StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) You are talking about convicting a person of first degree murder, despite the evidence being found lacking by a 12 person jury who was involved in the evidence from day one. The prosecution failed, and despite that, you want her to get what would in effect be her death sentence. Convicting someone without enough evidence would be akin to killing her in this case. Trust me, I think she was guilty too, but you can't go vigilante and make the system do something that it isn't supposed to do. but those 6 jurors were just lazy and wanted to go home! 6-6 is good enough for GUILTY!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) And what if I as a juror don't buy the 'accident' argument, which is my right. Then it is endangerment. You've still got the burdens mixed up. The prosecution needs to show it was a murder beyond any reasonable doubt, not the other way around. If there's a slight-but-realistic chance it was accidental, you have to vote not guilty. And I'm not sure why anyone would assume the daughter was alive during that 31-day period, which is what you're basing your endangerment on.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) 2.) Lying to police is endangerment of her child. At that point child was 'supposed' to be alive. Not if you assume she was already dead due to an accident. Then it's a panicked 20-something trying to forestall reality, but it doesn't make it murder or abuse or endangerment.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) So she couldn't have been punished for the second or third counts?? She didn't abuse or endanger the child with her actions?? Somehow I think not reporting any missing child for 31 days would have gotten you or me in a load of trouble. Somehow this woman skated. She's a terrible person and a worse mother. She was involved in her child's death undoubtedly. The argument that she killed her or abused or endangered her is not quite as convincing. Trying to cover up an accidental death is not murder, abuse or endangerment. I love the assumptions here, that the only way six of them changed their minds was because they were "lazy." This of course ignores why 6 of them didn't vote guilty in the first place or quickly change their votes so they could get home and accuses them of extreme narcissism.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Pretty much yes. I hate both parts of this negotiation. Raise the ceiling because you have to, and don't do anything to make the economy worse.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) The job market was picking up pretty well, as you pointed out many times, on its own. The job market died when the Presidents policies exploded commodities prices. It died when they decided to focus on the deficit instead of unemployment, though I'll point out correlation/causation and merely note timing. Also I'm not sure the President's policies are to blame for the Arab Spring and the resulting oil jumps and worldwide ecological problems resulting in lower crop yields.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:22 PM) What we need to do right now is control spending. The cuts need to come when, however long that might be, the economy turns around. No more trillion dollar bombs that don't fix the real problems at hand. The economy needs to fix itself, and all we have been doing is a bunch of plans that just put off of the eventual reckoning date. Keep things steady right now. Unless I'm reading this wrong, you're rejecting the plans to raise the debt ceiling that include trillions in cuts?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:28 PM) This is what Dennis Miller was talking about. People saying, 'there's no way she could have done this, no mother could do this.' Yes, someone deranged could do this. Yes she wanted to get rid of the kid so she could party every day and be unburdened. You say all indications she could have left the kids with the gparents? She said dad was responsible for the death! The woman made up the nanny; the woman took the police to universal studios where she worked, finally admitting upon arrival she didn't work there (wasting their efforts when they could have been really looking for caylee), the woman out of nowhere accuses dad of the crime. I may be mistaken, but there were 3-4 things she could have been found guilty of, I think No. 2 was child endangerment or abuse. Yes if I was on the jury she'd have been found guility of some crime that would have kept her in jail 10 years or so. People that are talking so solemnly about how I don't understand the law, etc., I don't think are focusing on wanting justice for a little kid who died a horrible death. The mother has no desire to help police find her child; has no desire to help. First she says nanny did it; there was no nanny. Then dad did it. Why would she say these things and not assist police? Because she was involved. Whether or not you think she suffocated the child, she still was responsible for her death. She deserves to sit 10 years or more in prison with the current evidence and the jury should have made her do so. The focus of the crazies at least has been on the baby who died a horrible death. You guys talking about the law don't even seem to want her to have been convicted of count 2 or 3. I want people to be convicted of crimes for which the prosecution has met the burden of proof. I don't want vigilante juries who don't understand the law and instead seek to punish people to get "justice."

