StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) Boot PSU for what? This is America, they have the right to their opinion. I hate this cop-out. Yes, they have a right to their opinion, and everyone else has a right to judge that opinion, and organizations have a right to not associate themselves with that opinion.

They really are doing a great job of completely embarrassing themselves.

TV settings are all sorts of screwed up at big-box stores like Best Buy anyway and don't represent what you'll really see at home.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) wow. i'm done. Why? It's pretty easily conceivable that you'd spread your weapons around your country, and they lost control of quite a bit of their country. I'm not saying that what you're saying re:deterrence is dumb or wrong, but that something like Libya brings up extra factors to consider.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) We aided a revolt with air power, which the rebels were not capable of. But at what point would you say that Libya was at the point it could have lost control of their nuclear arsenal? Especially if in tripoli? It was at least 4-5 months after the airstrikes began. You would have to be really stupid to locate all of your weapons in a central position in your country's capital.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Indeed, it seems that we are willing to invade a country we don't like when the opportunity presents itself. Everything I've read has stated that the lesson iran has taken from this is that the mistakes made by both these countries is not that gave up their program or kept it, but rather that they just weren't successful in finishing it. I'm not willing to grant that we actually invaded Libya. Can you address my concern re: losing control of nuclear weapons during an internal revolt? edit: we could also invade the s*** outta Iran right now and decimate their government and military if we wanted to. Continuing to advance their nuclear programs only increases the odds that Israel or the US will eventually put a stop to that before it is too late. We don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud, as George W. Bush so wisely stated.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) Do you have a map? As of 2002, Libya only had SCUDs and no projected ability to develop ICBM's. Which leaves their maximum realistic range at 200km, which means they're limited to Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad and Egypt. And not realistically any major cities in those countries, save Tunisia.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Saddam Hussein refused to show his nuclear progress and was invaded. Ghadaffi cooperated, and as soon as he was weak, he was invaded. What benefit do you see in Iran cooperating? I don't understand that you don't believe these things can act concurrently. Iraq was an example of what happens when you don't cooperate, while libya when you do. Well, it turns out it doesn't matter. Iraq openly cooperated with inspections prior to the invasion and nothing was found. Iraq was invaded for a variety of transparently-dumb-at-the-time reasons. If they really had nuclear weapons and the world knew, they probably wouldn't have been invaded. Libya was "invaded" once a massive internal revolution was well-underway with several cities taken by rebel forces. If they had nuclear weapons and threatened e.g. Italy with retaliation if NATO got involved, yeah, that would definitely have an impact on the decision to support the rebels. If they had nuclear weapons but it was becoming apparent that they were losing control of them, that introduces an entirely different dynamic.

The in-store service sales pitches are by the far the most annoying. Menards had that one time, I left and went to home depot instead.

Nuclear-weapons-as-invasion-deterrence isn't where I'm taking exception, btw. It's that this lesson is learned from Libya instead of, say, Iraq.

How many have had internal populist uprisings?

This is a pretty bizarre GOP bill from New Hampshire

Lydia and a few others are unkillable by NPC's, but you can kill them if you accidentally hit them.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) It would prevent that whole NATO airstrike plus CIA training campaign thing you seem to be forgetting about. I don't know that you can say anything for sure. There'd be a pretty strong incentive to get in there and secure that stuff before the uprising caused a lot of it to slip away.

Really? He was taken down internally. I don't see how a nuclear program would prevent an internal populist uprising.

This is pretty surprising*: Republican Scott Brown endorses Obama's recess appoint. *before posting, I remembered that he's running against Warren and that the CFPB might be pretty popular in Mass.

Apparently, this appointment might not work because the Dodd-Frank act contains language specifically referring to a Senate confirmation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) The President will also make recess appointments of 3 new members to the National Labor Relations Board. This is actually important...the Republicans had refused to consider any nominees to the board, and the board requires a 3 member minimum quorum to function. Starting this year, the NLRB would otherwise be shut down. Somewhat ironically, the SCOTUS case that speaker.gov is quoting as proof that the Obama administration argued that a 3-day recess is necessary is a case due to the NLRB making decisions with a two-person quorum of a delegated 3-person committee, and the question came up in relation to Congressional obstructionism and how it is forcing less-than-ideal situations.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) I don't think they are that desperate yet. Their navy, what there is of it, would be crushed in short order. Then what? Not a good end for them or anyone else. I think it is much more likely we will see internal changes in Iran. Which is the whole point of the sanctions. Agreed. They could probably do quite a bit with asymmetrical warfare not only to oil transporters but the US Navy as well, but they'd be risking an awful lot of international response.

The main takeaway is that the supposed uber-enthusiasm to defeat Obama isn't readily apparent from the caucus turnout numbers, but I'd toss out the caveat that it's an indirect measure and not necessarily completely predictive of enthusiasm for voting for Any Republican over Obama. There may be a significant portion eager to vote against Obama and don't really care who that other choice will be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) If there's anything that ought to scare the Republicans, it's this. In 08, there was 2 contested caucuses, so there was likely very little Democrat crossover. In 2012, the Republicans were the only contested caucus, so if Dem leaning independents wanted to cross over and vote for Paul or something like that, they could do so willingly. And yet, turnout dropped a fair amount. They won 10 on the strength of a hugely motivated base. If they can't even match Iowa's turnout from 08, that is a real sign of a disaffected base. That link details the numbers. Overall turnout for the GOP caucus was very slightly higher, but crossovers were higher and thus the actual number of Republicans turning out was lower.

So apparently there was about 10% less republican turnout at the Iowa GOP caucuses this year than in 2008. I wouldn't have expected that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) I am saying we have done everything under the sun to make voting easier. We had literally hundreds of hours of early voting time available to people, in addition to absentee balloting that only required a phone call and a stamp as a registered voter. We also have multiple ways to register to vote, including going to the DMV for anything, the courthouse, running into any candidate at all during election season, or again through mail. I have a hard time looking at all of this and taking charges of disenfranchisement seriously, when turnout ends up being around 20% for a general election. Short of putting it on facebook, it is about impossible to make it easier for people to vote than it is today. Please note that Republicans are actively trying to role back many aspects of early voting because it was a big part of Obama's victory in 2008, and that illustrating that currently there's little to no disenfranchisement (not true anyway, but granted for sake of argument) does not excuse or justify new rules that do result in disenfranchisement.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 08:10 AM) My main worry on-line was security, but seeing as we have no security in the voting process, I supposed that on-line balloting really wouldn't be any less secure than what we have now. It'd be a lot easier for one person or a small group to impact any and every election from a single location than what would be required now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) I have zero desire to ditch Lovie. He's a very good head coach. Also agree with this, but if he has to go to get a good GM...