they have been ripped off by academia, and that's where their anger should be directed. Feminist studies and required reading like, Plundering the Planet, which I saw a student reading yesterday, will get you nowhere. You need to learn stuff other people want to pay you for.

Sorry for the awakening; sorry because they were sold a a sack of s***, and like a person who borrows 200 grand to acquire a degree in feminist studies find that it isn’t worth a damn.


25
OT / Re: "Back the Bucs"
« on: April 8, 2014, 08:47 PM »
Good news, Buc's take 2 out of 3 from the Cards this past weekend.

Bad news........

Bucs prospect Taillon opts for Tommy John surgery

Also........

Pirates extend Hurdle, Huntington


This Tommy John surgery is epidemic. Wonder what they did in the prior years. Did guys just have sore arms and rested them or retired?


Something like 25% of MLB starting pitchers have had this surgery.


I heard 1/3. But what happened in the 50's-70's? Did guys just disappear, like they lost it? I just don't remember so many guys being disabled. I guess it happened, and they never came back. But many teams have lost so many pitchers. The Mets lost Hefner, Harvey and now Parnell, and I think this is common today. I just don't recall teams losing 3 pitchers in one year before, back 20-30 years. Maybe it happened, and they called it a sore arm. Did they just pitch after rest? Some guys have done that recently. Roy Halladay did that, rested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 237