StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) I was actually referring to the person who obtained the documents originally. Assange, I am not sure how the laws may work for that sort of secondary passing of information. Sorry, the pronouns were getting confusing. Yeah, the leakers are pretty much always guilty of a crime unless it's legitimate whistle-blowing, at least as far as I know.

Do you have any previous experience working on cars or machinery? Tie rod end replacements are pretty easy in general, provided you have all the right tools. Nothing slows a job down more than having to stop a half a dozen times to run up to the store for a wrench or socket. I would recommend an alignment. Don't want uneven wear on your tires or unusual handling characteristics.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) I could care less if he's a liberal, but he is indeed breaking the law. Assange? How so?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) I believe he was commenting on the dimwitted analysis within the linked article. Obviously 'Loose Change' and that other movie are not anywhere close to a conservative narrative. I didn't read the article The excerpt Balta posted didn't match with ss2k5's response.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 10:22 PM) You'd give your first born to find a real Republican to link this story to. Until then, close enough will do. 9/11 troofer isn't a left-right thing. And this Zeitgeist film, what with it denying a historical Jesus, doesn't sound very Republican, either.

I've always heard that a lot of the aftermarket NAV systems are better and cheaper than the factory ones. Not talking about the portable units like Garmin, but in-dash receivers, Pioneer etc.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Do you know how closed captioning works? You know what I find telling? Nobody affected by the tragedy or who was AT the ceremony found the crowd inappropriate. But now that I know it's appropriate, I will go to a wake tomorrow and if I see anyone laughing I will go up and tell them this isn't a comedy show! Stop laughing! I have an idea about how you should behave and this isn't fitting it! Deaf people don't have a right to know what he's saying.

Interesting factoid: Last week, Joe Flacco set the Baltimore Ravens record for TD's thrown in a playoff game. With 2.

Yeah, it was nice to listen to Sox games while on the road for work as opposed to trying to find something other than country or gospel.

McCain and Kyl propose naming courthouse after slain judge

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) My Lord how many times can points like these be re-posted? Either people understand reality or they don't, I don't think more of this discussion is needed! http://www.nba.com/bulls/stacey-king-soundboard.html

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) I disagree, they make it easier to identify a potential violent criminal. Scenario A (under current AZ law): I am allowed to carry in public an assault rifle as long as I have the proper permits. I take my assault gun to a local political rally and am brazenly carrying it around. There is nothing the police can do, I am legally allowed to do this. One moment Im walking around, the next moment Im killing. Scenario B (had laws been changed after first incident) I am no longer allowed to carry an assault rifle in public. I now have to try and hide the object under my clothing or conceal it from view. Trained police, security will be looking for this. If they notice me acting in a suspicious manner they can approach me and try and stop me before I can start shooting. I dont understand how you could think its just as easy in scenario B as scenario A. There is no way to stop all random violence, I can kill some one with a pencil, I can kill them with nail, I can kill them with a million things you can never ban. So yes he could have walked into a store and shot some one with a hand gun, there is no way to stop that. But what we can try and do, is create some sort of laws that will prevent the most heinous and worst crimes. You cant stop them all, but you sure as hell can make laws to try and prevent them. In 2009 people could see the writing on the wall, 2 years later it happened. But neither of those scenarios represent what happened in any way. Loughner wasn't seen carrying around rifles to political rallies. He showed up at a grocery store with a handgun, walked up and shot her in the head. I don't disagree that not allowing guns at a political rally would probably be a good idea. I just don't think it would have mattered at all. It's not like there's a security detail and controlled areas around every member of Congress at every public event. No amount of laws could have prevented him from going into that store and attempting to kill Giffords. The only way to prevent a crazy person from doing something crazy is to treat their condition before they act. Restricting guns at rallies or toning down the rhetoric in 2009/2010 wouldn't have done anything to help identify Loughner as a paranoid schizophrenic with ideas that the government was controlling his mind through currency and grammar.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) Sure, as an observation, not an accusation, which most people did within minutes despite not having any evidence to back that up. Most people who did that just simply used it as an opportunity to blame her or s*** on her for doing another thing "wrong." And then most people backed off. You're not arguing against anyone in this thread on that point.

Even if Palin didn't want to back down from her past actions, she could have handled things a lot better than accusing her detractors of blood libel.

