Jump to content

jimmyjazz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    37177
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by jimmyjazz

  1. 8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    yeah, who's going to pardon Pence before he pardons Trump ?  Pence's role in the transition was corrupt as all hell re Flynn and god knows what else.  When shit drops, there won't be any wiggle room for any noodles to play games.

     

    Why would Pence need to be pardoned first?

    Or alternatively, why couldn't Trump pardon Pence and then step aside on 25A?

  2. 2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    That'd be a fun interim wondering if Pence would actually grant the pardon. The end of the republic could go out with a nice dramatic twist.

     

    It would be hilarious if Googly Eyes Mike said "sure, I'll pardon you" and then just parked his ass in the Oval Office until the next election.

    They'd try to figure a way to get him out on 25A, I suppose.

  3. It's really remarkable, worthy of a dissertation in Psychology if some enterprising grad student is interested.  By any metric I looked for (which took me about 30 seconds, I don't really care), pre-regional A&M was at best a marginally better team.

    RPI:  15 vs 22

    ISR:  17 vs 18

    Head to head:  6-5 at home

     

     

    I know this is news to exactly nobody here, but come on.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

    The ad hominem is in the implication that because he was wrong in the past he is wrong when it comes to this question. That's attacking the source.

    That's not what anyone is implying.  The point is that it is unwise to blindly trust Yoo's interpretation of the law, inasmuch as he has intentionally tried to mislead his audience in the past.

     

    Quote

    Clearly, this man is credible enough to be a Constitutional Law professor at UC Berkeley.  

    Obama was the same at University of Chicago and people attacked his credibility often . . . nobody is exempt in politics.

  5. 1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

    I admitted that he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Boston Strangler all rolled up into one person.  But is he wrong?

    Based on limited observation, I don't think there is a clear consensus on that issue.  So . . . who knows?  

  6. 2 minutes ago, spystud13 said:

    jimmy, you told me in a fucking PM to drive drunk & kill someone. Do you really fucking want me to open that fucking can? 

     

    I promise I will. 

    Wut?  Did I tell you to kill someone in particular or was my request more generic in nature?

  7. I don't even know what it means to get "killed about the rule", but I'm sure in your mind you've won some great battle without actually ever explaining your position.

    Regardless, you STILL can't admit you don't know who you're talking about.  I don't know shit about "Kendall".

  8. Just now, spystud13 said:

    Good one jimmy, you really fucking killed that one. I know baseball, you post stupid shit like that. 

    Your stoned ass still hasn't admitted that you have me mixed up with somebody else.  Puff puff, bitch.

    Plus, I can read.

  9. Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

    At no point during his reversal of momentum did he demonstrate control. He leaned over, caught it, and the ball flies out as he pulls his glove back. So he does not satisfy stipulation 1. 

    I can buy that.  I thought it seemed like he had it for a bit before it flew out but I'm not about to rewind and look for it.  Thanks.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  10. Just now, spystud13 said:

    It’s not possible for jimmy to admit defeat. I don’t give a fuck if you don’t believe me, but your fucking hero Kendall confirmed it. 

    You should try the decaf.  I also haven't the foggiest why you think Kendall is "my hero" but you're obviously drunk, high, or thinking about somebody else.  Back the fuck off.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  11. I'm not saying it's the worst call in the history of baseball, but the wording of the rule (as cut and pasted here) is interesting.  The phrase "voluntary and intentional" is actually defined in the rule, and doesn't appear to allow any discretion.  Securing the ball FOLLOWED by a reversal of momentum would seem to be sufficient.  

    But I get the call.  IU probably would have bitched had it gone the other way, and it would be hard to blame them.

  12. 2 minutes ago, spystud13 said:

    Why yes, yes I can. Keep reading, just like I said. 

    What?  Is this the complete rule or isn't it?

    “In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. Only two circumstances may be interpreted as creating a voluntary and intentional release.
    1)    When the momentum of the catch is complete; i.e., the fielder has reversed his direction and is running the ball back toward the infield or;
    2)    When the fielder is reaching for the ball to make a throw.”

  13. 1 minute ago, spystud13 said:

    It was not even remotely a catch, but we won the shit, so fuck it. 

    The rule has been posted multiple times -- can you comment on why you think it wasn't a catch?

  14. 8 minutes ago, spystud13 said:

    Wrong, a guy can make a catch, run 20’, kill himself on the wall, not a catch. Must willingly try to remove the ball from his glove. 

     

    Don’t make make a shit now though. 

    It doesn't sound like this reading is consistent with what you are saying:

    "When the momentum of the catch is complete; i.e., the fielder has reversed his direction and is running the ball back toward the infield or;"

    If that's sufficient, removal is not necessary.

×
×
  • Create New...