Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) I'd say you should probably stop with the dumb stories. You honestly need to get out more.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Exactly how is that a straw man argument? Either explain it clearly or retract your post.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) SYG laws completely justify shooting someone 100 ft away who's coming at you with an ax. You have zero duty to retreat. Hell, it's in the name of the laws. Maybe they shouldn't be wielding an axe, then. It's pretty obvious you don't leave the house much, so hear me out. Let me tell you a true story...I was camping once and some hockey player wielding an axe was EASILY 100+ feet away from me, and a second later I ran into him while retreating the opposite direction. YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT. I tried retreating and it didn't work. Now what, smart ass?

I did get caught up in the middle of a fight in some park off of Lake Shore Drive about 10 years ago...and about 8 feet from me, one of the guys "retreating" got shot in the back. It was the only time I've seen someone shot in my life...and I gotta tell you, it was scary. But...he did exactly what you said...from a hand to hand combat position, he retreated...and got shot for his troubles. And holy crap the place was swarming with police in about 20 seconds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) Unless you responded with lethal force, it's not a particularly relevant story. I'm glad it didn't come to that, but it just as easily could have. Also, in fights I've been in -- or you -- who knows what weapons they may pull on you, if any? In no circumstance do I see it reasonable to assume otherwise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) The duty to retreat applies if there's not an immediate threat to you or someone else, not if you're in hand-to-hand knife combat. e.g. someone is 100 feet away with an ax, but you can drive away in your car or lock yourself behind a secure door. Without a duty to retreat, you could justifiably shoot that person. I gotta ask, have you really been in many life-and-death altercations? I've been in many altercations...but I can't say whether they were life-and-death altercations since I lived. If I had died, I could have said yes. I have had a knife and a gun pulled on me and a friend (separate situations). Retreated from neither, still alive from both. Had we retreated, it's possible they started shooting or chasing us down...I have no idea. And I'd rather not speculate. Oh, and to be fair, just as easily, not retreated could have made it worse, but in that situation, the way I saw it is if he raises the gun, I have a better chance at grabbing his arm or something and living than I do if I gave him some distance. At the time, I can say that's the only thought going through my head.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) I guess I don't understand what your point was, I was contending jenks' claim that the Stand Your Ground law really nothing new or different. for example, Connecticut still has duty to retreat: http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-3.htm Often (almost everywhere), exceptions are given for being in your own home, but extending it to public places is a relatively new concept. My point was you keep citing an obscure rule that says you should retreat...when it's usually the worst thing a person can do in a situation like that. Yes, there are situations when retreat is both viable and easy...but in most altercations like this, and I've been in many, it's easy to armchair quarterback than it is to be in that situation and "retreat".

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) How often in this situation do you think this duty of retreat even applies? When you're in a situation where someone could potentially use deadly force against you, or commit a forcible felony (and honestly, how are you to know what the aggressor might limit his conduct to in such a situation), how often is there an absolute clean or complete avenue of retreat available, one in which the defendant will knowingly escape without any injury whatsoever? The answer is almost never for so many reasons, both physical and psychological, in such a situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) cool story bro, but there's still a duty to retreat in many places. Even cooler story bro, that's why you're called victims.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) You used to have a duty to retreat. The Castle Doctrine often removed that duty in your home. Stand Your Ground removes it anywhere you lawfully have a right to be. This was not an existing common law defense and I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that it was. Do you live in a shell? I'm honestly just wondering. Have you ever been in a fight or any kind of serious altercation? I ask, because it doesn't sound like you have. If so, you'd know that "retreating" more often than not (as in almost always), puts you at a stark disadvantage from the aggressor, who is often at an advantage to begin with...you retreating often assists them even more, as you are backing up into blind sight lines while they are advancing with a full frontal line of sight. When I think my life is at stake, f*** any law that claims I have a duty to retreat. I'd only retreat if there was a glaring opening of escape...otherwise you've probably negated any chance you had to begin with. My only duty in such a situation is to survive. Period.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 10:03 AM) I don't think I've ever crossed the street to avoid someone. It all depends on where you are. I don't do it in my own neighborhood, but I've been in neighborhoods where I have...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) He's not the first. To be fair to Geraldo, Treyvon was black. Doesn't everyone cross the street to avoid black youths?! I think smart people cross the street to avoid *anyone* that looks like trouble. I don't care what color they are. I know this was in jest, but it's a good policy...if you are unsure, cross...if they cross after they see you cross, you're at least ready for what's coming versus being blindsided by surprise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) I know it wasn't very tough on you Mr. Romney I wish I had that kind of money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) They were a hell of a lot better than March 2009. Walker's Wisconsin is heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the country. I never noticed things were bad...just had a lot of people telling me they were.

