It would be like calling a black politician "Uncle Tom" if the opposition had been doing it first.

Trump has been relentless with his little jabs if he smells blood in the water. "Little Marco", etc. Taking offence is precisely what Trump wants to see. Maher arguably gave her a chance to own it and show that it didn't bother her, but she didn't take it.

My take is that Warren was expecting softball. Maher got a bit impatient with her going full tilt with politician-speak and threw a changeup. By the end of the interview he seems to regret having prodded her a bit. But the thing is, that interview was softball compared to what she'd face if she runs in 2020. Then, interviewers won't throw changeups, it'll be chin-music fastballs instead.

Yup. I learned at a very young age not to sneer at softball pitchers. My Dad took me to see The King and His Court, a four man softball team that played against full nine-man teams. They won a majority of their games, and they were mostly playing for comedic effect (like the Globetrotters). That was almost entirely due to the pitcher. His pitches were clocked as fast as 104 mph.

Your video, Trick Softball 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.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 50 Badge!

It's one of those games that's fun to play with your friends in the back yard until that one super competitive dick comes around, takes it way too seriously and ruins it for everyone. Then it becomes a "sport" rather than a game. Consider: volleyball, softball, ultimate frisbee, bowling, ping pong, curling, Starcraft, and so on.

@lantern53 @bobknight33

As you two seem completely incapable of setting aside your bias, or your ignorance i'll ask you to site... really anything where Soros threatened a law suite because he was be associated with a group he began and was funding.

The Koch brothers are so ashamed and afraid of their association and support of this group they are threatening lawsuits to keep it hidden. Ignoring the obnoxious little troll in his basement... and trying for ONE second to focus on that point... can you not put aside your ignorance and bias acknowledge this is even the tiniest bit... oh lets softball it in and say 'strange'...

Great answers on the first two questions. The last two were kind of softballs...good answer, but easy.

That was awesome. Most exciting thing I've seen in Softball.

Your video, Emergency Landing during softball game, 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 178 Badge!

Having torn something in my shoulder while playing softball this summer, I agree.

Can't say that Stossel got school here. He was simply lobbing softballs for Napolitano to make his strong points.

While she definitely throws much faster than I do, I don't think you could say that she has anywhere near the same power that a male pitcher has. The GBoWW record for a woman is 65mph [1], and 101[2] for men. In MLB, the only pitchers who can't throw faster than 85mph have extraordinary control over the ball.[3] (and, granted, the fastest pitch is under contention for both sexes, but it's approx 2-3mph that is being argued over, not enough to affect this comparison)

The pro female (softball) pitcher threw very well... especially since her specialty is an underhanded pitch. But she doesn't generate anywhere near the power that a male pitcher can generate.

1) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-6000/fastest-baseball-pitch-(female)/
2) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/3000/fastest-baseball-pitch-(male)
3) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_pitching_speed_in_MLB

Yep, still boring like baseball and softball.

>> ^rottenseed:

Nobody is arguing that there is heavy risk involved with the sport. It's why they're paid so much. It's also why you don't see as many football pick-up leagues as you do softball ones — nobody's willing to risk injury if they're not making tons of dough. The argument is sportsmanship. I hate Peyton Manning...especially now that he's on the Broncos, but dammit if I wasn't bummed when he was seriously injured last year. That's what defines me as a human being: the capacity to have compassion when a fellow human being is injured. That's also what makes KC fans a bunch of animals (although I don't count it because mob mentality is a fucked up beast in and of itself). Your argument is void because you're assuming that because a sport includes risk — or even the tendency toward violence — we should cheer on the physical pain and suffering of another human being.>> ^JiggaJonson:
@Sagemind Did you check out the link I posted above?
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1905-11-27/ed-1/seq-
1/
It's a bit ironic that the headline about 19 people dying playing football is right next to a story about 18 people dying when two FUCKING TRAINS COLLIDED.
Like it or not, football was born as a sport where people get seriously injured (or died). Congrats on what you support.



His Argument is not "Void" because of what happened at that game. Que era demonstrata, they cheered for the injury of a fellow human being, this isn't something unique to football either but it is something that humans do. Yes humans have the capacity for for compassion...except for all the fucking times when they don't show any sort of compassion. Putting this solely on KC fans is BS, it happens constantly, even in High School ball.

Nobody is arguing that there is heavy risk involved with the sport. It's why they're paid so much. It's also why you don't see as many football pick-up leagues as you do softball ones — nobody's willing to risk injury if they're not making tons of dough. The argument is sportsmanship. I hate Peyton Manning...especially now that he's on the Broncos, but dammit if I wasn't bummed when he was seriously injured last year. That's what defines me as a human being: the capacity to have compassion when a fellow human being is injured. That's also what makes KC fans a bunch of animals (although I don't count it because mob mentality is a fucked up beast in and of itself). Your argument is void because you're assuming that because a sport includes risk — or even the tendency toward violence — we should cheer on the physical pain and suffering of another human being.>> ^JiggaJonson:

@Sagemind Did you check out the link I posted above?
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1905-11-27/ed-1/seq-
1/
It's a bit ironic that the headline about 19 people dying playing football is right next to a story about 18 people dying when two FUCKING TRAINS COLLIDED.
Like it or not, football was born as a sport where people get seriously injured (or died). Congrats on what you support.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's no wonder liberals are melting down; President Obama couldn't have done worse last night. It was pretty shocking. I personally didn't expect Governor Romney to do very well. To my surprise, he looked way more presidential than the President did. The fact is that President Obama has been in a bubble the last four years, and I think this was an the emperor has no clothes moment. The press certainly hasn't done him any favors by coddling him and throwing him softball questions this entire time. He's never had to justify himself or his policies to anyone and this was a day of reckoning for him.
I also think this one debate has undone all of the negative advertising about Governor Romney that had come before it. The reason being is that he didn't even remotely resemble the person Democrats have been trying to define him as. People got to seem him unfiltered and unedited by the mainstream press, and he came across as a strong and competent leader who cares about them and has the skills and experience to be the President. I expect there will be more fireworks at the next debate.

Apparently we weren't watching the same debate. What I saw was two candidates talking about essentially the exact same policies. They were both Center Right...and one was more smiley and UP. So does the smiley guy win it for being smiley?
Whatever, they've still got a couple more "Games" left and when all is said and done whomever wins won't implement whatever ideas they expressed during the debates anyways. GOOD Game all! GO TEAM GO!!!

I think the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in policy is that liberals want government to be their God. There were definitely differences between the two candidates on that specific topic. I don't subscribe to the team mentality; I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate. I think America is getting the leaders it deserves, and these two candidates are a reflection of that. You reap what you sow.


That depends entirely on what you mean by "America". If you mean the American people, they didn't get together and make policies for these candidates to stick their names to, these candidates said vote for me and maybe I'll give you something. Now if by "America" you mean the elite, the people with the money who bascially dictate how society will run than I agree these candidates were chosen by them. The PR industry now gets to fight it out, and it's completely undemocratic. Even in Bolivia poor peasant farmers worked for a more democratic system and they got it, but that didn't stop them they kept at it.

Both these candidates will say whatever they want to get elected, and then they'll do whatever their masters who paid for them to get there want. That's how our "Democracy" works.

Also if you think Obama was a "Liberal" than you really have no idea what that means. If Obama was what we traditionally called "Liberal" who would've at least brought up or tried to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall act.