StrangeSox

There's two witnesses who haven't recanted and claimed police coercion, and one of them would be the alternate suspect in the shooting. That's not exactly a slam-dunk death penalty case right there.

Perhaps "innocent" is the wrong way to frame it: not proven to be guilty would be more accurate. He may have committed this crime, but the case against him was weak 20 years ago and non-existent today without the witness testimony. Yet we're still going to execute him.

As I understand it, the evidence is pretty much entirely witness testimony, which has been almost completely recanted with accusations of police coercion. There's zero physical evidence linking him to the crime.

No, he's pissed because he's not the one executing someone who appears pretty f***ing innocent...this time

It also touches on the decision today to deny Troy Davis any further legal action, meaning that Georgia is going to go ahead with executing an apparently innocent man. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/t...s_n_963366.html

Sullivan on Greenwald's article regarding Padilla and the recent decision to vacate his 17-year sentence because it was too leinient:

Nope, but I'll check it out. I know some of his findings are more controversial (all human interactions are communistic in nature) but the actual history of credit, debt and money and how they arose from moral debt is pretty fascinating.

idgi

Prohibition was a constitutional amendment as well as its repeal. Clarifying the language of the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right or another SC ruling down the road can change that. I'm not actually in favor of that but I don't think comparing the black market manufacture of drugs and liquor is comparable to the technology and ability required to manufacture a reliable gun.

You'd need to restrict the supply of guns to make a difference obviously. Manufacturing weapons isn't quite as easy as growing plants or distilling liquor.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 07:03 AM) I don't remember which thread we were discussing the FBI and Muslims but here's a relevant article: FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’ rest of the article More great quotes here FBI Trainer Says Forget ‘Irrelevant’ al-Qaida, Target Islam

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Ok...so not quite 2 years but almost? It's well over a year newer...and in technology that's a LOT of time. the Galaxy SII has been available in other countries since the spring, but that may have been true of the evo as well.

just watched it, awesome stuff

this is it. this is the worst thread in soxtalk history.

no ss2k5 you need documented evdience from an alternate universe where the lilly/dunn switch happened and the sox won more games, otherwise your idea is refuted and demolished and Ozzie is a genius for regularly playing the worst player in baseball.

Another point for the "don't feel poor because I'm not an idiot" side, then!

To be fair it's a matter of perspective as Balta points out. I'm typically interacting with people in the same socioeconomic realm as myself. If I were dealing with millionaires every day, perhaps I'd feel economically inferior.

I make significantly less than $400k and I don't feel poor because I'm not an idiot.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) People don't have a problem with Williams signing him because of his track record, but want the track record ignored in July. Ridiculous. GM signgings are multi-season moves. Mid-season lineup cards are game-by-game moves.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) The real issue here is that they are 15 games out. Dunn and Rios don't make that difference up if they have years that are expected and that's with Konerko's MVP-type year. Williams construction of the team was all wrong. As I've pointed out to you before, the errors of others doesn't absolve Guillen's mistakes.

Nope, doesn't matter, once the roster is set the manager literally has zero control over who to play, where to play them and where to put them in the order.

An article entitled "To Have Is To Owe" by economic anthropologist David Graeber grabbed my interest last year. Part of the article touched on the mythology surrounding the formation of money going back to Adam Smith and how the standard story, that money evolved from a simple spot-trade barter system, doesn't really make much sense and isn't supported in the historical records. Graeber published a book this summer entitled Debt: The First 5000 Years. In it, he explores the origins of debt and credit in human civilization and the moral underpinnings from which it sprung: He's also had a few articles and interviews on Naked Capitalism lately: What is Debt? An Interview... Lengthy interview covering many of the ideas presented in the book. David Graeber: On the Invention of Money A rebuttal to some criticism, a thorough layout of his concepts of the formation of money and an attack on the nature of blog "echo chambers"

forums user VictoryMC98 has 233 posts too many

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) You may ridicule it...but that doesn't mean that a person taking home $400k a year in this economy feels wealthy. I don't care if someone who is making more than 99.99% of the world "feels" wealthy, it's still a really, really stupid thing to say and shows how divorced he is from the reality of most people. edit I don't disagree with what you're saying there, just that ignorance isn't a good excuse.

#plutocratproblems