Mavric

Couldn't agree more. I also think this is one major problem with the "discussion" - rape and incest are brought up at a far higher frequency than they actually occur.

The day the Lakers are eliminated is always a good day in my book.

Apparently Kerr is transferring to USC (sorry if this is already posted somewhere else - I couldn't find it). May also be moving to FB. Kerr to USC

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ... Actually I think he's spot on. No 1 and 2 has a small argument almost every year. So who does everyone think was 3,4,5 and 6 last season? Some years more than others but I think there are very few years when #2 is clear-cut. 2011 - Alabama obviously wasn't a bad choice but there was definitely an argument about whether they should have been selected over OK St. or Stanford, all with the same records and Alabama not being a conference champion and having already lost to LSU. 2010 - Again, not a lot of argument that undefeated TCU should have been included but they did win the Rose Bowl over an automatic qualifying conference champion. Great counter-point to Mike Terico (and others) who claim that college football doesn't need a playoff because the regular season is a playoff. If it already is a playoff, how can you go undefeated and not even get a chance to play for the title? 2009 - This time there were FIVE undefeated teams. Again, Cincinnati, Boise and TCU didn't really have a shot but that is crazy. 2008 - The greatest argument about the regular season NOT being a playoff. Undefeated Utah (who pummeled Alabama in the Sugar Bowl) left out in favor of one-loss Florida and Oklahoma, who themselves were picked over one-loss Penn St., USC, and Texas. 2007 - One-loss Ohio St. and two-loss LSU picked over one-loss Kansas (Orange Bowl champion) and two-loss Virginia Tech, West Virginia (pounded OU in Fiesta), Oklahoma, USC (pounded Illinois in Rose) and Georgia. Hawai'i was undefeated. 2006 - Undefeated Ohio St. was an easy pick but one-loss Florida was chosen over undefeated Boise (beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl), and one-loss Michigan and Louisville. 2005 - Only two undefeateds - Texas and USC - at least one was easy. Although everyone had handed the title and "greatest team ever" to USC before the game. Oops. 2004 - Three undefeateds - USC, Auburn, and OU. Back when the SEC didn't have an automatic entry into the title game. 2003 - Oklahoma lost the Big XII title game but still got in. That didn't cause any controversy. 2002 - Two undefeateds. That's twice in the last 10 years it's be easy. 2001 - Well, let's just say there was controversy. How many more do you want?

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

She says that going from 18% to 24% is "inching up". That is growing 33% faster than the economy which hardly qualifies as "inching up." 6 percentage points over 50 years? How would you describe it? You're falling into the same trap she is. You look at the difference between 18 and 24 and it doesn't look like very much. But it as given as a percentage of GDP so, if the economy and spending are growing at the same rate, that percentage would never change. But instead, spending is growing 33% faster than the economy. A quick google search came up with the US GDP for 2010 at $14.5T. 6% of that is $870B. If you go back to your favorite graph about what caused the deficit, you could say that 67% of the deficit was caused by spending increasing faster than the economy. Would you like to get 33% more of a salary increase than your co-workers?

What an ego it takes to think you can decide what is right for other people while having no prior knowledge of the position they are in. I agree with you view on abortion, I really don't think it should be done. I think it's inhumane and immoral, but I'm not the person making the decision--I have no knowledge of the forces driving that decision. So who am I, or who are we as people to understand and decide what is right for people in situations to which we are not privy of--that we can have no idea of understanding? My religious views have no pull in how I view abortion. You're no more or less a person to me if you get an abortion early on in the process, I can't possibly understand why you did it, and I can't say if put under the same circumstances that I would make a different choice. The self-righteousness a lot of pro-life people show is indescribable--I really can't put a word to how it makes me feel. Not a direct quote from you but you were along the same lines: Usually the phrase "legislating morality" comes up in this debate. The discussion over abortion is basically the only place I ever hear this phrase used. It always strikes me as odd. Isn't basically every law there is "legislating morality." You can argue with the semantics but basically that was all laws are: a society (generally) agreeing on what is right and what is wrong.

Was going to be really upset if I stayed up just to see the Lakers pull away. Thankfully the Thunder stormed back.

