I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.

But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?

I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

>> ^quantumushroom:

This corrupt, incoherent decision goes way beyond socialized medicine.
This is what you need to take away from this: the Supreme Idiots have now given the federal mafia unlimited power. Fuck your health insurance or anything else, it does not matter because you are no longer free. The pigs can now penalize you for doing something they don't like, and "TAX" your dumb asses when you DON'T do something they command you to do.
We are no longer free, a message lost on whose who didn't give a damn about freedom to begin with. To you ninnyhammers still whining about "greed", we've only spent 9 trillion dollars on a failed "War on Poverty".
Why you lefties born in America (by accident) just don't up and move to Europe I'll never know. They already have a socialist paradise.


Wait, does this mean I can't legally smoke marijuana now?

Putting aside the tortured "logic" of this horrible Court decision, here's the straight dope:

People who couldn't or wouldn't pay for health insurance are now forced at gunpoint to pay for it.

Boy that's new, before there were limits to federal power. Now for the first time, the federal mafia can force you to buy a product, and if you refuse, they illegally penalize you under the guise of a "tax", an argument so warped even His Earness didn't use it.

If the formerly uninsured don't have the money or refuse to pay for health insurance, someone else pays the tab anyway (you can't easily put 30 million people in prison).

In other words, nothing has changed, except for expanded unconstitutional government powers and huge, economy-destroying tax hikes with 19,000 new IRS agent/enforcers to collect.

If there's one constant in life, it's whenever government gets involved in business, everything gets cheaper and more efficient.

Putting aside the tortured "logic" of this horrible Court decision, here's the straight dope:

People who couldn't or wouldn't pay for health insurance are now forced at gunpoint to pay for it.

Boy that's new, before there were limits to federal power. Now for the first time, the federal mafia can force you to buy a product, and if you refuse, they illegally penalize you under the guise of a "tax", an argument so warped even His Earness didn't use it.

If the formerly uninsured don't have the money or refuse to pay for health insurance, someone else pays the tab anyway (you can't easily put 30 million people in prison).

In other words, nothing has changed, except for expanded unconstitutional government powers and huge, economy-destroying tax hikes with 19,000 new IRS agent/enforcers to collect.

If there's one constant in life, it's whenever government gets involved in business, everything gets cheaper and more efficient.

1) Vote taxocrat
2) watch sh1t gets worse
3) Blame Bush
4) repeat until revolution

This corrupt, incoherent decision goes way beyond socialized medicine.

This is what you need to take away from this: the Supreme Idiots have now given the federal mafia unlimited power. Fuck your health insurance or anything else, it does not matter because you are no longer free. The pigs can now penalize you for doing something they don't like, and "TAX" your dumb asses when you DON'T do something they command you to do.

We are no longer free, a message lost on whose who didn't give a damn about freedom to begin with. To you ninnyhammers still whining about "greed", we've only spent 9 trillion dollars on a failed "War on Poverty".

Why you lefties born in America (by accident) just don't up and move to Europe I'll never know. They already have a socialist paradise.

I say, embrace it. Kids will still snicker the first few times they hear the name, but who cares?

That's right kids -- it is planet YER' ANUS. Enjoy your moments of juvenile mirth every time you hear it. YERANUS YERANUS YERANUS.

Perhaps we can mitigate this problem by dumping the kids into a sort of unfortunate name "sensory overload"?:

We are planning to ERECT a PENAL colony on URANUS. The first prisoners can be birds like blue footed BOOBIES and great TITS. Maybe we'll leave some PUSSY cats there to keep the bird population from exploding.

I propose that every 3rd grade science teacher recite the preceding paragraph (adding any more unfortunate words they deem worthy) to their classes every day until the novelty wears off and the kids stop giggling.

So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

I think you may be missing the point of what the Congressman was getting at, and especially what rights we have under the constitution. Are you aware of what the free exercise clause is about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Every person is guaranteed the right to practice their religion free from government interference. This is a fundamental right for every citizen, and religious liberty is one of the principles this country was founded on, if you know your history.

Here is a basic description:

"The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”227 It bars “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,”228 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs “to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.”229 Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs.230 Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute “conduct” rather than pure “belief.” When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent.231 It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.232 What has changed over the years is the Court’s willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions"

Now, when you say Government should do what's best for "all citizens", what you're really saying is that Government should do what's best for "some citizens", because most citizens of this country are religious. Over 80 percent of us profess to be Christians, and that doesn't include all of the jews, muslims, hindus etc. Clearly, what's best for most citizens is the guarantee of religious liberties, a constitutional principle which, again, is at the heart of why we even have a United States of America.

As far as human sacrifice goes, that is what the Congressman meant when he spoke of the balancing test in regards to constitutional law. The Supreme Court decided for instance, on balance, that the fact of polygamy would harm the interests of the United States more than it would be compromising the the religious liberties of mormons. Allowing people to murder one another for a religious ritual would be in that category. This is not something the Supreme Court does lightly; on the main, they rule in favor of religious liberty.

So, while you may prefer a secular country with secular values, that isn't where you were born. This country was founded on freedom, not secularism. If you want to tamper with that, you are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

As far as contraceptives are concerned, the government is treading on the religious liberties of catholics by forcing them to carry contraceptives in their health plans. Changing the rule so that they are distributed for free changes nothing, because the catholics will have to pay higher premiums, and also because some catholic institutions have their own private carriers, which means they will have to pick up the tab. They shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptive use, and the Supreme Court will agree with that when they hear the case.



