StrangeSox

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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) You're taking a few general characteristics of the situation and painting a pretty broad brush to come to your conclusion. That's not stereotyping.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs? Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything. There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything." That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable. What do you know about Palin?

Women still aren't part of front-line infantry AFAIK.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) Real in basis but heavily exaggerated for effect. From everything I've read, 100% of her rugged outdoors invidivualism persona is fabricated bulls***. She doesn't appear to know how to handle firearms, fish, get around in the wilderness, etc.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it. EDIT: And you could be 100% correct. I just don't think we have the answers yet but many people are behaving as if we have all of the answers already. What he know from his rantings is that he was pretty much crazy and latched on to very, very fringe ideas. Stuff that makes 100% of what Beck and Palin say look like calm, measured and rational thoughts. No, I don't think it was apolitical, but I don't think it has anything to do with even 99% of the right wing of American politics.

In what sort of world would you not expect Palin's map and the violent rhetoric directed specifically at Giffords by some not to be brought up and questioned after someone puts a bullet through her head? Are/were some rushing to conclusions to make political points or confirm pre-existing biases? Absolutely. But it isn't a problem solely of the left, and I think it's ridiculous that many on the right are painting themselves as victims here. Look at some of the vitriol Rush has spewed. Look at what Republicans are saying in comment sections of news articles or on conservatives forums and blogs. Yeah, you're seeing the same things on HuffPo or TPM, and yeah, I also find it disgusting. But it's no different. Label this crazy person as a member of your political enemies and use it to justify and intensify your hatred and dehumanization of them. But to say this is truly frightening? Pure hatred flowing out in the open? Isn't that going a bit far? What if this guy was a Muslim or had said his favorite book was the Koran? Even if there were no real ties to radical Islam, no ties in his ideology and what drove him to kill to his religion, would we honestly be shocked to see this brought up over and over and over again in the media? To be used by many as an excuse to justify and intensify their hatred and dehumanization of Muslims? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but this is just "business as usual" to me. Perhaps those on the right are not quite as used to being painted with such a broad brush as those on left and are shocked and dismayed at how unfair and unjust and unreasonable it is.

Fall of the Roman Empire linked to wild climate shifts It's a bit speculative and certainly doesn't show causation, but it's interesting. There's also the idea that the Black Plague may have led to the "Little Ice Age."

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) That's exactly it. I understand that it's essentially a "free loan" to the government but we are really bad at saving money. This way it's outta sight outta mind. If we put it into a savings account or something we'd be way too tempted to spend it. Well, and really, if it's in a savings account, you're talking a few cents a month. Maybe a buck a year in interest.

2000+80 hours vacation is standard. I was closer to 2500, I think.

I've seen numbers ranging from 1250-1400 in hours-worked for teachers in a given year. A 40-hour full-time job comes in at 2000 hours.

That number seems too ridiculous on it's face. It makes me think there's something else covered in there. Then again, she also has a $92,000 driver.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) If her job is driving to and from the office...like every other person that works, why the hell does she even have a company car, let alone the driver? Unless it's in her job description to drive from location to location, why would her position require a car? Job perk? I don't know how much a treasurer would travel typically.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) Oh wait, just saw this too from the linked article. The car she is driven around in is a Dodge Caravan, which is leased for $13,680 a year. That's $1100+ a month, for a f***ing minivan. Friend or family must run the dealership. You can lease a new Mercedes or Porsche for that price.

I am so very glad I do not live in Cook County.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Yeah, the public charging stations will take about 15-30 minutes. The home charging stations will take 3-4 hours. Still impractical, but if you're buying an all-electric car, you are probably not the person most concerned about practicality. Are the public stations all the way up to 480V or something?

Awesome Rose compilation

2005 Pontiac GTO. Yes, the perfect winter vehicle. I'd love something AWD for the winters and a plug-in for the rest of the time.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) I have none, you're right, I'm wrong. ^^ I actually dislike when people do this, so I apologize for it, but I don't have time for this discussion, and it's not a very good online discussion IMO, too much back and fourth is necessary. I think your last point is good. Here's the documentary I saw a couple of years ago: http://www.lifeinthedeadzone.com/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time. If there was ever a regional nuclear conflict, let alone a large-scale conflict, we'd do a whole hell of a lot worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl was bad. A lot of people died or have had long-lasting damage. Many more plants and animals and other forms of life suffered. The area has begun to recover because it's been devoid of humans. There was a fantastic documentary on this I saw a few years ago. But it's got nothing to do with AGW. "Chernobyl was bad but most of the area is pretty much recovering, therefore AGW can't be that bad" is a pretty terrible argument.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) Seriously? A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you. What relation does Chernobyl have to AGW? You've yet to explain that. You've got an isolated incident that caused a lot of damage but has slowly recovered thanks to influx from outside ecological areas (though the reactor area itself is still barren). How is this similar to AGW? What is your point?