NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) Huntsman to withdraw from the GOP race and endorse Mittens. I did say SC would be his wall, but I guess I thought he'd try that state first. Not surprising in any case. Too bad though. Huntsman's dropping and endorsement is only a very small help for Mitt in SC and FL, but could be more so in NV.

I win.

Federal judge rules that Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman missed their chance to be on the Virginia ballot, and furthermore missed their window to file an injunction. So as it stands, only Romney and Paul will be on the VA GOP primary ballot. There may be appeals, but it doesn't look favorable for them.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) Sorry, I was just going back to the idea that the Iranian scientist being killed was terrorism. Maybe. See, to me, terrorism has to involve inciting terror in the public - it is an attack that is outside "normal" war tactics whose purpose is to incite fear in a larger number of people, like the population of a country or the military of a country. This, to me, fits more with either an act of war (since it has a military and political purpose that is not at all about fear and terror), or possibly even just plain murder. But its all terminology and it doesn't really matter what we call it. I was just saying, if we feel Iran is on the doorstep, I have no problem with Israel or the US using asymetrical tactics like this to achieve the end goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. In fact, these sorts of methods have a lot less collateral damage than going in and bombing the place.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 07:24 PM) If an American scientist were blown up in a car bomb in order to slow us down from reaching a technology that others already had (especially if we weren't in open war with them), it'd be clear terrorism. OK. And?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) Agreed. It seems that people are already willing to make the same mistake that occurred in Iraq. The whole "c'mon, they're definitely making nuclear weapons" theory. These situations are nothing alike. Iraq was nowhere in the vicinity as far as Iran is right now, first of all. Second, it was mostly chem and bio weapons that we were supposedly targeting in Iraq. Third, even if it was the first line of excuse given to the public, it has since become crystal clear that the real reasons for invading Iraq were not at all about WMD. Now, that all said, I am not advocating invading Iran. I think that is a terrible idea. I think the sanctions are good and are working, more of them will work more, and honestly I am 100% OK with Israel or whomever picking off nuclear people over there to further slow them down. I have no issue with asymetrical warfare in this case.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:36 AM) Iowa State shot a better percentage from 3-point land than they did from the free throw line. I can't imagine that happens often outside of a team going 1-1 or 2-2 from 3 and even that's rare. I'm just happy Christopherson is a senior. I don't have to watch him annoy Mizzou in Ames anymore. And honestly, I'll take a 7 point loss to Mizzou at this point for ISU. A win would have been nice, but this team is still developing. Now they play at Kansas this weekend. That will probably be ugly.

