StrangeSox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 5, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) When I drive to work I go past an "Ehrlich for Governor" sign with a big confederate flag under it. I know what they think that's supposed to mean when people see it but when I see it, it's just... not. Imagine a voice saying this in your head: "WE NEED TO TAKE BACK AMURRICA FROM DEM DAM LIBRUL SOSHAL-LISTS N DA TARISTS RUNNIN DIS COUNTRY SO WE CAN LIVE BY DA CONSTERTUSHIN AGAIN AND GET THE DAM GUBMINT IN OUR LIVES AN LOWER OW-UR TASSES TA KEEP DEM DAMN COLORED FOLK N MESSI-CANS FROM MOOCHIN OFF US HARD WORKIN' 'MERRICANS, AN GET DA GUBMINT OUTTA OW-UR LIVES!" I'm sure people object to this but that's just what I see. It just is. I think that encapsulates a lot of the political anger right now.

Apparently the man had a few dogs and a cat in the house. The whole situation is bizarre.

Why is fire-fighting even an optional service? How do you get homeowner's insurance without it, and what kind of bank wouldn't want the property securing the debt to be protected? I really cannot see any benefits from having this sort of system.

I don't know how you're going to undercut $75 a year. There must be some other funding sources.

Right, because we have such a huge shortage of pets who need homes.

It's just a terrible idea all around. I would imagine that any home owners insurance claim is going to be denied because they neglected to pay for fire protection services, though it may be tricky because the fire department knowingly let the house burn to the ground instead of doing their job and billing for services. If there's a mortgage on the home, I would be the bank is pissed. If this ordinance and the actions taken by the mayor aren't illegal if not criminal, they should be. It benefits absolutely no one to let this house burn down.

Couple that with the significant financial loses to the community and that you now have a homeless family and you see why you shouldn't have opt-in fire protection or health insurance.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 06:25 PM) Sure, why buy health insurance until you really need it. You can always get it when your ass is on fire. No need to be prepared and plan ahead. I think his point was about mandatory policies and why it is a good idea.

So, over $75, they let this house burn down. That allowed significant risk to neighbors. It didn't save money, because they were all there watching it burn. It removes future property tax revenue. It lowers property values next to the burned down house. Instead of putting out the fire and sending him a bill for the services, they just let it burn. Monumentally stupid, all around.

These comments came at the "Greater Freedom Rally"

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) There was a special on Real Sports about this. Athletes that already have a concussion that suffer another blow to the head while the swelling in the brain is still persistent can lead to traumatic brain injuries, etc. It's called "Second Impact Syndrome", and it can be fatal.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 1, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) Without more it's simply this guy using a blog to spout his opinions. Who cares if it's directed at one person or not? You think an environmental activist that wrote scathing blog posts about a particular person at the school and then "protested" at his house would be banned from the university? I doubt it. Whether this guy is wacko is beside the point. He's speaking his mind. Educational institutions are supposed to foster all sorts of speech, both positive and negative (think about civil rights speakers, anti-war speakers, the nut job professor in Colorado that said we deserved 9/11). You're just giving a hypothetical situation to support your assertion. I would hope the university, any university, would apply a similar policy towards someone who routinely attacked and harassed any of their students. It's exactly because he's targeting an individual and not just ranting against gays in general that he's been barred. Educational institutions are supposed to foster critical thinking and intelligent discussions. This guy, who harasses and insults and belittles one specific student at the university, should not be given a platform at the university. None of your examples include the person or group repeatedly attacking a student at the university. First, you're comparing an economic situation to a social issue, and it doesn't work. Second, it's not "extreme fringe", it's core social conservative ideology. It's Prop 8. It's DADT. It's various movements to restrict gay marriage or gay adoption. It's all of the anti-gay rhetoric that comes out. You're downplaying the amount of anti-gay thoughts, actions, policies, movements, violence and intimidation that exists. You're doing a disservice to the challenges GLBT people face in our society. You're white-washing strong social movements in our country to keep things that way. edit: Why should the university allow someone who says a student at the university is a perverted, racist, child-molesting nazi homo?

