StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) The second link is completely f-ed up. They count a murder of a single deli clerk as a 'terrorist attack/plot'? There are reports daily of Jews being attacked by Muslims (and others) that I don't see listed under the 'anti-Jewish' plots. It only lists one against Cantor. They are cherry picking data like most people do to prove a point. Oh, daily reports of terrorist attacks against Jews? Do share! Anyway, the FBI's list, compiled through 2005, is available through the links. It's their definition and categorization. Unless the FBI is also cherry-picking to prove some political point, your criticism doesn't work.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) So, there's a handshake deal comprising of roughly 4 trillion in cuts/savings, 800 billion of which in the form of increased revenues (that's 800 billion more than the republicans wanted to agree to, but they did anyway). The senate plan comes out and asked for twice that in revenue increases (while also slashing the amount in cuts). Obama doesn't quite ask for that much, but still an additional 400 billion in revenue instead of 400 billion in cuts. And that's not the republicans compromising at all? That's not Obama's fault for clearly over-demanding at the negotiation table? “A deal was never reached, and was never really close.” Boehner claims they agreed on a firm $800M in revenue. That's the only source for that claim, and after the absurd claims he and Cantor tried to pull after walking out of the Biden talks, I'm a little skeptical. Yes, coming around to $800M in loophole closures is a "compromise" from their ridiculous "absolutely no new revenues at all!" position, but the whole thing is still heavily in their favor. I'm not sure how Obama asking for 3:1 cuts v revenue, including inferiorating his base by raising Medicare ages, is over-demanding. You've essentially set it up such that anything short of giving Republicans exactly what they ask for and then some (because they keep wanting a better and better deal) is some grand compromise by Boehner. That doesn't really make sense when viewed at the larger picture of absolute refusal for weeks if not months to compromise on anything at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) Oh I know. The only party that allows extremists is the Republicans. Wait, what, this is in response to a post explicitly distancing republicans from right-wing extremist groups that commit acts of terrorism?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) Correct me if i'm wrong here: My understanding is that on Friday night or Saturday there was a deal in place that both sides agreed to, said deal included 800 billion in tax increases...a gigantic compromise on the part of house republicans that wanted no part of any revenue increases. The WH then asked for more, so Boehner said no. If that's the case, then the fact that we don't have an agreement today is absolutely Obama's fault since a deal was already in place under the terms that the WH wanted. Incorrect, and Boehner walked out on Friday. Boehner claimed that the weekend before, he and Geithner made a "handshake" deal on $800M in increased revenues. The WH disputes this and says there was never any agreement, only discussion. After the G6 plan came out recommending something like $2T in revenues, the WH upped their request to $1.2T. At that point, Boehner left and refused to even return Obama's phone calls. Boehner also tried claiming that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was "bipartisan" which is just hilarious. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/polit...;pagewanted=all

Actually at the bottom of this page there's a chronological list: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publicat...005/terror02_05 I'm guessing, after skimming through, that the left-wing groups are ones that appear to be pro-South and Central American groups. ELF and ALF dominate the list starting in ~1999, mostly arson.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) It is, and we the people lose. But at the same time, the Democrats had no problem granting small debt ceiling raises throughout their reign in the Gee-Dub era. Now it's a problem and we need to extend it for years so we don't have to redo this process a few months down the road. It's typical of both parties...and I'm sick of it. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) The Democrats didn't attach any additional policy demands to those debt ceiling increases. Right, this was never even an issue before. No one really considered not raising it; it a was protest vote from the opposition party knowing full-well that it would and should pass. It's a bit different now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Wait so 24% of terror groups are "Extreme Left Wing"? No wonder the media is always beating up on Muslims. We're talking groups like ALF and ELF and then anarchist groups that have more in common with right-wing sovereign citizen/survivalist/supremicist nutter groups than either have in common with mainstream dems or reps

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) Man, the left produces a ton of terrorists in those #'s. ALF/ELF groups, some of the more extreme workers'/anarcho-communist/socialist groups

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) In other words, both parties are -- surprise, surprise -- playing politics. The Dems want the increase large enough to carry through the next election cycle. The Reps want the increase small enough so they can re-fight the fight before the next election cycle. And meanwhile...f*** America. While I'm on a f*** saying kick, f*** both parties, Boehner, Reid, Obama and the rest of them. Increasing the likelihood of having this exact same brinksmanship bulls*** in a few months is bad for America, regardless of who benefits politically.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) When was the last non-muslim hijacking of an airline? Or attempted anything of an airline? And the shoe guy was a Muslim. First, an example from 10+ years ago? And the only things that count as terrorism are hijackings? Better inform the FBI and Europol, both of whom actually compile data on these sorts of things, data that doesn't agree with you. Greenwald's piece, which I linked to earlier, was partially about the extreme disparity in media coverage of terrorist acts, so you can't just rely on "stories I've heard on the news" as a good data set. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-t...ts-are-muslims/