QUOTE (kyle @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 05:04 PM) Garrett a kid I try to keep a eye on I saw him throw in A ball. When you talk about a guy that not a hard thrower explain that. The night I saw him throw he was 88 to 93 from a low three quarter slot. I feel from that arm slot that pretty good velo. The other thing I would like you to look at is go/ao rate, his stats against left handed hitters. Velo is the third thing on the list when looking at pitcher. location and movement are one and two on that list. Take a look at the scouting reports and other info I put in this thread. When he originally entered the system, he couldn't hit 90. If he really is now hitting 88-93 with the fastball, especially if he is consistently above 90, then that is a good sign of progress for him.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) That, plus the fact that you know neither side is EVER going to say, "You know? You're right." You're lucky to see one side even admit the other has a point. I'd recommend you be choosy as to whose posts you read. I can't really do that as an Admin, though I admit I do tend to scan some more than read them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) Just out of curiosity...How do you think the current rules for job-hunting while on unemployment are inadequate? The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model. Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Yeah. Military action against Iran is a lot riskier and much more foolish. Yes, but also... QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) But significantly more so if they have the bomb. Yes.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) And this is why I avoided the Filibuster for so long. The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) It's been ruled by at least one state supreme court (Michigan) to be a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy. Should we drug test CEO's whose companies subsist on government contracts or generous tax deductions? What about middle and upper-class citizens who utilize various tax deductions? Or seniors collecting social security and utilizing medicare? Or is drug testing reserved for the programs that benefit the poor alone? This is the slippery slope argument, and it does have merit. Where do you draw the line? My personal view is, the drug testing for welfare may make sense on the surface, but the cost would be massive. I'd rather see tougher guidelines (and just plain better ones) on how working and striving towards working come into play, and let the private businesses who hire people sort out whether or not they care about drug testing. But that is just my view.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) haha i love how you act like i'm the only person here prone to hyperbole. I know you don't like me, but that's bulls***. lol wut? When did I say it was only you? Your post was so obviously missing the point that ANYONE in this discussion was making, that it was just ridiculous. I do the same thing with other posters as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) When the idea of drug testing for welfare has come up before (because all those poor blaaa---people on welfare are druggies, despite numerous surveys indicating no higher drug usage rates!), I've asked if all government benefits should come with that stipulation. ss2k5 held a consistent position on this and said that, yes, things like the mortgage tax deduction should require drug testing. While his position on drug-testing-for-benefits is consistent, his claim that he favors a small, non-intrusive government on economic and social affairs (drug testing for benefits=economic and social policy!) doesn't square. Well, I personally would say we have way too many various tax credits, deductions, shelters, thresholds, etc. anyway, and I am sure so would he. But within the current system, I personally think welfare (and other entitlements and direct payments) is far different from tax credits and deductions. Of course, another aspect to this which has to come into play is, the cost of implementing the testing. Which, as you have noted, would be enormous.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) who do you suggest pay for infrastructure in this country? highways? do you think public libraries should be shut down? who pays police and firefighters? please explain these things to me This is huge hyperbole. I am 99% sure that SS2K5 is perfectly fine with taxpayer dollars, to at least some extent, should indeed go to those things. He isn't arguing otherwise, so I have no idea where you are getting this. His problem is with the tax CODE, not the very idea of taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) We define "freedom" very differently, of course. Assigning your definition to me does not make me a hypocrite. My definition could be wrong, of course, but my position is not hypocritical. Yours, on the other hand, is. You cannot be for extremely small government and simultaneously for one of the most intrusive government systems that could be put into place without there being a contradiction in there. In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen. The ones I see are for sports (all the way down to high school), private companies at their will, and government if granting free-and-clear assistance like welfare. Now, the difficult part here comes in when you consider whether or not Welfare is "mandatory". By constitutional definition, it seems not to be, but the US government has decided (and most of its citizens agree) that some sort of safety net program is a good thing. So we have it. But for people who draw from it, should the government (and more importantly, the taxpayers) expect some modicum of effort to get off of it? Again, most would agree the answer is yes. So let's shed all the extreme arguments here, and boil it down to this: is the expectation of being clean of illegal drugs a reasonable expectation for those receiving taxpayer dollars as a subsidy for their existence?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) There are no "Republican" threads on Soxtalk, no matter what they are titled. But that is a completely different story. Anyways, my political theories are probably closest to libertarian anymore. Economically, and socially, I believe there should be as little government as possible. And that is kind of the camp I was in before, though not quite a devout libertarian. But I generally believe the federal government is involved in far too many things, and tends to do many of them badly. And on social issues, I generally prefer to err on the side of individual freedoms - which puts me with the GOP on 2A and 10A, the Dems on 1A, 4A and 5A, and no one on some of the others.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) What you consider moderate, I sure don't. Mandatory health care in no way shape or for is moderate, I don't care what compromises went into it. Closing down drilling and pipelines isn't moderate either, it is the left wing agenda to a T. Clawback features are not moderate. Pushing higher taxes and less energy supply in general is not moderate. OK, first, I specifically said the Health Care Act WAS LIBERAL. Never said it was moderate, not sure where you got that idea. I completely agree with you on that issue. Closing down drilling and pipelines? I suppose that would be liberal, if it were actually happening. There was the temporary stay on offshore drilling - which was then lifted. There is ANWR, which Congress stopped, no change to that ever hit Obama's desk. Then there is the new pipeline from Alberta, and their action on that was 100% political sidestep - put it off until after the election. If he had stopped it, that would be liberal. If he had fast-tracked it, that would be conservative. He's sitting in between, which is by definition "moderate" (though really I'd call it cowardly myself). Higher taxes? Hasn't happened, in fact we get seeing renewals of the Bush tax cuts. Now, in this case, it IS true that ObamaCo wants to see the Bush cuts expire for the top bracket or two. But you cannot seriously look at history and say that putting those taxes back to 2000 levels - which were already very, very low on a historical scale - is liberal. It is like going from 90% conservative to 80% conservative.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) The health care reform was patterned heavily off of previously-Republican plans by groups Heritage and that other guy from Mass. whose name is impossible to remember since he completely faded into the background after that. Well, have to admit I just remembered we are in the Republican thread here, so I will try to turn this back to a topic more for GOP discussion... What all this comes down to is, the Republican party (at the national level here) has moved quite far to the right in the past couple decades or so. But mostly, it has been the past decade, since 9/11 really. This may be good or bad, depending on your perspective. To me, it makes it harder for me to support GOP candidates, and this is coming from someone who used to vote pretty reliably GOP. How to the Republicans here feel about it? Is this a positive or negative change, or neither? Are you more in the Neo-Con camp (constant war and interference, social issues big, spending who-cares), or the Libertarian camp, or the old school GOP ("compassionate" conservative, i.e. Reagan/HW) camp? Or something else?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) With the agenda that has been pushed through in the last three years, no way. Oh come on, really? He's gotten pushed through, either via the executive path or Congress, a small handful of things on the liberal agenda, only one of which was big (Health Care, which by the way, was a mutilated version of what he was pushing for). The rest has been huge compromises, or nothing at all. The Stim Bill was heavily tax cuts (AMT fix, high earners extended), which is not at all a liberal agenda. On taxes he has been moderate or even right-leaning. On FinReg he has allowed the regulation picture to change very little, and a lot closer to the GOP agenda than anything else. On the environment he has been a moderate at best. Where is this supposed agenda he pushed through that was so liberal? I have to go to a meeting, but I would love to see a list of important legislation and XO's passed during his regime, and see how low a % of what he has done even touches the liberal agenda.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) I never said the terms were incorrect. I did, however, laugh at the idea that they were going to prevent Iran from constructing a nuclear weapon. Just want to interject here, mostly at Balta... Iran Iraq. Two very different circumstances.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 07:39 AM) I look at him more of a John Edwards type honestly. The sad thing is whether he is moderate or conservative Romney, either one is still better than liberal Obama. ...who only existed on the campaign trail.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Not sure how you could honestly distinguish this sort of act from terrorism. If it is against you, it is terrorism. If it is by you, it is asymetrical warfare. You say potato, I say potaaaato....

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) And I've disagreed...this election, just like the last dozen or so, will be driven by "Base turnout and enthusiasm." The few people who are actually moderates are going to split, probably somewhere in the 60-40 range or closer, like they always do, and that won't offset what the bases do. And I've shown you that your statistical interperatations are flawed. Do you disagree that the prime motivation of the GOP base right now is ousting Obama, versus finding their ideal candidate?