StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) Don't bother, Y2HH has mastered the big glass parking lot method of discussion. All charts, statistics, and actual data is useless. All that matters is anecdotal experiences. Oh, I know.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) Gays aren't even openly accepted in the MLB or NFL, let alone the military. Even with the laws, it's oil and water. I personally don't care what you do in the bedroom or with who, but a lot of people do, including the sports stars we talk about on these websites daily. What point are you trying to make here?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:13 PM) They can create charts and fudge numbers all they want. I know that the costs of everything I do have gone up. That's inflation. And it's > 0%. We can shut our eyes and pretend prices have not gone up...but they have, across the board. I don't care what some bulls*** chart says, either. Statistics/data sampling & analysis > anecdotes.

In the name of reducing deficits (a grand total of about $60M over 5 years) and also some concerns over abortion (which isn't in the act), House Republicans have blocked an anti-child marriage bill.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) Its been so annoying reading the complaints from players. You... play... FOOTBALL. Its a winter sport, its been played outdoors in cold conditions for decades, and you get paid stupid money to do it. Shut up and play. There's a very serious risk of injury when you're tackled into what is essentially concrete.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) The big hot topic right now is the possibility of removing the mortgage interest deduction on taxes. Seems to me that's a pretty stupid move, I'd rather they got away from the deduction on other things first that wouldn't do as much direct damage to the economy. For example, the health care cost deductions - the demand curve is nearly inflexible anyway, and you don't necessarily want to encourage its use. One idea was to remove the credit for mortgages over $500k.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) What does this even mean? It was from Rev. Wright. I believe the sermon was about how America's foreign policy was (at least partially) to blame for 9/11. Sort of like "reap the seeds you sow."

Ive been holding off, but I'll just go ahead and say it now: Please just retire and disappear from the public eye already, McCain. You've become a horrible person.

Wow, that's profoundly stupid.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) SnB and I don't eat at Applebees due to their annoying advertising during the 2005 NCAA tournament. Their bad food is enough for me

Well that's special, hold up a strategic arms treaty because you don't want gays in the military. From the same link, McCain and Kyl are being reasonable (on START) by saying START should stand or fall on its own.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) But while that is true...none of the people making the choice on whether or not to fund the grant have a say in funding it. Worst case scenario, maybe you get 1 person from the same institute on a committee dealing with a grant of his or her colleague, or you get a friend dealing with a grant from his or her colleague, but NSF works very hard to avoid that...and even if it does happen, one person does not have power over any review panel. Worst case scenario, there are multiple leaders of every review panel, with a full panel of other reviewers underneath who might call them on it. If I work on the synchotron and I start funding projects on the synchotron that aren't good just to keep the thing running, I'm going to not only piss people off because good, publishable work isn't being done, but I'm also going to wind up sabotaging my institute's reputation, to the point that I myself will wind up struggling to get funding. Ah, I missed the "at NSF" distinction in your DoD comparison, my mistake.

Fox News viewers were more misinformed, but misinformation was widespread. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12...ion.php?ref=fpi

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) Let me also add...if most of the government had as many checks and balances as NSF had before it can spend money...it would probably save hundreds of billions of dollars from the DOD alone. The biggest difference I'd say is that in no case at NSF does anyone benefit if bad work is done. In say, the DOD or in other programs, if a crappy project is funded, the people who get the contracts benefit, or the general supporting the program benefits, or the congressman whose district gets the money benefits. No one who is making the choice at NSF on what to fund benefits if they fund a project that isn't worthy. A small objection to that. If some crappy research at Argonne gets approved, Argonne, the scientists working on the study, tangential employees and probably the local community all benefit from it. But anyway, yeah, you and NSS have covered it well. There's a very limited amount of funding, and the grant process is incredibly rigorous. Politicizing the whole thing via this Youcut doesn't really add anything at all to the system. It doesn't address any real issues. It just points out funny-sounding research for ridicule by ignorant* people. *using the literal definition here, ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective 1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:22 AM) Lol, scientific elitism at its finest - "the base is too stupid to understand the importance of the almighty science!" Not exactly what I said, now is it? Ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm ignorant of a large number of scientific topics. But I recognize that ignorance, and don't judge based on silly titles and false summaries by politicians. They're distorting the information. It's misleading. It's lying. They omit key facts and explanations of what the research is for. But please, keep make excuses for demagoguery. You're asking for people to form opinions based on misleading summaries and in complete ignorance of what the research is and why it may be important. I do not see that as productive discourse, but more embracing of willful ignorance. Ok, question it. But do it in an honest manner. Don't lie and misrepresent like the GOP is doing and has done for decades when it comes to scientific research. And, just as an aside, cutting science funding isn't exactly going to be good for the economy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) Oh GMAFB. Gee, someone reacts negatively to someone who's calling their project a waste of money. SHOCKER. He didn't even specifically address any mistatement, he gave some broad answer. As if that really clarifies anything. Hmm, sounds substantially different from "One, a $750,000 NSF grant "to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contribution of soccer players."" Kinda like Bobby Jindahl's "volcano monitoring", and Sarah Palin's "fruit flies", and pretty much every GOP member attacking science funding that sounds funny to them and plays well with an ignorant base. Why are you making excuses for characterizing the research in the most negative, asinine way possible instead of honestly, if you really want citizen input? Why not have links to the grant proposal or a summary of the research? edit: not links from you, but on the "Youcut" website. edit2:here's the paper

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) I'd much rather live in a society that questions government spending, even with an unreasonable eye, than one in which spending is NEVER questioned and is ALWAYS worthwhile. Ok, who's proposing this false dichotomy? NSF funding isn't that great and the grant process isn't unquestioning. Misleading statements, outright lies and ignorance to score political points is never a good thing.

Republicans lying about science? Say it isn't so! Even Fox Chicago had a "ridiculous pork projects!" segment on the news the other night. "LOL! $200,000 to study fruit?!?!"

Hopefully, it died a painful death last Sunday.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 04:58 PM) You can't have it in Chicago, giving the Bears an extra home game all together is completely unfair to the Vikings. other NFC playoff contenders Who cares about the Vikings, they're done. It wouldn't be fair to teams like the Packers or Tampa, who may be in a close race with Chicago.

Would UHC be similarly Unconstitutional under this ruling?

Sorry, I was referring to Jenks' posts, not the thread in general.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:24 PM) How? How could medical costs not effect interstate commerce? Tell me where the logic is bulls***. To me it looks like you're arguing from consequences. I'm not offering an opinion on whether or not that's a good thing, but that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a Constitutional thing. I don't know if they can or not, I don't know if this judge's reasoning was sound or not. It seems to me that maybe he should have recused himself, but I'm not seeing much analysis of the decision here. Probably because it is such a gray area.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:14 PM) Because the entire basis for Congress' power under the clause is regulating interstate commerce! Banning products is regulating items that would effect interstate commerce. Sitting on your ass at home not buying health insurance doesn't effect interstate commerce, thus there's no basis for Congress to regulate it. You're completely ignoring the gigantic distinction he's making - interstate commerce requires activity. Here there is none. Thus Congress has no authority to regulate inactivity that doesn't effect interstate commerce. Doesn't it, though?