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) Anyone see an issue with the source? nope, but that goes right back to the core problem of assuming that most terrorists are muslims.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jul 23, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) But the vast majority of terrorist actions in recent memory have been committed by followers of Islam. This doesn't change that fact, as much as some people might wish it did. BTW this is categorically wrong. As King Targets Muslims, There Have Been Almost Twice As Many Plots Since 9/11 From Non-Muslim Terrorists Who Commits Terrorist Attacks In Europe?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) I'm coming from the perspective that as of Saturday those evil house Republicans (the ones who agreed to nearly a trillion dollars in what amounts to tax increases) had an agreement with the White House for a long term cut, cap and balance plan that Obama wanted. Except that in the last meeting Obama changed his mind and asked for more, hence why the meeting lasted for 30 minutes before Boehner walked out. It's absolute bulls*** for Obama to claim lack of compromise when compromise was had and he just decided to get greedy and ask for more. I found it telling last night that he couldn't explain to the American people why that wasn't enough. He barely even mentioned the fact that at this point, it's way too late and it's 100% his fault and now we're arguing over whether this should be a 6 month increase or longer. After that bulls*** he just played, i'm 100% behind Boehner to f*** Obama and make this a campaign issue that he'll have to deal with. That's all sorts of wrong. Cut, Cap and Balance is the House GOP's plan, not what Obama or the Democrats want or ever agreed to. The only word we have that Obama "got greedy" after giving Republicans every thing they wanted for weeks is Boehner, so that's not exactly an objective source of information. The White House says they upped the revenue side after the "Gang of Six" plan was introduced, which called for far more revenues. And it's pretty hilarious that this is now somehow 100% Obama's fault; I can't believe you're actually buying that rhetoric after the GOP's been offered incredibly favorable plans for weeks. After Cantor holds talks and walks out as soon as revenues come up and tries to pretend that cuts are agreed to. After Obama offers substantial cuts and changes to medicare, medicaid and social security in addition to large discretionary cuts coupled with minimal revenue* increases. Yeah, this is somehow 100% Obama's fault. Now you're actively favoring making this another poltical fight in a few months after saying several times that there's no reason to believe it would be, so at least that's more honest. Boehner's wanted this to be a political issue next year from the start, and that's why he's pushed short-term increases all along. There's absolutely no reason for them other than to repeat this whole charade again in a few months.

This will be my first Sox game of the year! I hope "JFP" is uttered out of joy and not out of frustration.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 07:54 AM)

I hope you know that post in the other thread was in jest

"The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American congress rather than the euro zone," - Vince Cable, Minister for Business in the Coalition government in Britain.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—... to finish up this quote... Some executives echoed the survey’s central finding. “We’re hiring a little here and there—but it’s not what it should be,” said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. “And it’s because of the lack of demand.” Long-Stanton, which makes metal parts for the aerospace, medical and other industries, has snapped back from the recession, “but volume is still not up to where it was, or where it should be,” Mr. Cunningham said. Long-Stanton is privately held and has 75 employees. and this is the WSJ, not exactly a left-leaning paper.

Glenn Beck, World's Best Troll, compares dead Norwegian camp youth to "Hitler Youth"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:01 PM) What's awesome is before I clicked your profile, I said, "I bet this guy is in his mid 20's". You and I aren't all that different, as it turns out. This might really scare you: When I was 25, I was basically exactly like you, nearly point for point. Fast forward 10 years, and look at how much the world has changed. Oh, and I voted you as a 5 star poster...because I hate when people down vote peoples ratings just because they don't agree with them. You mean I can grow up to be a terrible poster who sold his soul, too?

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcri...id_cote_110112/ COTE: I don`t think there are many CEOs out there who would say, geez, things are booming, but I`m uncertain on regulation, so I`m not going to hire people. While I`d be the first to admit that uncertainty on regulation doesn`t help, at the end of the day, I think the bigger driver is uncertainty of demand.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:34 PM) Lack of demand caused by what exactly? Lack of hiring maybe? Why is there a lack of hiring again? mean obama and empty threats of REGULATION! and TAXES! of course

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:32 PM) Yeah, putting of trillions of dollars into the economy directly doesn't have any Keynesian effect... yeah, it's not like they explicitly critique monetary stimulus during a liquidity trap... http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/trioshrt.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:32 PM) Like when everyone blew off an actual CEO's statements? One CEO b****ing about Obama does not a data set make.