StrangeSox

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) filibuster rules just dont work within PHT I was more thinking of merging all "dunn sucks!" threads into one thread.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) We actually tried this a few years ago. It was something of an Epic Fail, IIRC. Try, try again. actually I could see huge problems with that, too many "keep your negative crap outta here!" to any critical posts. But we don't need any more Dunn/Rios/whoever sucks threads.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) I'll say one thing, I don't need to see another thread about how bad Juan Pierre or Adam Dunn are. We all know. I doubt Juan and Adam read this site, so we're just preaching to each other. And even if the players do read this site, do we really think they'd give a damn what we think? We need catch-alls for them, maybe a safe zone for hyperbolic ranting on KW, Ozzie, Dunn, Rios, Pierre, Peavy etc. Somewhere to blow off steam that keeps it out of discussion threads.

We're in the middle of what I think everyone can agree has been a pretty disappointing season thus far, regardless if you're pessimistic or optimistic about how it will end. I hope there isn't an overreaction to the negativity that the play on the field is producing.

tok RRR! gnzzzzzzzzzzzzz

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 05:29 AM) All of these studies are BS, and none of them know for sure one way or the other, regardless of their "methodology". Yes, yes, I know, you reject all data and empiricism out of hand. But no one is claiming that those projections are absolute. Mistaking maps for the territory and all that. Just pointing out how ridiculous that "ZOMG! 30%!!!" crap is.

This is literally the worst way I've ever seen a message board managed. Next they'll be shipping us off to the gulags if we post anything that isn't blue sky and sunshine!

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 06:15 PM) BEN "the housing mkt is contained" Bernanke? GMAFB...... What economists are saying big austerity measures will save this economy?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 06:17 PM) OBAMA. REelection. This does nothing long term. It's June 2011.

who's desperate, and for what?

Making food affordable by giving money to poor people.

Staggering and pervasive ignorance of what's actually in the federal budget may be why a majority of Americans think we can slice and dice our way out of problems.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) At the end of the day civilization is nothing more than imaginary lines in the sand created by humans. Why the state? Because that is how the US drew its imaginary lines. We have a bicameral system and therefore the lines are state and federal. A state can allow local govt more flexibility and there is nothing to say you couldnt have a system where counties or municipalities had more power, it just isnt our system. I could argue why, but the why isnt that important because Im just playing by the rules of the system.. I considered adding the cavaet, it was a broader "what level of government is best" question. Obviously our current system was established with individual state actors and a somewhat weak federal government, though that's certainly changed from pretty much 1787 on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) The head of PIMCO is out publicly arguing that anyone who thinks the U.S. ought to be focused on deficit reduction right now needs to come back out of "left field". He recommends a swift and substantial investment in infrastructure. Bernanke, that dastardly liberal, is again warning against short-term spending cuts. OTOH Republicans have managed to convince 55% of Americans that spending cuts and tax cuts will magik up some growth despite all sorts of economists, left & right, saying that implementing Republican economic mythology would have disastrous results.

And now the "30%" figure is out there, will continue to be referenced and will become "fact" before long, if it isn't already.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) Researchers who actually do work on polling are comparing that McKinsey study that 2k5 cited to a Push Poll. Some of the setup questions are now available at this link. They're weaseling out of it now. They say "well it's not predictive, just taking the 'temperature' right now!" but there's no plausible deniability that they didn't realize how some would try to take advantage of the results politically.

The prologue in Up is one of the saddest things I've ever seen in film. Goes well with this:

This probably deserves its own thread but why are States the magic demarcation line? Why not counties? Townships? Why should Springfield be able to push us around and tell us what to do?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) I dont agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, but for right now its the way it is, so I framed my argument as states rights, because arent we all tired of the Federal Govt in Washington telling states what to do? Only if we disagree with the fed policy!

No problem with your analysis there, but I just want to say again that, though I support the right to private handgun ownership, I think the SC had to jump through some hoops to tease it out of the 2nd while ignoring half of the amendment.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) But you've also exposed your concealed weapon...I seriously don't know the law so Im just wondering how that works. The whole point is to defend yourself. I can't imagine that it'd be illegal to draw your weapon in legitimate self-defense.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) I've always wondered why someone would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anyways, if you bring it out to use it or threaten someone by hinting at having a concealed weapon than it becomes illegal use anyways. Right? If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you show them your gun or draw it, you haven't done anything illegal. Now if you shoot the person as the run away, you've probably committed murder.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) Do they say that? I'd have to ask. I'd imagine my friends would say "what's the difference? criminals have/use guns they're not supposed to have. Doesn't stop them from shooting at us now." Yeah but if nobody can legally buy a .45 or a 9mm, there's going to be a lot less .45's and 9mm's around for criminals to get. OTOH, the prevalence of illegal drugs says that's probably not completely true.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense? Well there's the risk of some well-intending citizen trying to go Rambo and getting themselves killed (by police who wrongly identify them or in retaliation) or hurting or killing other bystanders. Something like this happened with Rep. Giffords, someone with concealed carry chose not to pull his gun during the confusion. And then there's the idea that more guns = more likely use of guns. If I fly off the handle and have a gun, I can shoot you. If I don't, I can't. And, with guns being legal, it makes them that much more readily available for criminals to obtain. OTOH I don't personally have any problems with personal firearms ownership or CC.* But I'd disagree with CC being a fundamental right, and I'm iffy on the 2nd really being an individual right as found in Heller and McDonald since they kinda just gloss over the awkward militia phrase.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) Yeah, I was going to say something like that. We've had lots of panic moments in our economic history, some stronger than others, but this country always found a way to claw back into things. I am pretty confident that will be the case here as well. And on the very slim chance it doesn't, and we descend into some sort of economic death spiral, then those pensions will either be irrelevant or will be just dropped a la bankruptcy dropping of debt. If the world economy is stagnant for the next 30 years, I'd venture that most existing governments would become irrelevant.