Rex Kickass

Please PM me your top 10 (or less) albums of 2010. (For the purposes of this list, 2010 will consist of albums released Dec 2009 - Dec 2010.) Deadline is January 10

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 1, 2011 -> 09:22 PM) I love my iPhone but heard good things about android I made the switch from Blackberry to Android and I kinda love my G2, I have to say.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 30, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) How much of that is the blizzard though? The blizzard came on Sunday. It would affect next week's numbers, not this week's numbers, no?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 30, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) Well, the NY media is starting to go after Bloomberg for being equally unprepared. And the Jersey media is starting to pick up this meme too. It helps that former acting governor Dick Codey had a great soundbite where he said both the Gov and the Lt Gov were entitled to vacations, just not simultaneously. (Governed between McGreevey and Corzine). NJ Politics is hateful, and its things like this that can really let a politician jump the shark. Especially one thats more popular outside of NJ than within.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) Rex, I've noted a few of the websites I read who are looking for reasons to bash Christie are using this one, is it actually playing at all in NJ? Honestly, til yesterday, I was stranded in airports so I don't know. Probably not... because NY and Philly media generally ignores NJ media. And New Jersey media leans heavily Republican.

So we get a blizzard and the Northeast is stranded. Christie's budget slashing has left many many towns unable to afford to plow themselves free. One person in my office hasn't been able to be home since Christmas because he can't get there. In Newark, Democrat mayor Cory Booker has been shoveling people out himself and delivering diapers to stranded mothers (and tweeting about it.) In Trenton, the governor flew out of dodge the day before the big storm for vacation, while his Lieutenant Governor is also on vacation. So who is cleaning up the mess? Acting Governor Steve Sweeney, the NJ Senate Preisdent (Democrat).

I will miss Bobby Jenks. I will not miss his horrid choice in facial hair.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 02:04 PM) Dogs can be gay? How is that possible? I think if you think hard enough, you can figure it out. I really don't think I want to draw you that picture.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in. This is just my opinion on the matter. I've never been to a gay bar where straight people were turned away at the door. And I may or may not have lots of personal field research to substantiate this finding.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) I think it's a pretty legit argument, even if you don't. It shows purposed segregation of their own doing, IE, creating gay bars, but when society looks at them differently, they ask why. I understand they're doing it to meet other gays...but you can do that in a regular bar, too...especially if you weren't creating sub sections of your own bar culture so gays are nowhere but those places. The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) I don't really have a bias, i'm just curious how far people are willing to extend these "protections." And i'm not characterizing ALL gay people as that. I'm sure the vast majority are content living their lives and not being outspoken about how they think people should feel about them. But you can't deny that there's a pretty loud segment that appear to want more than just equality. They want to be treated equal (totally valid and fair and I agree), but they also want people to view their lifestyle as normal and natural. That's where I disagree. I'm 100% for people's rights to do whatever they want in life in this respect, and the government shouldn't play any part in it. But I just can't go that far. Nor do I think that government should be involved in that either. Sometimes I think these protections do that. Colorado a few years back had a state vote on legislation which basically said equality laws ok, but preferential laws are not ok. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that. Edit: and I don't mean to say "normal" or "natural" with any sort of right/wrong or moral connection Well, that's because homosexuality is natural. I don't think my neighbors dogs learned being gay from the TV machines. As to normal? That's kind of a loaded word, its not normal because most people aren't gay. But neither are redheads normal either. Are we supposed to treat them differently because they have fair skin and red hair? No. And there's a difference between a social political agenda and a policy political agenda. Do gay people want to be treated like regular members of society and not thought of differently (abnormal or unnatural) because they are gay? Absolutely. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think that's being more than equal. I'm sorry that you see it differently.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:12 PM) You are seriously delusional. That's not cool and uncalled for. He is expressing an opinion that is frankly not that offensive. It's not a crazy stereotype, its an analysis on a community's political agenda. Whether you agree with it or not, I personally don't, is beside the point. This kind of name calling is not cool. Please stop.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Indeed. I wish you could come out to our drinking outing so that I could buy you a drink. Free drinks are always welcome.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve. Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all. I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right? Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up... equal rights for what, exactly? The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously? I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail. Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion. I'll tell you why this law is bigoted. Because when you have a personal life, and you work closely with people that you have become very close to, personal things come out. Eventually the conversation turns to the wife and kids, the girlfriend, the boyfriend, etc. The picture in their wallet, etc. People don't go around screaming IM HETERO in the army or elsewhere, but its acceptable to talk about your heterosexual personal connections in the workplace. It's no problem for you to talk about your wife, your kids, etc. Right now, it is a problem for someone in the military who has a same sex partner to even casually mention his or her partner, even in the most mundane way that you would never even think about. It is a problem to accidentally leave your email open because what happens if the person waiting in line to use the computer behind you accidentally reads the message from your partner and figures it out, and then reports you? What happens if you're on leave and you decide to have a drink at a gay bar, and someone in your chain of command sees it happening? Do you think that's the same penalties if your CO sees you walking into Scores on your leave? Probably not. This is not about the right to shoot porn at work for christ sakes, its about the right to keep your job if your sexual orientation is known or even suspected to be gay, bi or otherwise. I have had to work regular jobs that take place in boring offices in the midwest where I had to carefully watch my steps to make sure I didn't slip up, because I knew if it came out that I was gay I would be fired. That was stressful enough. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for soldiers who have to fear not just being fired upon by the enemy, but also stabbed in the back by their own side because he forgot to switch the gender of pronouns when talk about significant others came up at some point during that job. I think its pretty clear here, that I'm gay. I'm pretty proud of the fact that I am comfortable with who I am and who it turns out I'm wired to love. I don't hide it, sometimes I make that identity known, for a number of reasons (personal and political), but the truth is that in most situations, at most times, I don't scream out IM GAY. I got past that somewhere around hour 3 of the coming out process. But I also don't feel that its necessary or correct to hide who or what I am to be employed, get housing, or serve my country. Until this repeal happens, GLBT servicemen have to lie about who they are in order to serve their country. And by the way, even when the repeal is enacted, gay servicemen still won't have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexual servicemen. Because DOMA prevents same sex couples from receiving the same benefits that heterosexual couples can receive when employed by the federal government. So maybe you can tell me how this is all "equal" again. Maybe you feel that heterosexual soldiers need to have their rights protected by law as well. I would support such a law, but something tells me that you and I both know that its unnecessary. But I know that today, 29 states say that an employer can legally terminate or deny you employment based on what they suspect your sexual orientation to be. Close to 40 states offer no protection for transgender individuals. You can be legally denied housing based on the same thing in these states. Maybe you can point out where this is a problem for heterosexuals? If it is, I would be happy to support your fight to bring equal rights to all people, heterosexuals included.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) I have no idea if he's right...but this has to be shared just for the way this analyist phrased it. So two weeks?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) okay but where is the list of the people going to death camps. Those are FEMA camps, not death camps.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Good God. What is up with this headline at Huffington? Getting something like that isn't a major victory. That's one of the basics that you automatically get signed no matter who the President is. I don't care if the opposition party is being big dicks about it but I don't consider this a "major victory". This reminds me of that old Chris Rock bit where he talks about people who say s*** like "I take care of my kids". No s***. You're supposed to take care of your kids. You want a cookie? Actually, the acheivement of the Treaty was a major victory for the Obama administration in and of itself. Its ratification is the completion of that victory.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:53 PM) The general public that doesn't serve and won't have to "deal" with the changes? Does their opinion matter in this debate? I mean, i'm fine with DADT being repealed, but at the same time I think the opinions of military personnel matter a lot more than you or I. The report released earlier this month showed findings pretty consistent with 70% support for repeal. And even if it didn't, it shouldn't matter. If we're going to fight in the name of liberty and equality, our soldiers should be free to not hide who they are and still be equal.

