FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) So this begs the question... Has Flaxx posted at all lately? Yeah, me and the other Viagra-enabled geriatracs are too busy chasing tail on the Tamiami Trail (that's kinda catchy) to post much these days.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 12:17 AM) Honestly, this crap is all so superficial. Whether the guy used drugs 30 years ago has little to do with his ability to be the Governor of NY. I have to agree with the European viewpoint on government leaders and their private lives- if it doesn't interfere with their ability to do their job, it shouldn't be a big deal. And Spitzer was the exception to that rule. He made his name and his reputation on busting all the things he was purportedly above, including prostitution, so for me it's his bald-faced hypocrisy that rightfully brought him down, and not his private life per se.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:30 AM) How far do you go to save stupid companies? This is a FREE market system after all. The whole point of it is that the state isn't supposed to be making overall market decesions, that should be left up to the individual. Bubbles happen, as do bad investments. The beauty of the US is that you write it off and move on. You can't, and shouldn't, rescue everyone. I pretty much agree, and so here's the honest question: Should Bear Stearns have been allowed to go belly-up with no Fed interference? Your statement is pretty black and white, so I'm assuming your position is that the Fed should not butt in and economic ripples be damned.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 02:41 AM) I own a domain name based off that movie sportofthefuture.com? imincarceratedlloyd.net?? pretty cool.

:cheers Hope it's a good one!

"I got a question: if you guys know so much about women, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?"

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 09:17 PM) Oh for crying out loud you've got to be kidding me. Seriously. JPL, pass the hat. I'm good for a chunk. That is absolutely boneheaded. To save $4 million let's mothball working vehicles that are already on-site and exceeding even the most wildly optimistic of predictions.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 08:56 PM) You like the shadow she is casting. Eventually, you have to step out of the shadow and see the real her, and she sees you. I think Tex just called her fat or something.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) What would Kate Beckingsale rather eat than sushi? :wub: Though, admittedly, I'm usually leery of anybody who doesn't like sushi. I could eat sushi 7 days a week and be very happy.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 01:36 PM) After all, if the code says never surrender, why would a larger bomb, which honestly did significantly less damage than the Tokyo firebombings, be able to overturn that? If they hadn't had some thinking along those lines in the first place, then the bomb wouldn't have made a difference. ^^^ Yep, Pastor Wright threadjack complete.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) Japan would have never surrender. It is Japan code to never surrender and to die is better then surrending. And if that was truly the case then no amount of bombs would have forced a surrender and we'd have had to kill every last person in the country. It makes for good moral justification to flatly state that japan never would have surrendered, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that wasn't the case.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) If they didn't surrender after Nagasaki, there would have been another bomb dropped, and if they still refused, another one, and so on. You are completely correct, that was not terrorism, but war. And where exactly would these bombs have come from? Manhattan Project only developed the 3 bombs that had already been detonated. The fourth atomic bomb wasn't tested until nearly a year later.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 12:19 PM) I haven't even weighed myself. Im moving in 6 days and that's taking more of my time than anything else right now. Really though, if you are serious about losing weight you need to move more often than once every 6 days.

I've also seen We're derailing this thread now but good. I've also seen justification of Hiroshima from the standpoint that Little Boy was a very different bomb than the Trinity bomb. While I think that is a BS position that fails to take human lives into the equation, I do agree with the counter argument that Nagasaki was that much more unnecessary because Fat Man was a plutonium implosion bomb just like the Trinity bomb and so we already understood it's capabilities and already had made the military point with Hiroshima.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 12:16 PM) Historically there is some argument there, at least with the second atomic explosion as to whether that was actually necessary. Absolutely, and many scholars feel neither was necessary and Japan was already days or weeks away from surrender. But, wtf, if you're spending $2 billion (that's $23 billion of today's crappy dollars) and employing 130,000 people to build some bombs, you're sure as $hit going to use them to bomb somebody.

These crazy religious folks arre at it again with their denominational displays on public property. Dang Pastafarians.

I also continue to run into my wall. Stuck at 184 for the 3rd straight week. I'm still watching what I eat during the day very closely, and am probably only going a little overboard at dinner if at all. What's killing me is that I've lost any free time for any exercise and that's obviously the key missing ingredient now. Rats.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 08:17 AM) Good call ... Also efforting when the last time the Sox played AT Dodgertown. I'll keep you posted! March 1993, I would venture.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) It is to secure a free state from the tyranny of its own government, like the colonists did from England. So that if the government gets too oppressive, the citizens cn protect themselves. I've always accepted that notion at face value, but in looking more at what the framers actually put down on paper I'm somewhat less convinced that was what they were trying to achieve. The Founding Fathers were very wary of the masses. Again, I'll ask a fellow SoxTalker to indulge me because I want to figure out how much of the standard pro/con arguments here are substantiated and how much is merely assumed. Do we have written confirmation from some of the Framers of the Constitution that confirms that they intended that armed citizens would serve as the ultimate check on government power? It may be going back 25 years to high school American History for me, but I still think Governor Morris summed up the Founding Fathers' opinion of the mob fairly well:

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) There's your problem; its not. It's more of a state and local-level emergency response, not a national defense force. There does not need to be government action for a militia response. I do understand that civil defense and emergency response at the local level is the primary duty of state militias, so no, that's not my problem. My problem is that Article II states that the President shall be the COC of the state militias when they are called into actual service of the United States, yet I see no functioning mechanism by which the various private fringe militias can be called to national service.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) National service is not the requirement and purpose of a general militia. This is where I need remedial education. If a citizen militia is explicitly stated as being necessary for national security , how could the militia possibly meet that need if it was not required to possess the ability to be called into national service?? QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Even if the need is no longer there (it is), the right still exists. The second clause stands on its own. Is it that cut-and-dried? I don't think so, or there would be no national debate on the issue.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) I would suggest that the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that 2A is only valid as part of a national call-up. Quite the contrary in fact, I'd say the right is expressly the opposite - that the militia of able-bodied citizens is a check against such a thing. How so? The militia of able-body citizens was expressly cited as needed to secure a free State.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) And don't make the mistake that the primary argument for individual gun ownership is based on the need for a militia. But based on the language of 2A, that IS the primary argument. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,. . . " ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Again, there does not seem to be much debate among constitutional scholars that securing individual private ownership of firearms was not the primary objective of 2A, and that Madison inserted the language only after Jefferson objected to the absence of a security against a standing army.