I mean do you get to go to take another teams star, go to four straight NBA finals, win two, and still get to be upset?

Admitedly, I have been just as pissed about Pujols going to the Angels as some people were about LeBron and the Heat.

Isn't the old story that Ruth would hit more home runs on his own than other teams combined? I'll take Ruths value in his age to Bonds.

Guy getting free pass wants to continue getting free pass, what's new?

They don't want to look at it from that angle. This site has a particular slant/bias to it. That's not a dismissal of all the points made, it's just a recognition that every side isn't going to be covered. It may be strictly from a demographic point of view or it may be out of convenience.

SCOTUS didn't let me down.

But I mean don't we constantly see talk about kids who resented their dads for the same thing. Society may give a double standard for women and men in discussions like this - but the absentee workaholic father is a stereotype that a lot of people present.

This is the most interesting topic to me - "feminism" and porn.

I just made the hipster analogy myself, so I basically agree.

Not an Olberman fan, but I get the ideas. I don't particularly agree with a few:

Wow, shock of shocks that Jezebel doesn't get it.

I think the Jezebel writers are actually thrilled about this ruling. It gives them weeks of material and time to unleash every level of hate they have for people of faith. Which is funny if you think about it.

Adam Richman loses job for supposedly being a dick . . . . . a bunch of blog posters behave like dicks about him in hypocritical fashion.

No, I didn't remotely mean that. It's you trying to make up bullshit and argue over the bullshit you made up. You're arguing with yourself, not me.

Did I say anything about production? No. Stop trying to conflate multiple things together. You clearly don't understand my point.

I'm sorry but I find that phrasing funny. Regardless of what you think about the opinion, the topic at hand is if somebody else is going to offer/cover something. That's reliance on an external entity for something "needed". How in the hell does that sort of external reliance lend itself to the conversation of…

It's hard to take this thread seriously as it shows exactly why this ruling was made.

Good call!

You're a peach is a nasty remark? Nastier than talking about people chosing to fight for oil men and facism?

I would never say that anyone is obligated to converse with anyone. And I wouldn't exactly call my first remark an insult. If it is, you may be a little sensitive. Who am I? Someone who disagrees with your point of view and pretty much any tone that wants to start off talking a "fascists" and all that rhetoric. …