Leferd

If I recall correctly, wasn't Wade Boggs a participant? Wade Boggs played 3rd base for the Red Sox, Cal Ripken played third for the Red Wings. Boggs went 4-12 that night with a double. There were a few others that got to the majors but those are the two biggest names that played that night. You should check this book out. It's really interesting. I actually read a children's pocketbook biography of Wade Boggs (still in mid career) in elementary school. I remember that he played in that game, but I guess they neglected to mention Ripken. Thanks for the rec.

I spent my paper route money on Green Lantern, and read how my favorite superhero watched his home city get blown to smithereens (population 6 million), lose his marbles and one by one kill off a number of his fellow Green Lanterns and take their power rings, drain the central power battery and the life force of the Guardians of the Universe, and this destroying the Green Lantern Corps. Then he literally ended the universe so he could make everything right again; only he got shot in the chest by an arrow from his best friend. I hate superhero comics.

I'd put The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Peanuts in my holy trinity of comic strips as I grew into my teenage years. But Garfield was tops, pre-adolescence.

Elitist snob.

What? Raise a white flag and surrender? NEVER. I may be wrong, but dammit I will stay with this (sinking) ship! ... I also used to get my Garfields through the Scholastic book orders at school. Do they still do that?

Ok, this is getting off topic... Bruce, you've been constantly quick to make the assumption that if X makes statement A, and is from B, then surely this person's stance = C. Then you proceed to explain why this view is not correct and well hey, let's debate the topic and can you please elaborate on what you mean by xxx...It's a bit condescending. And no offense, but I hope you don't take this the wrong way. And no, I won't use specific examples or dig up old posts to back up my ad hominem attacks on your character. <--that's a joke, but really, I'm not going to be bothered to look this stuff up. Anyways, I read this: Jon's a bit of a spaz and Garfield really hates diets.

Never read nor know anything of the Civil War storyline. But I'm pro whatever the side that the Fantastic Four is on. Please, please don't tell me they broke up #ChildhoodMemoriesRuined

If I recall correctly, wasn't Wade Boggs a participant? Bruce, my impression of you is that you're really big on labels and pigeonholing people. More than anyone else on these boards anyway.

I fully support Volo's anti-Nazi platform.

Look, Hillary's politics and positions are fair game for criticism - as is her lack of skill as an orator and awkwardness in making personal connections with people. Like what I gather to be most of us in this forum, she's naturally introverted, but she's making due the best she can as a highly public figure with strong ambition. But this attack on her character as being power-mad with strong Machiavellian tendencies is a bit rich. Does she want to be President? Clearly. Is she a bad politician? Looks like it. Does she have a strong commitment to public service who wants to help a lot of Americans? I truly believe so. Can I say the same about Bernie Sanders? Absolutely. Kasich? Sure. Rubio? Probably. Cruz? Meh. How about Donald Trump? Bwahahahahaha!

Is this the Dr. Doom/Brotherhood of Evil Mutants hybrid villainy simulator announcement I've been hoping for all this time?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html I'm not sure what you mean? Yes I am Hilary supporter, many people are. I'm not sure what you getting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQoOtrHG96k I refuse to believe that you are SO blind that you cannot see that line for what it is. That line was obviously a rehearsed humblebrag that she was told to say. That line is akin to "I have a confession to make. If elected as president, I cannot help but spend three hours out of my day each day donating money to starving orphans and sick puppies. I'm sorry America, I hope I haven't let you down with this, but it's just who I am. I can't stand to watch those poor things suffer, even if it gets in the way of my work." I'm sorry, but I firmly believe you have to be an idiot to not see the intent behind that line. It's a humblebrag. A dishonest humblebrag that her campaign told her to try and drop into the debate somewhere, where she gives this impression she's ashamed of something that the American people would actually view as a good thing. And yeah, it's not even true. The very fact that that statement was made contradicts the context of the statement itself. I reference that line because it's easily the most painful line of any debate I've seen thusfar. It is, in my opinion, the epitome of lying in politics, yet apparently people can't pick up on that. If you are asked a question about why the American people don't trust you, and your only response is to attempt to lie to them again, then wow. That should say worlds about Hilary as a candidate and as a politician, but instead, the world being what it is, of course there's thousands of idiots that buy into it. In my world, that line would singlehandedly unravel and tank her campaign, since it's just so obvious and filled with so many delicious ironies that only sink her credibility, but I know we don't live in my world. So all I can do is sit here in awe at the fact that Hilary could not have delivered a more obvious political line/lie and she's not even gonna need to pay for it because people are just that stupid. I'm sorry LK but I watched that video and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing strange, disingenuous or unexpected about she said. Maybe she believes it, I believe she believes it ...and I thought her " natural politician " comment was suppose to be a little impertinent, it made me chuckle So I'm not sure why you think that clip should put people off her? Yeah, I don't see anything disingenuous from her in that clip. It's clearly a re-afffirmation of the past 40 years of public life that we know she ain't the snake charmer Slick Willy is. (And I'm saying that as a Bill Clinton Supporter with Hillary Clinton ambivalence)

Never lived in the cold, but I can't imagine not going with an AWD in snowy and/or wet climates.

Extremely bad day for the pollsters. They have to re-evaluate their methodology for Michigan. Nate Silver offers the following: 1) Demographics suggested a closer race than polls. 2) Possible Clinton voter complacency. 3) History of bad polling in Michigan.

They play down to their opponents. 5 of their 6 losses came against bottom 20 teams. They're not Robots like the Spurs.

My favorite Ridley Scott film. It really needed the longer Director's Cut treatment in order for the story to breath and the production design to shine.

Cuz he's too busy banging Jimmy's girlfriend.

Anyways, the moral of the story is to not rely on television news as the primary source to gauge as to who will win an election. They are all about the hot take. Most of the talking heads (whether people literally off the streets or so called "experts") don't know what they're talking and you'll be too confused to filter out who knows their **** from those who don't.

They are fine as news anchors but the guests they allow to opine run the gamut from credible to outright kooky. But mostly, what's on these news shows is utter tripe and their election coverage is garbage. And for emphasis --GARBAGE. Let's be frank, they may live, eat, and sleep politics --but I wouldn't trust them to analyze policy nor would I pay heed to their editorials. Cable news is a game to them where networks and personalities try to one up with each other and their competitors in order to be the first one to report...anything! Who's HOT TAKE and soundbyte will make the cycle?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain " I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all. https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp 538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote. No my memory is fine But I was at a convention and everyone there was saying Romney would win..okay so I'm wrong about that one What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ? Media was wrong, but most of them are hacks who really don't know anything about how polling works. 538 knows this and they generally throw away polls that have anything to do with caucii, as the polling data leading up to them are full of noise and doesn't accurately reflect the people who are actually going to go out and caucus.

Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all. https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp 538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote.

I put this game on hiatus so Firaxis can continue to patch and optimize the game. Also gives me a chance to wait out a few months for the next gen GPU's since I'll be needing a new one anyway.

Well written source material. Science! Charismatic lead actor Very strong supporting cast Arthur Max as the production designer Ridley Scott I'm not sure what your agenda is, but any one of these factors would prevent this movie from being classified as..."plain awful." If you don't like the movie, that's fine. But, "awful?"