I still don't understand the argument that a playoff will devalue the regular season. If there was a 16 team playoff, I could see that. Possibly a slight devalue with an 8 team playoff but certainly not at four teams. At four teams, going undefeated would almost certainly earn you a spot in the playoff. Currently, even going undefeated doesn't do that. However, even one loss would put you at risk of not being in. How can that possibly devalue the regular season? Even at an 8 team playoff, you'd still probably only get one loss to still be a strong possibility. Are teams going to take a game or two off just because they don't HAVE to win? How can any of that be of any less value than the first Alabama-LSU game was this year? That game had absolutely no value in determining the National Champion.

From ABC:

A loaded statement if there ever was one. I would be very open to reconsidering a lot of things closer to how the founders intended. Something tells me that argument will be narrowly confined to this topic. There is a little more context there: I think it's a moot point. There are stronger arguments to be made against the filibuster than original intent. My reason for posting it was that I found it fascinating that an oversight from hundreds of years ago can dominate politics in the present day. Amazing. I agree with you - there are much better arguments to make the case. But that isn't what they said. They said that was the "core" of the "argument". If that is going to be the "core" of this argument, I think it should be the "core" of others as well.

Interesting graph. I do think she was pretty off in her last paragraph, however: She says that going from 18% to 24% is "inching up". That is growing 33% faster than the economy which hardly qualifies as "inching up."

Do you really find it laughable that men are concerned with abortion? Is that any different than I, a man, being concerned for the well-being of a man I see injured on the street? May I not have an opinion of that man, and may I not wish to aid him in some way? Isn't the central tenet of whether or not you care based on the question of what is happening in an abortion? If it's some tissue being removed from the body, no harm/no foul. If it's a life, it's murder. If it's murder, I would certainly hope that we, as a society, are gravely concerned with abortion, whether we're male or female. If it's a life, the one person not being consulted in the matter is the life being murdered. The gray area is, we don't know if it's a life. We cannot agree on what a life is. Those who feel it is a life should be horrified by abortion - I'd be concerned if they weren't. Those who don't feel it's a life are justifiably unconcerned with the procedure, and justifiably annoyed that others butt their noses in someone else's medical life. I believe it's a life at a far earlier stage than I think most feel. Not Oklahoma-legislature early, but pretty darned early on in the process. Unfortunately, just because I believe that doesn't clear anything up. There are plenty of folks who disagree, and until we arrive at a consensus, this will be debated. Excellent post. I agree that the problem is deciding when and where to draw the line. Many like to argue that the clean line is at birth but that really hasn't ever made sense to me as it is perfectly obvious that it would be able to survive without the mother earlier than that. For example, in the case of twins, the one delivered first would instantly become a life while the other still wouldn't be for another couple minutes? I don't know how that makes any sense. I would also be on the side of drawing the line earlier rather than later. It would seem to me that somewhere around viability wouldn't be a bad compromise. I believe that about 24 weeks is generally considered the minimum for a decent chance of survival. Obviously there are a lot of variables not the least of which is counting that 24 weeks or whatever number you want to put on it. But, in my opinion, even though birth looks to some to be a clean line to draw, it really isn't any less arbitrary that other lines that could be drawn earlier than that.

Looks like a great, big target. Welcome aboard.

Excellent series. Fun to relive the stories you know pretty well (Winning Time, Four Days in October) and fill in a lot of details where you knew the headlines but not the rest of the story (Pony Exce$$, The Best that Never Was, Without Bias, Guru of Go).

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. If you're trying to assert that at least some Democrats can't make up their minds about how they're going to vote on an issue until they see how some GOP senators voted, a pretty sad commentary on their competency.

Which proves what, exactly? I wasn't ignoring it because it damages my argument. I was ignoring it because it doesn't really support your own. You're trying to cloud the waters. (Lay a smoke screen, etc. Choose your own metaphor.) You said Democrats had a filibuster proof majority. Democrats. It's an interesting argument . . . that is factually and mathematically incorrect. The last time that I checked 58 was less than 60. Perhaps something has changed since I last took a math class. I never said that all 60 had to be registered Democrats. Perhaps you were reading that into my post. I don't know of any definition of a majority that says every party of the majority has to be exactly the same. A majority consists of a group that acts/thinks/believes/votes in a similar manner. In fact, I've repeatedly said they were not all registered Democrats but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats (which made up the largest group of the majority) had 60 senators that largely voted along the same lines forming a filibuster-proof majority.

