StrangeSox

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 4, 2011 -> 10:58 PM) I think we can all agree that I am probably the most patriotic poster here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 06:43 PM) Great so where are all the convictions for voting machine fraud, after all of the complaining that was done about it? Democrat whining=/= passing actual laws that disenfranchise people

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 28, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate revenue. owns

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) F***ing autocorrect I was making sure that got saved before you could edit!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 09:03 PM) And the EPA is actually required by law to regulate co2. The administration has been in violation of th law by not flgettin those regulations out. there's actually a very recent SCOTUS case relating to this that I posted in the enviro thread.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 09:03 PM) climate Chavez is a giant conspiracy of evil scientists

yeah that's really a meaningless thing

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) The man has shown repeatedly that he will forgo Congress if he thinks he can get away with it. "Unitary executive" didn't start with Obama, though I'll agree with him being pretty terrible about it too!

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) You guys write off the insults to a good portion of the American population, but how would you have reacted if Bush had said that some people won't ever vote for him because they are "dirty hippies who cling to their bongs and government assistance"? That wouldn't have gone over well. He can insult my culture and my politics and my belief in American exceptionalism all he wants, but it's not winning me over. And since I doubt many of you are in the military, I assure you, the regular troops are none too pleased by his neglectful insult of two of the more heroic men in our ranks. "Real Americans/Middle America" vs. "liberal coasts(aka vast majority of population)"

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 07:33 PM) Like lowering taxes to stimulate the economy

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) No, that is not me, and I left because I was tired of dealing with single minded idiots who just got more and more 'angry' the more you tried to have conversations, and resorted to increasingly personal attacks and insults. FWIW you left over a post that NSS made, which always struck me as sorta funny since he's usually about as middle-of-the-road as you can get.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66038 well played

lol demolished

NY Republicans passed the gay marriage bill!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) It's not the elderly he's concerned about...it's the people who aren't elderly (and thus aren't currently covered by Medicare) but which no insurance company wants any part of...the people who are actually sick and need treatment for things. The elderly are covered by Medicare so there's no "Swamping the systems" or big cost increases associated with starting to insure them because they're already in the system and insured. That's why I went hard on him there. If you're worried about swamping the system because treating sick people takes resources, or making things more expensive because it will cost money to treat sick people, then anything that is done which would provide that group health care is a bad thing. bmags was talking about employers dumping already-insured employees into the exchanges. There's no reason to believe the general ESI group is more expensive than any other group. If anything, it's probably the cheapest.

US crime rates in general have been falling, even if media coverage is more hyperbolic (!)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) Unless the people you are adding are the most expensive... You're adding people from the workforce in general, not the elderly.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Didn't I just go over how much I hate when people call it that? I know

McConnell's admitted that the GOP response is completely partisan http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20074025-503544.html

BTW, the shift away from employer-sponsored insurance has been happening for a while. The absurdity is the claim that Obamacare is going to accelerate it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) It is because my original point was that people in public housing are involved with drugs more than the general population. Involved meaning not only uses, but also deals/sells the crap out. You provided a study that's entirely about dependence and usage being the same (all while not counting certain people, for example multiple members in a single family residence from what I remember). So that's a percent they've come up with that wouldn't include people that deal the stuff because those people wouldn't be using it (they'd cut into their profit). No, you're changing the history here. This started as you advocating drug testing by the CHA. I replied by saying that drug use for those on public assistance isn't any higher. You said you "find it hard to believe that the poorest of the poor out there aren't doing drugs at an increased rate than the general population. At the very least I find it highly suspect that "drug activity" rates aren't significantly higher (using/dealing/selling) in public housing. Do you have a link for that?" Granted, you shifted goalposts here to something that's 1) irrelevant to the topic (drug testing) 2) not something I ever claimed. I should have called that out earlier, but I provided a study to support what I actually claimed. Furthermore, I'm not sure if the assumption that drug "activity" rates are higher really holds up, either in the data or in a thought experiment. If usage rates are the same, why would dealer rates increase? I really doubt coke-addicted financial executives or pot-smoking suburban teens are driving to Inglewood to score. Either way, the claim that "activity" rates is higher is yours, and therefore it's on you to support. This still doesn't make sense, really. These are interviews on the phone, not investigations by the CHA. How are they going to lose their aid? And currently I can lose my job and be barred from access to nuclear facilities if I were found out to be using illegal drugs. I've got a lot more to lose there. Why would I be less likely to under-report than someone who's in Section 8 housing?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) I got your point (and I did attack the methodology, including the purpose of the study which was dependence and usage, not involvement in anyway - dealers don't use their own product, for example, or the fact that those people have more to lose if they admit to usage), but if my cop buddies who work in the drug unit spend 95% of their time with the same people, who live in the projects, then that tells you that they spend a lot of time at the projects. They work in districts that encompass a lot of area, not a 2 block radius where public housing projects are. these attacks make no sense. First, someone who deals but doesn't use is irrelevant since the topic was usage rates. Second, you've asserted that welfare recipients would under-report, but haven't explained why. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) It's what has me disenfranchised about our political system...and it's not just the politicians, but the people...because the people put them there. 95% of democrats I know have NO opinions that do not side with the democratic agenda. 95% of republicans... ^^^ see the above. The surprising thing is people cannot see the problem with this. I have quite a diverse group of friends, most of which do not get along politically. My republican friends cannot understand how I can defend Obama at times, and my democratic friends cannot understand why I sometimes disagree with the things he's doing... That phenomenon, at least IMO, makes NO sense and wasn't the intention of our system. People argue just to win Also just another form of tribalism etc.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) By simply going to the ER and calling the non emergency care emergency care...such as they do. It's a bass-ackwards method of coverage, but it's how the system currently works. I'm not claiming I like it...it's why ER's are always full and have enormous wait times when they should be empty and reserved for actual emergencies. But that's what it is right now...even if it makes no sense. That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) In the end, the "reform" that was passed, was -- at best -- a s***ty bandaid that's already falling off. If you're happy with it, all the power to you. But they had a historic opportunity and failed us...again. Granted, that's just my opinion. I know