That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

I'd never heard it called a Galilean Cannon before, but I was doing this with two of my kid's balls this week. Kids love it, but adults are completely confused by how powerful it is.

Balance, say, a tennis ball on a basketball and drop them from chest height, and it will go so far that you will probably lose your tennis ball.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

NBA's Response


NBA Response to New York Times Story on Flagrant Fouls and Charlotte Hornets guard Jeremy Lin
April 15, 2016

After reviewing our extensive officiating database, we have found no data that suggests Jeremy Lin is disadvantaged by our officiating staff. NBA referees use a set of criteria (available here) provided by the league office in determining whether a foul should be called flagrant. Following the game, contact that is deemed flagrant by referees and other hard contact (whether called or not) is reviewed by NBA Basketball Operations. As part of that review, Basketball Operations uses that same set of criteria, multiple video angles and enhancements, and its comparable database to calibrate its judgment. When deemed appropriate, a foul can be upgraded or downgraded and applicable penalties can be assessed. While some of the plays in the video involved hard contact, none was subsequently deemed a Flagrant Foul given the full circumstances, angles and comparables from past games.

With respect to the data, over the last three seasons, Mr. Lin ranked 21st among all players in number of drives to the basket with 1,537. While he has not drawn a flagrant foul in that time, neither have other guards known for their driving ability like Reggie Jackson (2,031 drives), Tony Parker (1,974), Tyreke Evans (1,969), Ty Lawson (1,891), Kyrie Irving (1,649) or Victor Oladipo (1,544). Conversely, Mr. Lin has drawn more common fouls on those drives than any of those previously listed players and has drawn fouls at the seventh-highest rate among the 23 players with more than 1,500 drives.

Furthermore, given the infrequency of flagrant fouls (roughly 1 per every 500 foul calls), it is not statistically significant that none of Mr. Lin’s 814 fouls drawn were deemed flagrant.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Your video, 5' 5" High School Basketball Player Dunks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 60 Badge!

Your video, GPD "Basketball Cop" returned as promised, With Shaq, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I though it was like a basketball? ball lightning that is.

This is great. Long-time Colbert fan.

I've been watching the new late show and after a while I noticed some "Where's Waldo?" Colberts hidden in the intro. I didn't spot any new ones in this version, but the three subtle ones I know of are in there.

The obvious ones (basketball, piano) don't count.

Hints: 1. Ole! 2. Tablecloth 3. Big flag wave!

Aesthetically pleasing athleticism. Totally expected this to be filmed somewhere in Russia, until I noticed the basketball hoop and the AT&T sign.

Your video, 1 in a Billion Basketball Shot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sorry, but it's nowhere near as sex blind as she makes out.

Fine, I get that they don't want to have men fighting women. Personally, I don't have a problem with it (I train with women all the time). The important point is that it's not a man "beating up" a woman, it's a man "competing with" a woman where both parties are consenting.

But look at this page of weight classes.

BANTAMWEIGHT TJ DILLASHAW
WOMEN'S BANTAMWEIGHT RONDA ROUSEY

(emphasis mine)

If you have to have separate titles, why is one the "womens bantamweight" title and the other is just the plain old "bantamweight" title?

Sorry, but it's exactly the same as golf, tennis, or basketball. The men's competition is the "X/Y/Z champion" and the women's is the "women's X/Y/Z competition".

It might not seem like much, but omitting "Men's" from the bantamweight title makes it the default, "real" competition and the "women's" is the secondary.