Mark80

It's not really a debate of who's better of the two, Serena is clearly the best. It's a debate on who was the most dominate and in that context you have to take into account their competition as they faced it in their times and Court's record is just more impressive to me than Serena's. However, if she played from the 80's on she probably wouldn't have won a single one! But with that being said, I still firmly believe that Babe Ruth is the all time most dominant athlete. Would hit more HRs than entire teams, was one of the best pitchers in the league before he turned into an outfielder, and heck, he even stole home 10 times in his career. Completely revolutionized the game like no other athlete in history, all while boozing and partying more than you or I could ever dream and without ever working out. Now that's impressive!

Wow, that's a pretty lofty statement. If by "decent" you mean professionals in general, well, yeah, maybe she could consistently beat some of them men ranked in the 100s, occasionally beat a guy ranked 50-100 and rarely beat a guy 20-50. But no way in hell she is beating a top 20 male player. It's a completely different level of play. There is a reason they are separated. Heck, she's completely exhausted after a 3 set match, the men still have 2 more to go potentially. People thought for a minute that Michell Wie could hang with the men in golf too, or that Danica was going to be a successful nascar driver...we all know how those have played out.

Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles championships in the 60s and 70s and basically retired at the age of 31 to have kids (and retired temporarily during in the middle of her run because of a kid and came back and won 3 in 1973). And let's not forget about her 40, yes 40 doubles and mixed doubles Gland Slam championships. Serena has won 20 at she is 33 now and doesn't have any kids. Now, no doubt Serena would spank her in both of their primes, but dominating their own times, Margaret has to be seen as the best. But Serena is amazing, no doubt.

My main reason. Got to have a couple pints at the Cavern Club a few years back. Very cool.

You just have to pick one and roll with it. That's what I did and now love it. Love that it is on all morning on weekends, it's great to wake up to. Just make sure you pick a team that doesn't really have a shot at getting demoted. If you like dynasty type teams - Chelsea and Man U are your best choices right now. If you like great teams with a storied history but not too much success as of late (get on the bandwagon before they are elite again) - Liverpool / Arsenal are probably your best bets If you like teams that have had some tough history but are on top right now - Man City is your go to team If you like teams that really aren't going to be consistently at the top but may shock you sometime and should stay up at the EPL most of the time you should go with Everton, Southampton, Tottenham, New Castle, Aston Villa, Sunderland, Stoke. If you like teams that will get relegated and are OK with that just in hopes of an epic run one year - Queens Park Rangers, Swansea City, West Brom, Wolverhampton, Bolton Wanderers, Norwich are some choices. Heck, just look at their uniforms and pick the one which you like the colors the best. The rest of them you are taking a significant chance of starting to follow a team that you won't even be able to see any games of because they will often be relegated. Me, I chose LIverpool a few years back and haven't looked back since.

Sometimes I'm really embarrassed to participate in the same community as you idiots. So heartless and callus. Really, you should be ashamed to get so much joy out of making fun of this young man's tragic and accidental death. Like none of you have done anything stupid, sober or not, in your late teens early 20s? Give me f'n break.

Not so sure what's so convoluted about the plot. Vince Vaughn was a former dirty club owner, made cash, turned (mostly) legit businessman, got his cash taken by a dude who is now dead with the money gone and looks to be set on doing anything he can to staying in the position he worked so hard to get to (and probably did a lot of sketchy things to get there) with no desire to go back to the life he grew up in. The one cop is a former military guy who has some issues from some wartime event, McAdams was brought up in a crazy environment which clearly made her develop male trust issues, and Colin is a cop who killed the dude that raped and impregnated his ex-wife and is most likely the father of the kid he tries to call son who probably developed a lot of his bad habits coping with both the rape and his response to it. The industrial city is as dirty and corrupt as any industrial city most likely is with a mayor who is willing to play ball to keep the companies happy which keeps him in office (only need to buy off like 50 people to do so) and the state wants to prove it and is using the murder as an excuse to dig deep into it. Personally, I was way more confused through 3 episodes of season 1 than I am at this point in season 2.

http://footballiqscore.com/badge_js/200/6ac026877cfacc6211945e5f0fd91a5ce00561ff" 47 suckas. Cornell > Harvard.

I disagree, I'm starting to like it. As someone here (or maybe somewhere else) mentioned, a lot of people are holding this show to such a high standard because of the first season that they are not enjoying a really good show because it's not that first season. If this was just another show, with a different name, then I think it would have gotten a better reception out of a lot of people. Just look at it as a regular tv drama and it still blows away 90-95% of the other crap that is on tv. The first season, however, did that to 99% of them. Ballers is so dumb but since it's 30 minutes and there isn't really that much to watch during the summer I'm forcing myself to watch it. Don't really know for how much longer though.

Classic Norm.

1. Indy 5/2 2. Patriots 4/1 3. Denver 9/2 4. Bills 7/1 Just sayin'.

It's very easy to rip the audio off of youtube and you can find pretty much every song on youtube these days. That is my go to source at the moment.