I think he has a valid point that Olbermann's apologize was almost certainly done to draw attention to Palin's lack of apology and defensiveness.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Thats not the point Im making. Im saying Loughner saw how easy it was to bring a gun to rally and get away with the crime. {edit} Had AZ changed the law and said guns at political rallies were illegal, maybe a police officer/etc may have identified him earlier and stopped him. Its impossible to say, but under the current AZ laws they could not do anything until Loughner actually started shooting people. Im not sure how that isnt a problem. {edit 2} Actually the problem is you parsed the full quote, which explains the statement: Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people. I added emphasis to the bolded part, because if you misquote or parse some one your almost always going to make them look stupid None of that would have prevented him from walking into a grocery store with a handgun in a coat pocket, though. All of these laws various Congressmen are proposing now (1000 ft no-guns zones, concealed carry, bullet-proof House Chamber) wouldn't actually do anything to prevent the same crime from happening. The only way to have prevented this crime was to properly identify, diagnose and treat Loughner's illness ahead of time.

XM is great in rental cars but that's about it. My mom won a subscription for a year a couple of years ago. I listened to it at work for a while, but it just never really had interesting enough programming.

I'd just like to point out that I strongly disagree with that. I do not think Loughner was driven, in any way, by Palin or anyone else remotely mainstream to do this.

Anyway, here's another post from the same guy I cribbed my first response in this thread from that I pretty much agree with again: edit: for what it's worth, the above post was by a typically liberal person but was directed at hyper-partisan dems/liberals who want to make this about right wingers.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) I get the point, but in this case I'm specifically calling out the dems for not doing what they typically do, which is to cry about how people rush to improper conclusions without knowing any of the facts. You're stereotyping all dems in this very post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) If it is all about violent and hateful imagery potentially causing people to do crazy things, it isn't in bad faith at all. It actually happened. People are dead at the Discovery Channel HQ because of the words and imagery used by the environmental left. No, it's still a terrible comparison. Al Gore wasn't calling for environmentalists to arm themselves and reload and painting targets on Discovery. It was a movie to raise awareness of the consequences of action/inaction. It wasn't political rhetoric draped in guns and combat. The crosshairs were known months before. That was the first thing in my mind when I heard Giffords was shot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part? Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype. Go back to page 1 of this thread and start looking for my first post. Ironically you are stereotyping me based on the general reaction from partisan Democrats on the issue. But, really, I was just point out that it was a bad analogy because it doesn't make much sense. We're not talking about a large group of people and assigning characteristics to individuals based on the group but individuals and their actions.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) He said it's human nature. It's not. It is a political map from 9+ months ago, targeting Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. That's it. That's all. On the map it says, "Let's take back the 20 together! Join me today" On the page with the map it says: We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring…The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight. It's not a call to arms. It is all about targeting districts. All politicians use that term. I don't care if the pictures are bulls eyes, targets or cross hairs. To turn around and say that political map, is linked with somebody buying a gun and murdering all these innocent people, is not human nature. To even equate the two is not human nature…it is 100% ludicrous!! But, aside from some initial overreaction by some and maybe some hyper-partisans not present here, who's making that causal link? It wasn't just a single map by Palin. It was the "RELOAD!", "2nd Amendment Solution!" etc. rhetoric. "We came unarmed...THIS TIME!" crap at rallies. Giffords specifically asking some to tone down the rhetoric because she feared violent reactions. It wasn't just a single map by Palin with a common-but-maybe-still-bad "targetting" or "in our crosshairs" message. That would be enough to say "hey, maybe that's a bad idea" and drop it. But it's the combination of all of the violent rhetoric seen from some on the right, from grassroots organizers to political candidates and de facto movement spokesmen. Even then, you could argue that some are using this as an opportunity to discredit rhetoric not directly related to what happened, and to an extent you'd be right. But that's not what's happening. Palin and others have become hyper-defensive of their statements and images, refusing to even make a small concession and instead painting themselves as huge victims.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) Of course it is...you crack me up. Do you care to address where I pointed out why it's a terrible comparison?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) I'm making an analogy, not a definition. But it makes no sense. It's not a stereotype or any sort of generalization. It's looking at a map by Palin with Giffords name in crosshairs and Giffords being shot in the head. You can argue against his conclusions here, but your lame attack on liberals caring about minorities doesn't make any sense.