Future House chair of Homeland Security Committee Peter King, terrorist sympathizer. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...ashington/full/

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:25 PM) I think part of this problem comes from the perception that the openly gay crowd has gone out of their way to project over the years. They do NOT represent what I consider the "common gay man", however, they represent a very vocal minority (walk through boys town and see what I mean, for example), and for most people who haven't been around gay people for a lot of their lives, they don't know what these "common gay men" are like...all they see are the flaming ones on TV wearing short pink shirts and going on the show project runway with their over the top "gay" voices. That's their only real exposure to them, so that's how they think they ALL act. I think part of this problem is that there are a number of people, and you yourself seem to admit to this, that are more than willing to subscribe to the most over the top stereotype of what gay people are and aren't. It's the equivalent of me thinking that all straight people are like the guys and girls from Jersey Shore.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works. I see what you did there. But if you can challenge a punitive fine to BP because you don't agree with where that money is being spent, does that then justify you not paying a parking ticket because you disagree with waste and inefficiency in the police department or whatever it is you feel like pissing on at that moment. The truth is that if BP is found guilty of gross negligence and is given punitive fines according to what the law allows, it absolutely shouldn't make a difference if the government applies the money from that fines to continued cleanup or justice department blowouts at Scores. What should matter is that BP should pay its debt to society just like everyone else in the country would have to do, and comply with the laws that govern it - just like everyone else in this country is expected to do. So I'm going to rephrase my question. If its a fine because BP broke the law, why does the planned expenditure (if any) of the punitive fine as prescribed by law even matter?

For that reason alone, the tax deal is not nearly the s*** sandwich everyone thought it was.

It's a nice thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:36 AM) Yes, I think Balta was agreeing with me and not realizing it. And I agree that it looks like the lame duck Congress is actually going to get a few things done. Actually, a lot of things done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:07 AM) I could give a more detailed response...but I'm just absolutely flabbergasted by this statement. No, playing hardball would have involved actually putting 2 bills on the floor, one of them for the upper crust tax cuts, one for everyone else, and whipping hard enough on the upper crust tax cuts that it lost and the Republicans were on record supporting them and opposing the lower class ones. The only reason we even got to this point was that the Democrats didn't have the stomach for a fight. Oh, and regardless of how silly the "Businesses aren't hiring because of uncertainty" line is, that doesn't change the fact that it's the official Republican explanation for why the economy is stalling. That's sort of exactly what NSS said. The Dems COULD have played hardball but they didn't. At the same time, I have to say - in terms of the other business this Congress will get to acheive in the lame duck as a result of this compromise is also pretty good. Looks like we'll get START ratified, DADT repealed, and the DREAM act will get a vote in the Senate (even though it will fail.) Two weeks ago, none of these things (which I generally find to be important) were even on track to get a vote in the broken Senate.