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 14, 2011 -> 09:43 PM) Watched Road to Perdition today. Forgot how much I loved that movie. Hadn't seen it in a long time. The scene at the farm house was filmed about a mile from my parents' house in Lockport.

jesus christ

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) The reality is that Obama is using pretty much the same policies as Bush and getting the same results. Free money for everyone isn't working. You mean half-assed quasi-stimulus and a bunch of tax cuts aren't working? Shocking. Maybe if we cut federal spending by huge amounts and throw in some more tax breaks, everything will be awesome (even though it seems like an overwhelming majority of economists disagree). Well, it's not Bush's fault directly, but it did happen during his Presidency and his "temporary" tax cuts to refund a surplus that the GOP will never, ever give up are his fault. What Obama is doing, focusing so much on the deficit and ignoring the giant unemployment and stagnant economy problem, is stupid and ineffective because fixing the later problem will drastically improve the former. I'm not sure why you keep forgetting in topic after topic that I don't support Obama.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:20 AM) The bubble really popped at the end of the Clinton administration, and we have just spent the last 10 years trying to rebuild the economy by whatever artificial means possible. Uh, wasn't the whole housing run-up and derivatives nonsense started in the early 2000's? edit: I do like that, no matter what, this must not be Bush's fault and there's no way his tax cuts weren't a brilliant economic idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:17 AM) And nothing has fundamentally changed, plus we have all of the bad things now. That alone means it is way better than what we are looking at now no matter what terminology you want to use to describe it. Well yeah it was "better" because the bubble hadn't popped yet but it was still impending doom. And it still popped under his watch and was pretty terrible by the time he left office.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) So what exactly would you term this deficit as? Even huger, thanks in large part to wars, tax cuts, TARP, economic downturn which led to decreased revenues and increase safety net spending (duh) and partially the stimulus but that's tapering off now. But you've got to be pretty crazy to claim the Bush economy was anything close to "good" or even "not bad" since the entire thing was built on a giant bubble that collapsed four years ago and sent damn near the entire world into a recession.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) And I think the GOP can easily argue that the current deficit has Obama's fingerprints all over it. The GOP easily argues a lot of fantasy rhetoric, so I don't doubt that they wouldn't have a hard time making that claim.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) That big terrorist attack that killed 3K+ doesn't count, dummy. Dana Perino (former Bush press sec.) made a similar flub a year or two ago.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:20 AM) You mean back when we had low unemployment and a solid economy? you mean a giant bubble and still-huge deficits?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) Haven't we already seen 2 cases of pilots of smaller planes crashing those planes into buildings? I know there was a guy in Texas about 5 years ago and I'm vaguely remembering a different one involving a younger pilot. Neither of those planes had explosives or anything that would supplement the impact's force on the plane. Texas guy was last year http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/18/pilot...ti-irs-suicide/ also the airport in vieques has zero security screening. They're only prop planes, but you could still plow them into an office building or hotel in San Juan. Hell, my wife was in the co-pilot's seat, could easily have crashed the plane.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it. What about the original Bush tax cuts that were supposed to usher in economic golden times?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) Which, of course, argues for deficit spending at the federal level and much larger assistance to states and local governments (which was in the stimulus but was cut back a lot in the final agreement). A lot of people also saw those tax cuts, but like me, have about $3-$4 k extra sitting in the bank because there's little compelling reason to spend it right now. iPad2

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) If the stimulus package of mostly tax cuts, state bailouts and safety net spending that a bunch of Keynesian people warned was going to fail hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) The scary thing is...a lot of the business world still runs the equivalent of XP, because no business in their right mind was going to upgrade to Vista, and Windows 7 came out at a timme when business investment jumped off a cliff. IIRC Microsoft had to quickly back off their plans to end support for XP because of this. The computers in our office are a mix of XP and 7. I'm glad I've got my ridiculously overpowered Windows 7 workstation, though it's currently broken thanks to .NET issues. Does it make sense for say an entire accounting department to upgrade to 7 from XP? Why not just stick with what works?

“Whether [the Bush administration] did or didn’t [find WMD], America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time," - Fox News host Eric Bolling.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) Obama is willing to go to $4T, if the GOP is willing to look at ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket. UNCONSCIONABLE! WHY WON'T OBAMA NEGOTIATE?!?!?!!!!! Anyway over in the Dem thread I posted something indicating that a good portion of the new "tea party" caucus doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling for any reason at all.

The Tea Party is driving the Republicans off of a cliff of insanity