LeviF

Sitting pretty after my first-round bye, my roster for this week is almost completely set. Just want some opinions on who to start at QB (arguably my weakest position). Standard scoring league. Tony Romo Matt Ryan Philip Rivers This time around against the Eagles, Romo will have normal rest and preparation routine. Weather in Philadelphia is supposed to be cold (mid-30s) but with clear skies at game time. But then there's the December curse. Matty Ice is in the Georgia dome this week against a middling Steelers D, and is coming off a 30+ point performance. Downside: he might be missing Julio Jones. Rivers is at home against a crappy Denver secondary. What say you?

Ancient Egyptians weren't black anyway.

I don't get it. What's her issue? PS The only celebrity I follow on twitter is 50. Dude is hilarious.

There's been talk for a while about putting an age limit on the service of federal court judges. New York has a system in place for our state court judges with mandatory retirement at age 70, with the ability to get three two-year "certifications" afterwards for a hard ceiling of 76. If I had to set the age, I'd put it at 75 instead of 80.

I assumed you were significantly older than me (15+ years) but maybe we are. Maybe I am wrong (hopefully I am). Torture is reprehensible, but I'm not going to claim that the US is above it. Regardless, more should have been done when we had the chance: forcing complete and total capitulation. No mercy, no conditions.

The tragic mistake is that we didn't cut this **** off at the root, and systematically destroy them as we did with enemies in the past. That's the one that MY generation will be paying for. The benefits of all this tolerance and play-nice politics are being reaped in places like the UK and Sweden. Anyone care to update us on how that's going?

See Tom's post. This country has chosen to be rather selective (no pun intended) with the rights, requirements, and privileges it bestows upon 18 year olds. The 26th amendment is a silly relic from the Nixon era when Vietnam hysteria was still rearing its ugly head.

Fair enough. I would, like you, say that gerrymandering is not good (though one could argue that it is checked by the representative process, since we elect those who do the deed). My question went more towards what sort of Constitutional amendment would you draft? What's the alternative? The algorithm idea is interesting, I'll have to look that up.

How do you propose eliminating gerrymandering?

I would add, and can't issue the same Executive Order twice in a given amount of time. Would you want term limits for Congressmen as well? Or would this alone satisfy you? This is a good idea.

The Log Jam is awesome.

!@#$, I hate Cheesecake Factory.

I know a guy who insists that voting should be restricted to net taxpayers, while net tax recipients can sit on the sidelines; impracticality be damned.

17th - The concerns that drove the struggle to free the Senate from the control of corrupt state legislatures pale in comparison to what we have today, with huge sums of money being openly given to Senate candidates (mostly incumbents) by lobbyists and activists. In this regard, the 17th Amendment is an abject failure. It can hardly be the case that the amendment strengthened the resistance of the Senate against the advances of special interests. Additionally, state legislators are (in theory) more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are Senators picked by direct election. 26th - Lifespans, educational years, and time spent dependent on parents' money have increased, and probably will continue to. Consequently, it makes little sense to allow 18 year olds to vote their immature and inexperienced consciences into law. I can get behind this.

Thing is, Columbia is one of the top 5 law schools in the nation. A lot of them will be making six figures a week after they graduate and already have those jobs lined up for them. Those who graduate without any Biglaw job lined up are !@#$ed. haha

The gas tax thread got me thinking: if you had a say in the matter (haha), what changes (amendments) would you want to make to the Constitution? I'm sure we've had topics like this before but I don't feel like necro-posting. Why is it important to make such amendments? Mine are more "out with the old" than "in with the new." -Repeal the 17th Amendment -Repeal the 26th Amendment (and the relevant portions of Public Law 91-285) -Institute a national referendum for big decisions involving war, immigration, and taxation The last one is tricky, and truthfully I wouldn't know how to begin implementing it (or what constitutes a "big decision), but in my perfect world this brings an end to our fearless leaders' utopian transnationalism and brings about the comeuppance that open-borders traitors so richly deserve (with apologies to our hardcore libertarian friends [haha not really]). Besides, it can't be any worse than a national election to choose a president who uses executive order like Slick Willy uses interns. Right? Right? Hey, a guy can dream.

Are you talking about food volume or calories? Because in your earlier post you said one can eat more calories on a good diet, implying that if it's "good" food it doesn't matter if you eat more than you burn.

They're "Cleveland 10's" to my friends and me.

That link is garbled up for some reason, 26. Try this: http://media.denverbroncos.com/images/9008/Flipcards/141207_flipcard_Buf.pdf

Obesity is pretty simple in most cases. Calories in > calories burned If you want to lose weight, it's also pretty simple. Calories in < calories burned No excuses. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

So...it's a union? BOOM THREAD DERAIL IMMINENT

Actual question that I haven't found an answer to: is the SLPOA a government entity? I thought it was more like a benevolent association, which operates separate from the police and not as agents of the government. Edit: I guess Darin answered my question. The answer is no.

It's IN My Blood

Your faux outrage is cute, but not grounded in reality. They're not demanding anything, at least not with any potency. They made a request to the employers of a group of men who made a very public demonstration while at their workplace. The employers did what they felt was best and denied the request. Cops didn't ride up in there and demand apologies or blood offering at gunpoint. They made a request. They, as an organization which has the avenues and the opportunities to express the organization's views in accordance with their own first amendment rights, made a request. Let's review: their organization has First Amendment rights. The players paid by the Rams, for all intents and purposes, do not have First Amendment rights while they are on the clock for their employer. So a group with collective free speech rights asked an employer with free speech rights to discipline their employees who used speech when they do not have free speech rights. The request was denied. Outrage averted (unless you're Greg or a race baiter or some sort of leftist who thinks that police are the greatest evil of our time [look, I can be dramatic too!]). You want it to be about free speech, so framed everything here around free speech. The only people without free speech rights in this whole mess are the players involved, so I'm still not sure why you're so butt-hurt. P.S. If you've been around these parts and paying any sort of attention over the past four or five years, you'd know exactly what I think about police, police states, militarization of police forces, etc. Regardless of how little you know about them, my thoughts on the subject have no bearing on what I think about your arguments, which are silly.

Just like the individual Rams have free speech rights when they're off the clock. Just about all of our 1st Amendment rights are left at the door when we punch that clock. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That you keep saying that it does baffles me.