StrangeSox

Bullet-proof logic from Mr. O'Reilly. f***ing Magnets, how do they work?!

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) Everyone is entitled to their opinion... I don't care what Bernstein says. You may think it's nonsense, others may not. Some opinions and comments are stupid and should be derided as such ("Steak dinner, BOOM!"), but Bernstein is just too much of an ass sometimes and really bull-headed. I'm sure some of the "meathead" callers are just trolling the show for reaction, though.

We need Rai Stone-backed currency.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 07:19 PM) Just started playing Black Ops yesterday. Boy am I bad. Prefer to play the "capture the flag" mode rather than team deathmatch at this point. Probably cause I'm not very good at the moment. My "turning point" came when i played more CTF. Forces you to slow down and think.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) I think there's a way to have both. And again, that comes down to the deference you give to states to make laws that comport to their citizens' views. I think we have pretty clear historical evidence that that system is not a realistic solution to the problem and that it instead results in institutionalized racism and other forms of discrimination.

I don't see how Scalia can reconcile his view of "what Congress thought in 1868 is most important" without having to reject Brown v Board. Which would make his opinion wrong and would render the Equal Protection Clause useless, because you couldn't really apply it to anything that wasn't how things were in 1868. I don't think Scalia's orginalist ideas really do gel with these issues, except as a post-hoc rationalization when it's convenient.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) I don't think you restructure, I think you allow for states to have greater control over their own citizens as was the original intent. I think the threshold for overturning laws made by the states should be higher (on those questioning it). Which is probably his response to your second point. The 14th isn't automatically thrown away, and states can't make any law they please. Instead, the standard to overturn those laws would change. But we very quickly moved away from the idea of a "Union of Individual quasi-nation-states," and it was all but killed during Reconstruction. States should not have any control over making discriminatory laws, as was evidenced by all of the blatantly discriminatory poll taxes, segregation laws, etc. Ultimately, I'm a US citizen, not an Illinois citizen, and my basic civil rights, as afforded by the US Constitution, shouldn't be any different than an Indiana resident living 20 miles east of me. How do you handle Brown vs. Board in a manner that is consistent with Scalia's opinion here but that doesn't overturn it? Ironic, again considering Bush v Gore. Seems as if Scalia just uses his orginalism when it suits him. Kinda undermines any arguments of his that appeal to it. And, of note, this was a 7-1 dissent, highlighting that Scalia does not feel women are afforded any sort of protection from discrimination. If "women" isn't a category that 14A is applicable to, then what the hell is? And how does Scalia find 2A to grant individual firearms ownership rights (something I agree with), but can't seem to find gender- and sexuality-based discrimination in 14A?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) You can't have it both weighs either then. Apparently there was enough debate the first time, so why do you need more debate now? I don't. It's simply mocking conservative rhetoric/lying on the issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 12:29 PM) But this is the problem with providing 9 people that kind of power. Based on the various decisions of the courts, Judges can create an opinion that weaves whatever they want into it. There's no set standard because SCOTUS has decided that it has the power to go beyond the Constitution in some cases, or to ignore the Constitution in others. It's absolutely up to their beliefs and writing ability. Aside from restructuring the basic format of our government, what's the remedy? And you didn't address the issue that the logical conclusion of his position is that states can make laws for gender and sexuality-based discrimination without worry of equal protection violations. That seems pretty self-contradictory on its face.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) But this ignores the original comment, which is why does a repeal of this law require further discussion or debate or study? As you all contend, everyone spent months and months with this, so they know whether it'd be a good idea or not. The article bs posted was mocking Republicans for whining about no debate or study and having it "shove down our throats," but now the defense of such a quick repeal is "oh it's been debated enough already!" Can't have it both ways. I'm sure plenty of liberals would still be pissed at this quick vote even if it didn't fly directly in the face of conservative rhetoric on the issue, but that's not the point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) If you had to read the entire bill from scratch the moment it was presented, yes, it would have been impossible. However, you'd also be the worst legislator in human history, since 99% of the bill had been available for weeks beforehand, passed by the House about 3 times, passed by the Senate twice, passed by 3 different Senate committees and I can't remember how many in the House. If you didn't know what was in the bill, after a year of hearings, discussions, proposals, etc., even after the 2008 Campaign had a strong focus on Health Care reform (especially in the Democratic Primaries), then you're just lazy. Sure, a clause or two might have gotten through that your team missed or didn't understand, but come on. It's just an impossible standards tactic.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Who says they haven't? He said that textually speaking the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. He's right. It's not in there. Judges have added that to be specific to a certain group. He doesn't say that's good or bad on that issue, just that it's not democracy when 9 people can legislate something like that. And the difference is that the 14th doesn't single out any particular group, like gender. It's equal protection for all. If you're reading it to include everyone, then fine. It's now unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of any criteria that person A has that person B doesn't have. Red heads now can't be discriminated against, fat people can't be discriminated against, Cubs fans can't be discriminated against solely on those characteristics. Is that how we read the Constitution? He's saying that states could pass a law discriminating on the basis of gender or sexuality and there'd be nothing to SCOTUS could do about it. It essentially guts the 14th amendment. edit: His point about the importance of legislators actually, well, legislating, is good one. That's not what I'm disagreeing with. My point was to illustrate Scalia's willingness to abandon his "originalist" stance whenever he sees fit. How does his originalist stance match up with treating corporations as people with free speech rights? Were the drafters of the BoR thinking of that? How does his originalist stance match up with gun regulation? The founders surely were not considering semi-automatic weapons. How does his originalist stance match up with search and seizure? The founders didn't envision wiretaps and electronic communication, so is that fair game for government eavesdropping? etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 11:17 AM) 9 people being able to use "legal reasoning" to come up with whatever they want to come up with. So the courts haven't had a pretty substantial role in protecting minority civil rights in this country? Anyway, how does Scalia not find gender discrimination in the 14th but manages to cite the 14th in his Bush v Gore decision?