I'd have wished him a happy birthday, but I think his popularity around here is 1) undeserved and B) when we met, he attacked me because he's like 7 foot 8" tall...then again, that might be why he's so popular. Happy Bday...Mariners fan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) I'm getting fairly tired of people pretending that this isn't the explicit position of the Democratic Party. Because it isn't. They're not making these promises for our grand kids, which would be a more realistic time frame...they 're making them for the short term undefined "future"...but not 40+ years from now as your claiming is their "explicit" position is. What a joke. We've been investing in alternates for a while now, and so far, when it comes to automobiles, any strides that are made are offset by the cars in question being way more expensive and far less powerful. Also forgotten is that in the last 10 years almost everyone has upgraded to higher MPG automobiles, even trucks and suv's get 5+ more than they did 15 years ago...and none of it mattered. Let's not forget the record number of MPG upgrades during the cash for clunkers deal, too. The problem is oil is a finite material, thus a world consumption commodity, but so are the rare metals they make batteries out of...you know, the same batteries they put in hybrids? Replacing one finite commodity with another is awesome...and also not "renewable". Hybrids are, however, the most realistic alternative thus far. We've been hearing about affordable hydrogen vehicles, and solar vehicles, and vehicles that run on nothing but garbage...but they never seem to materialize. More realistically, this is the explicit position of logic, not of the Democratic party, or any other party. Unfortunately, in politics, you can't promise people something that will happen 40-50 years from now, because 1) you don't know if it will or not, because at that age you probably won't even be alive to see it come to fruition, and 2) the majority don't care about 40-50 years from now, they care about their everyday struggles NOW. You don't get elected running on promises that most voters alive today will never get to see delivered on, you get elected by making promises you can't really deliver on, but make them anyway because they sound really really good to the masses... You know, like campaigning that you will deliver wireless or broadband access to 98% of Americans in an affordable way (today, not 40 years from now). And then forgetting all about said promise shortly after elected when you realize it's not as easily done as it is said. Hell, they haven't even taken the steps to reign in wireless broadband costs from the mobile carriers which would be an excellent place to start, who are busy price fixing the market together. We have 4G iPads and super phones that can download 2 gigs of data in 2 minutes...all for 30$ a month, but the f***ing cap on said plan is 2 gigs before overage costs kick in! Brilliant! Also note where I said price fixing...funny how Verizon and AT&T charge the exact same prices for everything on a race to the TOP, not bottom. When AT&T increases their costs, Verizon follows suit...rather than showing customers they're cheaper...it's a joke. If they want to start making delivery on these promises, they need to go after Verizon and AT&T and fix this bandwidth garbage sooner than later.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 12:50 PM) I feel the same way. I know when I am voting here on the border that 90% of my precint will vote for the Dem candidate. If it is a statewide election, that the state will go for Kap's GOP candidate. It's dishonest and not the reason the system exists...it's an exploit, albeit legal. I find it just another reason why the system is rotten to the core.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) Well, if your village passed it, they would change you over, and I think they'd stop harassing you. So why vote no? Also... I've never gotten a call from any of them. Just some occasional junk in the mail. Are you not on the do-not-call list? They go door to door in some places. They've annoyed me like this, too.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) Political commentary aside, this is absolutely one of the best videos I have ever seen composed. EXCELLENT work by the editor! Reminds me of

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) Hey now! You're in Hoffman Estates? Now I'm voting no for sure.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) I think I'm going to be a total hypocrite, take a page from Rush's "Operation Chaos" playbook, and cast a vote today for Rick Santorum, just to try and keep things interesting. May God have mercy on my soul. Yet another reason why our system is broken. Voters intentionally gaming the system.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) Voting is taking place in IL today. I went with Romney on the Prez Primary. Voted YES on a referendum here to aggregate electricity supply, a bunch of suburbs have similar ballots on. Who did you vote for? Is this referendum for all of Chicago/suburbs, or some little community I don't care about...like Hoffman Estates, for example? Everyone in Hoffman Estates sucks...so if this is just for them, I'm voting no on this.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Thanks for the info. I know about those different electric companies, I have always refused to switch because they call/visit my shop at least once a week are usually complete assholes about getting me to switch to their service. I also am a bit wary of getting caught in some contract that costs more in the long run, which I have heard has happened to some. However, if my village is in charge of it, then I'm sure it's much less likely to get caught like that, so sounds like it could be a good idea. Same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) There really is zero reason to believe that "The debt level is at a tipping point" right now. Demand for US debt is strong. Demand for safe assets in the global financial markets are strong, and has probably outstripped supply for at least a decade, and definitely since fall of 08. And since the U.S. has its own currency and can adjust the value of that currency in response to any hypothetical shocks in debt demand, a tipping point is very hard to come up with anyway. Unfortunately the way that market works, of course demand for US debt is strong...we've never defaulted on a payment. Here is where the "unfortunately" comes in...when and if we do default on a payment, it will be an epic collapse, especially in light of what people just witnessed happen in Greece...everyone will begin cashing in bonds...at the same time...overnight. However, until we begin missing payments, or begin asking for restructures, that demand you speak of will be strong. So basically, what I'm saying is this... Demand will be strong...until the day it's suddenly not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) I tend to agree with the idea that a "tipping point" is hard to really pin down. At least, not until later. But, the problem is, look at what the interest load is going to do to future budgets. That is a problem increasing with alarming speed. That's what I meant by tipping point...I don't mean it's going to tip and fall off a cliff and the world will end or anything, it will take a while to catch up to us. The numbers their dealing with now, in interest alone, are astronomical...and getting worse by the day...that's the tipping point I was speaking of... But when that tipping point comes...it will be quite the fall.