Agreed, no way they kill him off 2 episodes in. I mean, he's the first actor listed in the opening credits, you know? Anyone else think Vince Vaughn's girl is pretty funky looking? Rachel McAdams on the other hand, holy smokes.

Yeah, it was more of a tongue-in-cheek type statement I was making. I'm HOPING for around $8M, but understand that is a cup 4/5ths full type expectation.

A bit of your favorite jelly in the middle of an omelette is, amazingly, pretty darn good especially if you have a salty meat in there (bacon, ham, sausage). Discovered this by accidentally getting jelly on my eggs once from the toast. It was actually OK, moved up to putting my scrambled eggs on my toast with jelly. Moved up to adding a bite of sausage with said toast, jelly, and eggs and this is when it really popped. Then, finally to just making an omelette with it in there. I know it's weird, but it's damn good.

Good, hopefully he won't require star CB money to re-sign.

4-methylimidazole has shown more direct link than aspartame. To each their own, will it matter down the road? Probably not, could it? Maybe. However, there was a time when smoking was only "thought" to have a linkage as well. Just don't be one of those I'll have a Big Mac / Large Fries / Diet Coke types and it's all good to me.

Nicolas Cage dressed as a bear punching a woman in the face in the movie "Wicker Man." That was pretty funny.

Diet Coke as an example: Mostly because of 4-methylimidazole and aspartame which are thought to increase risk of cancer as well as phosphoric acid which kills tooth enamel. Not to mention the "Natural Flavors" - if they were so natural, don't you think they would actually be listed? sort of a catch all of B.S., I mean, everything is created from something natural in one way shape or form. Also some studies have shown that diet soda actually increases cravings for sweets, which cause some people to consume empty calories from other sweet sources after the cravings. Personally, I rather drink the normal soda with all the calories and less chemicals. Just look at it as a treat instead of a source of hydration and it's fine.

1. Luck 2. Wilson 3. Rodgers 4. Ryan 5. Bridgewater

Yes. I was actually told this by a fitness trainer I was seeing way back in 2005/6. I thought she was full of crap. Turns out she was just ahead of the curve on this one. Only works for high intensity workouts though. Personally, I don't work out that hard anymore to where the benefits are outweighing the negatives on such a thing, but for you, yep, it's perfect. I have to disagree with you on the bottle one. It's the same Coke product, but there is just something about the bottle that makes it taste better and more refreshing in my opinion. I'm not referring to the Mexican Coke bottles (as I believe those ones are cane sugar) just the normal US ones.

Cornell Dairy whole chocolate milk. Certainly not something you want to make a habit of drinking, but it is simply phenomenal. And an ice cold glass bottle of Coke on a hot day is pretty tough to beat. I don't drink too much soda anymore so when I do, I usually try to find the glass bottles. Although much more expensive, the taste is noticeable better and with the amount of soda I drink it doesn't really matter how much it costs. To the diet soda drinkers though...are you worried about all the chemicals in it them that make it "diet"? You're better off drinking regular soda in the long run, plus, they have been shown to increase other food cravings which will often eliminate any calorie savings. To each their own, but those artificial sweeteners scare me.

So the Bears success was about studs like Duerson, Fencik, Frazier, and Richardson? And not about guys like Singletary, Dent, McMichael, Marshal, Perry, Wilson, and Hampton? Yeah, ok. A dominate front 7 can make any DBs look great. The same cannot be said about dominate DBs for the front 7. But to your main point, yeah they were unbelievable and so were the Ravens as pointed out above.

This is another reason I like Kessler. By most accounts he should be around throughout the first (at this point) because of his perceived "average" arm strength and we wouldn't need to do something like this. We all know the risks of the vast majority of first round QB picks. I'd rather not further increase that risk by trading more picks to take one higher as I don't see any of these guys as Luck/Peyton level of "sure thing."

Dumbest argument ever. I emplore you to name me a single college program that has 2 current "good" NFL QBs from it? The fact is, every single program has QBs that were good at the college level and then were not as good at the NFL level. This is the laziest argument regarding a QB that is possible. USC isn't even under the same coaching staff anymore. Just so dumb. And it's not like they are running a Houston offense, they run a pro-style offense vs high caliber defenses. Guess we can't draft Cook because Michigan State doesn't have any good QBs from there, or Hackenberg since Penn State doesn't either. Cardale Jones? Nope, don't you remember Troy Smith??? Dak Prescott? Name me a single other Miss St. QB you have ever even heard of. Sudfield, Boykin? Nope, nope. Well, guess that means Hogan is the only one that has any shot at any career based on all the QBs that share the same schools as these guys. But then again, but they seem to do it only every 30 years so we have 25 more to wait to hit on another Stanford QB. Again. so dumb. Just curious. 70% completion, 39 TDs vs 5 INTs and a 167 passer rating is not putting it all together for a season? Jeez, I wonder what his stat line will be if he does. He also had a very nice 2013 with 3000 yards, 65% completion and 20/7 TD/INT. Most notably though he improves yearly. You guys just want to hate on a guy for the sake of hating on him or because of what QBs from his school did in the NFL. So funny.