You'll never "know enough about" it though, that's the point. It was the most-debated piece of legislation in my lifetime.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) Or minority legal reasoning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) In a sense I agree with him here. Today we have 9 people appointed for a lifetime to determine what the Constitution includes and what it doesn't include. I'm guessing if this had been a comment that said, textually speaking, that the Constitution doesn't protect speech in the form of political contributions by corporations, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But really the way our system has molded itself over the last 100-150 years, our legislatures don't work as intended, so this scenario he brings up can't work. In theory we should be able to assemble and get X legislation passed, but it never does because legislators are corrupt and/or self-interested (so it never gets passed in the first place), or even if we could we often times get overruled by an ever-expanding federal government. The whole point is that civil rights and protection from discrimination shouldn't be subject to majority law-making.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) Maybe that should have been debated/studied more thoroughly the first time around no? That's the irony that's being pointed out--Republicans whined and cried about it being "shoved down our throats" (after about 13 months of debate over such great issues as death panels), but now they're ready to repeal it with no analysis and instead are saying "we already examined it!" Can't have it both ways.

e.g. check with your engineers to see if something is even technically feasible!

Oh Scalia... Women Do Not Have Constitutional Protection From Discrimination

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) They must have played a lot of non-death match games then. No, they were doing pretty terrible in TDM as well. That's why I checked their player card, wondering if it was a "little brother playing his older brother's account" thing. They just weren't very good despite playing the game for about 240 hours.

Has anyone else run into guys who are like 5th or 6th prestige, but are pretty bad at the game? I'm talking below-even W/L and K/D ratios, but they have like 10 days of playtime. I don't get how you play the game that much but still suck at it. In about a week I've almost worked my way through 1st prestige, and my K/D has been consistently over 1 for a while now. Closer to 1.4 or so over the last two weeks. that's what having the week off of work will do for you, I guess.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2011 -> 04:09 PM) Have you never sat in on a marketing meeting? I actually found it funny, as I was writing that post, there was a Ford commercial on, showing trucks going over rocks, all sorts of manly things...and their slogan "Built Tough". The double-sharp-T in the slogan to catch your ear. Exactly the same usage. Hollywood does this all the time too. People get the T sound or the end-K sound inserted in their name to add some edge to how it's pronounced. Seriously, companies spend millions (billions?) of dollars on this type of marketing stuff.

This is from the NYT from last November. You can control for a lot of different things, such as education level and ethnicity. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11...ment-lines.html

It was going to be pretty damn impossible to top that play.

Treat it like the 3rd preseason game if there's nothing to play for. Starters all game unless it's a blowout if there's a shot at #1 seed.