StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) So, you're defending those Breitbart videos now? Investigations are routinely carried out with some level of deceit. I don't see an ethical issue with that. The problem comes in how the results are interpreted and reported. The Brietbart videos were heavily edited to present a certain narrative that the full tapes didn't back up. I don't know if that's the case here, but it doesn't appear to be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) Thanks. Even with that, this still troubles me. One-party consent in general, or the false pretenses? I have no problem with one-party consent. If someone is calling me with threats or harassments, I'd want to be able to record that for evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_rec...fication_states Wisky is a one-party consent state. Come on, Watson!

Just moved last week and we're going to give Clear internet a shot, along with forgoing cable/satellite in favor of Netflix, OTA HDTV and maybe something like Roku with Hulu Plus. So far, Clear's been working pretty well. Not as fast as our old Comcast connection, but it's cheaper and I don't have to pay Comcast. It can still stream HD-quality movies and shows from Netflix. edit: thinking about picking up Amazon Prime as well, depending on their offerings and if there's anything they have that Netflix doesn't. A year of that is the same price as a month of cable.

Protests in Ohio over elimination of workers' rights, too. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/...me=domesticNews

FWIW I really, really doubt the IN Dems would still be doing this if it weren't for the WI fiasco.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) I kind of doubt that's fixable. The small display is expecting data from the stereo, and after market stereos aren't like to be programmed to send data to the Galant's computer. There's usually some electronics hobbyists/professionals on the forums who just like to tinker and figure things out. For my car, someone figured out how to reprogram the whole dash and activate features not available on the US models. But it also might be more expensive or more work than it's worth. such as this suggestion I found through random googling: Actually the ecomm error can be corrected quite easliy. This will however require a trip to best buy unless you can find the part online. You'll need a reverse harness to power the factory radio. Then plug that stupid extra plug back in the stock radio and bury the factory radio in the dash. The part # for the reverse harness is 71-7001. All that you have to wire up is constant accy and you'll have to make a ground for the stock radio. Any other questions email me owuld be best since I don't check this too often.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) The thing that is going to suck is losing my display near the top of my dash. I've read that once you install an aftermarket stereo, the display just reads "E COMM". Sucks. Try to find some Galant forums. They might have some guidance or advice on how to swap stereos, help if you have a question, or know how to fix the E COMM thing.

I think the issue is that it gives unions the same "free rider" problem so many people use to b**** about other entitlements.

Could be last year's model. I think a lot of electronics lines switch in February.

Indiana Democratic Senators are fleeing the state over similar bills there. http://www.indystar.com/article/20110222/N...ehouse-showdown

If you run into a snag while installing the stereo, you can give Crutchfield a call (24/7 I think). I did that a few years ago with a '04 Grand Am and they were able to quickly help me identify the wiring problem and correct it. That may be worth $20. I shopped around and found that Crutchfield was the best price for what I was looking for anyway, though. If you have an iPod, consider looking at the Pioneer headunits. They have built-in iPod control so you don't have to pay $50-100 for an iPod module like most other stereos.

The Hawks are 2 points out of 5th place, 4 out of 4th. They also have the third highest goal differential in the West.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) Well, "massive" is relative, but there's plenty of examples of fraud. Google medicare fraud and start reading the stories. But the fraud i'm talking about is basically unprovable. What doctor is going to admit that their treatment isn't 100% necessary? We all know it exists. These doctors know they'll get paid so long as they send in the right form. Ok, that's a good example of a system with potential for abuse if not outright fraud. There's financial incentives for them to perform unnecessary and expensive treatment (and a small fraction of that is related to defensive medicine). How do you reform medicare/medicade to reduce or eliminate that potential? Can it be done without harming patients' care?

I would not call that fraud unless they deliberately run unnecessary tests.

I don't think you can support the claim that there's a massive amount of fraud.

Part of the problem because of the way it's structured and funded or part of the problem because benefits need to be cut?

Interesting idea I read elsewhere: if the Pres. debates had been between Paul and Kucinich, America as a whole would understand our federal budgets, economic policies and issues much better than when you've got an R and a D diving to the middle and gobbling up corporate money.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) No they don't, they did just fine when the defense budget was smaller under Clinton. They'd adapt as they always do. I seem to remember several military excursions in the 90's. If our defense budget was cut back to more reasonable levels, there's no question that it would negatively impact military suppliers/contractors. They have a financial interest in making sure our budget stays as bloated as possible. I think our medical system is seriously and fundamentally flawed. I don't know if medicare/medicaid is a significant part of the problem.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) Well if it's purely a moral choice and we have infinite resources and no political ramifications, then sure, we should be involved wherever there are human injustices. What's the line for human injustice? What gives a foreign government the right to intervene, and when is that line crossed? Just to be clear, I'm not asking to be a dick or Socratic method your position, these are questions I'm genuinely interested in.

Let's not turn a thread about revolutions in the Middle East and a particularly violent one in Libya into an argument about US gas and infrastructure.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are at war openly in at least two countries, and covertly in others yes? Whether you agree with that is a different argument. That would explain the rise in defense spending over the last decade. That's a big part of the problem and what Eisenhower warned against. Lockheed,Raytheon etc. need those wars to keep the defense dollars coming. SS, medicade and medicare exist for reasons other than enriching military procurement contractors and bombing places.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Well, it's reality. We do not have the resources to be the world's police, so we have to pick and choose. s***ty choice, but again, that's reality. That's why I phrased the question to remove those considerations and make it a moral choice--when and where should a foreign government intervene, ignoring real-world international politics and military resources. Again, I could post some pretty horrific images to illustrate the narcissism I see in the "what's in it for the US?" idea of analyzing everything.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) How convenient that you left out medicare, medicaid, and SS. It's not a complicated point. That pie chart is discretionary spending. Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look at entitlement spending as well as tax policies. What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) Maybe this conversation needs to be in a separate thread. I'm getting tired of the trolling. I support splitting arguments from the partisan catch-alls, but I'm not going to complain about someone arguing against something in the Democrat thread. The idea of shielded, irrefutable threads in this forum is counter-productive to me (I'm being kind with my phrasing).