>> ^Sepacore:
Gowdy Grills "When a state banned a practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won that?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not sir"
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Gowdy Grills "I think the state has an important interest in having license tags on automobiles so law enforcement can know who they're dealing with. When a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their cars, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Groups given exceptions to compassionate/reasonable behaviors/expectations because they say they're religious.. this type of occurrence is wrong for Governments to allow/support when they are supposed to be doing what's best for all citizens, not letting some groups who have a personal preference get away with things that would put anyone else in jail. When it comes to physical well-being/suffering or reasonable safety/accountability, those who have their personal preferences that oppose such rational positions need to pull their heads in.
I'd like/hate to see what would happen in a supreme court case where a religion stated "it's my religious right to kill that person/human because of my holy doctrine".
Where the same situation occurred but with animals, and the group were authorized to carry out their murders.
More relevant to the HHS mandate, if someone doesn't want to use contraceptive, they don't have to just because it's covered in their universities/schools health plans by government policy. The government is trying to give people the option. Catholics could exercise their abilities to be devout to their subscribed belief system and simply not use the contraceptives.

The 100% serious straight faced republican answer is "because he's a better* person than you".

No - the answer is that you guys are comparing grapes and basketballs and then bellyaching about how it "isn't fair" that the grape doesn't bounce as high as a basketball. It accomplishes nothing except to prove how woefully ignorant you are, and how horribly succeptible you are to leftist bull$#!t.

I'll try to put this in a way that even a ProgLibDyte could understand... There's two reasons Romney only paid 13.9% taxes....

1. Most of his income was from capital gains investments - which are taxed at much lower rates than income taxes in nations all over the planet. This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector. So capital gains investments are a behavior that should be rewarded - and even the government knows this. That's why CGI rates are only 15% even for guys like Buffett because government wants them dumping money into business capital to stimulate growth - and they aren't going to penalize that highly beneficial behavior with punitive tax rates just because you are stupid and feel butthurt about it.

2. Mitt Romney donated 15% of his income to charity - which is tax deductible. It is another thing that is never going to change, because giving money to a private charity is a bilion times more efficient than giving it to government, and that kind of behavior should be rewarded.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

That's reality guys. I know it is not convenient to the liberal worldview, but even your left-wing radical pals like Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and all the rest do the exact same things as Romney once they have earned enough money. And yet you don't seem to care about that. Curious. Very curious indeed, this thing you call 'selective outrage'... Facts are facts, and for true INCOME (not CGI) Mitt, Buffett, Gates, and everyone else pay higher taxes than you (or the same if you happen to hit the highest tax tier). The only way you leftists can ever conjure up your fakey, bologna arguments is to cook the books and crosstalk about completely different things. It is bullcrap, but you guys wolf it down like chocolate cake. Just proves how dumb you are when it comes to economics.

http://gothamist.com/2012/01/06/better_more_infuriating_video_shows.php

yah definitely resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

this from NYC penal law code

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

Sorry, I don't know you, but from what I can infer from your post you live in the States? You don't "subsidize" anything in Canada. Certainly not the health care system. Who's this 'we' you're talking about?

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

@longde

Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.

We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.

Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.

L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?
Bullshit.


I think It could be fair to call the physical sexual aspect of homosexuality a disorder , although that's not necessarily a bad thing , its one of those things that has very few negative effects the only grounds for which I would say its a "disorder" are the following

I would think given the choice most gay men or women would rather be equpid with sexual organs that better function for sexual enjoyment from each other without so much hassle or that can operate with less risk of health implications ( in the case of men).

for example Interims of the machinery of sexual enjoyment a penis and vagina function far better together mechanically than a penis and a anus or a vagina and vagina. ( vagina lubricates itself , is less prone to tairing , when it does brake has more ability to repair itself , it has a balance of microbes that can better protect and reduce the risk of infection ) With vagina and vagina sex I think you could argue that its less intimate than penal sex with a vagina and if lesbian woman could have a lesbian penis then im sure they would use that over fingers or other body parts.

due to the Psychological aspect of sexual enjoyment obviously some people prefer a dick in an ass then a dick in a vagina , or would rather rub up against a statue or a tree. but I'm sure if you give them the ability to chose what they could enjoy they would pick vagina penis sex.

However I don't see how the emotional side of homosexuality could be construed as a disorder as There is no real negative consequence ( other than idiotic cultural conventions) from loving another human regardless of what there sex might be. ( unless gays were a super minority but at between 15-25% of the population its not going to be that hard for a gay person to find a partner)


If at birth you could have it so that people didn't need to be gay then it may be better to not have people be gay. But fact is that will never really happen and we have also got to the point where techanloicaly gay people can reproduce and function as normal or more so than anyone else , furthermore the fundamental differences between a gay mind and a straight mind probably is of social and cultural bnofit to a society as a whole.

Completely stupid rule that has nothing to do with actual gameplay. I agree with penalizing "excessive" celebration with yards, but not taking the TD back. This is football, not Mormon bible camp. I suspect one might feel a bit of exuberance after taking a fake punt 70 yards for a TD.