He was targeting a specific student at the university. He called him "Satan's representative on the student assembly". Regardless of the legality, he was still personally attacking a student at U of M. Why should that behavior be acceptable on campus? What sort of "exchange of ideas" (or similar verbiage often cited for bringing in controversial people) does that foster? How is it at all comparable, even remotely, to a prominent foreign head of state known for spouting anti-Israel/anti-semitic rhetoric but who doesn't stalk and harass students at that very university? Wanting to stop gays from marrying, stop them from adopting, stop them from serving in our military is hateful towards the gay community. Saying it's a choice or that they have mental problems that need to be 'cured' or they're going to suffer wrath and vengeance for eternity is hateful towards the gay community. You only need to look at the rhetoric and "reasoning" used against them to see that. Read through the federal court ruling on Prop 8, and tell me the people supporting and promoting that weren't acting in a hateful manner towards homosexuals. Tell that to the teens who get bullied routinely, not-uncommonly to the point of suicide or depression or drug addictions. Tell that to gay couples who want to get married but are told that they shouldn't be allowed to because their relationship is less meaningful. Tell that to gay couples who want to adopt, but are told that they shouldn't because they're a threat to raising "normal" children, or the "gay pedophile" boogeyman under a lot of the rhetoric. Tell that to the brave men and women who have to hide who they are or are kicked out of the military, tell them that they don't deserve the ability to serve their country. Tell all of them that every time a right-wing pundit is on the radio or TV ranting about the "HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!" and how it will ruin (insert 'sacred' tradition here), tell them it's not about hatred and discrimination and "it ain't 1950, so it isn't so bad!"

Harassment of an individual student at the university is not the same as inviting a head of state with crazy ideas. If this guy was banned at the university simply for ranting against gays, the comparison would make more sense. edit: For the social reality, the fact that we even have discussions like Prop 8 and DADT and "should gays be allowed to adopt" discussions says enough, and that's without a good chunk of religious organizations railing about how evil and sinful homosexuality is.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 1, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) Again, my point wasn't that this doesn't happen or that it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. My point was that using one tragedy as an example of what every gay person in the country experiences is ridiculous. It's 2010, not 1950. It's still very socially acceptable and even preferable to hate, mock, demean and demonize gays in this country in 2010. Yes, the situations are completely comparable. Tell me more.

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) I think it's ridiculous to point to these unfortunate events as a microcosm of something bigger. My point is that homosexuals are not the only "minority" that gets teased/ridiculed/outcasted to the point where the begin to suffer from issues like depression which may lead to suicide. To say that this one sad event is what it means to be gay in the United States equally "ruins" reasonable discussion on the issue. They're one of the largest targets as it's still socially acceptable (and even preferable) to hate people in the LGBT community in many parts of the country. As a whole, they receive some of the worst discrimination and hatred. Calling it teasing or ridiculing is a severe disservice to what they face on a daily basis.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) Because homosexuals are the only ones that fit that description. No, plenty of minorities fit that description, but it fits homosexuals very well.

That you're harassed pretty much your entire life and it leads to suicide, depression, drug use, etc.

You're going to have a very, very hard time adopting out a dog that bit a 9 year old. Even if potential adopters don't have children, there's still big liability there. It's a terrible situation, but I see the only choices as "life in a shelter eating up resources other adoptable dogs might need" or "euthanasia".

Transubstantiation is an odd ritual. If anyone is interested in biblical archeology, I'd recommend The Bible Unearthed. It goes through the Pentateuch and a couple of other Old Testament books and attempts to explain when and why the various stories were developed, recorded and edited and also compares what is in the Bible with what archeology reveals about ancient Israel. It's friendly material for biblical literalists, but I found it pretty interesting. I learned more about those books of the bible and the chronology of Israel (biblical and non-biblical) than I had ever known before, and it gave me new appreciation for the stories and the people.

"They don't respect me as a journalist! I'll show them!"

14/15, I have never heard of the "First Great Awakening" Raised Lutheran, strong agnostic.

Wow. Clark just dropped that one.

WTF was that?