Leferd

One month away. Polls show voters getting less undecided --and more used to the idea of voting Trump or Clinton vs. Johnson or Stein.

Make Bat Flips Great Again!

Depends on the engine. If you go with a turbo model, there's more than enough giddyup.

The single most important piece of baseball-related journalism this year. http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17668845/korean-bat-flip

Can't go wrong with a Subaru. The Forester, Outback, or Crosstrek XV should suit your purposes just fine. Subaru's are: AWD Super reliable Rugged Decent fuel consumption depending on the engine. Not the most luxurious cars but they are well built and last for ages.

Napoleon has his Waterloo. Johnson has his Aleppo.

So Trump told the media to call Sean Hannity.

Yeah, that terrible. Jose Fernandez could very well have been the next Pedro. Here's a nice write up by one of my favorite baseball writers. https://theringer.com/jos%C3%A9-fern%C3%A1ndez-was-a-singular-superstar-2c4625084eb6#.ky9z4skl6

"What would you do, if elected, about Aleppo?" "About...?" "Aleppo" "And What is Aleppo?" "You're kidding?" "No." "Aleppo is in Syria. It's the epicenter of the refugee crisis."

" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa....the media is being unfair ....waaaaaaaaaaaaa " Volo blaming the media is like getting angry at Bioware for betraying gamers because they became more inclusive True enough. You can't fault a compass for pointing north. The media is mostly biased towards liberals. It's just how it is. You can find plenty of media of varying degrees of popularity and quality that slant right. You can tilt at windmills all day. The Wall Street Journal. U.S. News and World Report. Investor's Business Daily. Fox News. NewsMax. Breitbart. WorldNetDaily. The New York Post. The Washington Times. Etc.,.. Many people nowadays tend to get their news from sources they are already pre-disposed to agree with anyway.

Be that as it may, he still quacks likes a duck.

Not according to the Alt-Right. Bonus points for the homophobia.

Nice. Sharing a cartoon from a documented racist agitator.

Was forwarded this link, because...sports! http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/37225767 I have no idea what happened. Halp. Anybody?

The trees were real pretty in NWN2. Not so much in the first one.

Trump on Bill O'Reilly tonight. Ridiculous. Either Mr. Trump is promoting the suspension of the 4th Amendment and due process or he really has no clue and plan and is the type to let a thug go play Dirty Harry and let the powder keg go off. Probably both. https://youtu.be/hBrhsv2KWI4?t=240

Welp. Looks like we'll start seeing more fit women, guns, and photographs again.

Track and Field coverage through the NBC streaming app is miles better. Different announcing crew, no interruptions, brief bios on most -- if not all the competitors, and best of all, it's live or on demand. There are also separate dedicated feeds of all the field events.

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question. Didn't you say you've been banned at a few other message boards? Perhaps it's the way you write and the tone you give off seems emotionally charged to the reader? *Edit* LK, My apologies, I may have projected. It's been a long day --woke up early to catch the start of the marathon. Going back to your question, I'm with her and Hillary Clinton is getting scrutinized just fine in these here message boards =)

Dude, stop hyperventilating. Seeing as I'm for all intents and purposes the only one participating in this thread likely to be voting for Clinton anyway. Aside from Bruce, everyone here has pretty much been quick to go Hillary-bashing.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them. And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/ am not sure if we can describe politifact as having a methodology. it is pretty darn subjective. difference 'tween placement o' a claim in one o' two categories is gonna be the result o' a fuzzy kinda internal calculus rather than anything that can be objective discerned. more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire trump simple talks out his arse, so is unsurprising when his claims is rated as false, but there has been more than a few liberal political leaders that would appear to get benefit o' the doubt that conservatives do not. HA! Good Fun! "more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all." Ok, that's a fair critique and I recognize it. Nevertheless, Politifact, is transparent and specifically addresses these concerns of what claims are chosen and how they measure truthiness on their processes page. Do they target more Republican statements than Democrats? That NPR interview asserts it, and I have no reason to believe it to be false. But, short of a GAO audit, these online fact checkers are the best we have to gauge aggregate candidate truthiness at the moment.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them. And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

I revel in Starship Troopers' unabashed brown-shirted, fascist propaganda glory. Robert Heinlein's quite the character.

Vicodin/hydrocodone got me high. It worked as it was supposed to and I took it as prescribed. I don't have addictive tendencies though, so I never got close to the point of addiction...but damn, it felt good.

This is why our country is in trouble my friend. It one thing to disagree on policy, role of government, what to do next, etc. But Americans can't even agree on what the facts are now. There is no longer a consensus on what is true and what isn't. The media is not what we needed it to be. An impartial source of information. Years ago people like Cronkite & Murrow were trusted. If they said "this is so" then you felt you could believe them. Now, no one is trusted. If Fox runs a story that is negative for Clinton it is dismissed as Fox being Fox. Even if it is a true story. Ditto for CNN/MSNBC/insert name here. That the story might be factual no longer matters because we don't trust the source. The media can only blame itself. It has ruined it's own credibility. And that is a real problem for us. I seriously believe is Americans were better informed Hillary & Trump would not be the nominees of the two major parties right now. Real news is out there, but you have to go find it. Most folks won't do that. They eat what is spoon fed and if that turns out to be poison, oh well. I can agree to an extent. Like I stated in your news source thread, there are plenty of good, diligent reporters and journalists out there. Journalists are allowed to have opinions, but the good ones will report the news as objectively as they can. But remember, being objective is not mutually exclusive with being balanced. Sometimes...many times, things are black and white and a good reporter will call out the BS as conscience and editors will allow. Look, I share some of the misgivings regarding media, but the the bigger problem is with the news CONSUMERS. These days, many are the product of consuming their own echo chambers---reinforcing their own biases. People read and watch things that they already agree with, and if they consume things that may not necessarily gel with their world view....well of course this person is crooked and stupid media are complete shills.