Interesting read. A couple things I noticed: I guess I don't quite follow his logic on this one. I could see where a filibuster rule in the House would meet this criteria but I don't see how it makes any difference on the size of states in the Senate where they're all equal. It would equally affect either, depending on what was being debated. Perhaps someone can help me out on that. A loaded statement if there ever was one. I would be very open to reconsidering a lot of things closer to how the founders intended. Something tells me that argument will be narrowly confined to this topic. Color me skeptical. Not that I'm trying to pick on Reid but it seems like those in favor of the rule and those opposed to it swings directly proportional to where the majority lands.

Basically, my enjoyment of the NBA currently comes from rooting AGAINST teams as I really don't have anyone I really root for (although the Thunder are as close as it gets right now). Luckily, I don't lack for teams to hate: Lakers - Kobe and his whining. It was even worse when Shaq was there. Knicks - Probably still can't forgive them for the thugs they were in the 90s. Heat (although honestly not as much as some) - always root for the little guys. They are the teams that seem to show up on TV more than others. I wonder if there's a correlation???

College - Huskers, of course MLB - Mets. Even I don't know how this came to be. NFL - Broncos. NBA - Bulls during the MJ years. Then Jerry Kraus screwed it all up and I lost interest. I generally don't pay a lot of attention to the NBA now but have been a mild Mavericks fan for some time (bet that didn't surprise anyone, although the handle is of the movie variety) and I like what I see out of the Thunder. 1986 - Mets. Sorry to all the Sox fans. At least you're over it by now, right? 1991 - Bulls. Finally past the Pistons. MJ right then left. 1992 - Bulls. Jordan shrugs. 1993 - Bulls. Not hard to cheer against the Round Mound of Sound 1994 - Huskers. Sapp looked the the game was played at 14,000 ft. 1995 - Bulls. The world back as it should be. 1995 - Husker Volleyball. Probably when I realized we had a VBall team - more of an indictment on myself than the program. 1995 - Huskers. Our team was great but the look on Spurrier's face was priceless. 1996 - Bulls. Without peer. 1997 - Bulls. MJ - I love ya, but that should have been your final shot. 1997 - Huskers. The Mizzou game was on two channels in Lincoln - one of them didn't get back from commercial break until after the Huskers scored in overtime. I'll never forgive them for that. 1997 - Broncos. At long last. "This one's for John" is pretty corny but it was the absolute truth. 1998 - Broncos. A ride off into the sunset. MJ should have done the same. 2000 - Husker Volleyball. I personally know about 1/3 of the team. Unbelievable. Only downside is I didn't watch them as much as I should have because I was mad at the change in General Admission seating at the Coliseum. 2006 - Husker Volleyball. Not sure how Colorado stole the one but Pavan ... what can you say? 2011 - Mavericks (I guess). Probably doesn't really count for me but I'm on somewhat of a drought without it so on the list it goes.

ND could be interesting in a couple years when they're deal is up. Yes, they're still Notre Dame but they really haven't been nationally relevant in football for awhile and their basketball program is slipping as well. I'm sure they'll still get a rosy TV deal offered to them but it could be interesting if it's not as big as they'd like it to be.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the athletic dept. actually give money to the university? Seems like I remember hearing that before.

do you have to sign in at work everyday? Actually, no, I don't. I'm would think version 2.0 will have fingerprint identification to speed up the process...

Incidentally, as I mentioned earlier - and you conveniently ignored - both the vote Invoke Cloture on debate of the Affordable Care Act and the Affordable Care Act itself were passed with exactly 60 votes with no Republicans voting in favor.

You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out. Interesting how you press everyone else ad nausium to answer your questions but apparently refuse to answer any asked directly to you. I assert that the answer to the above question is no and have previously explained why. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. Here's one. There might be more. I didn't look further. http://www.rickperry...%80%99s-passage That vote was 63 votes in favor of. It needed 3/5 (60) to pass. There were only three Republicans that voted for it. That means even if the three Republicans voted against it, it would have still passed with 60 votes. Thank you for proving my point.