StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) 1) have you actually watched those shows? The "message" of O'Reilly and Beck are not the same. You've lumped them together for no other reason than because they're under the umbrella of Fox News. I don't think I mentioned O'Reilly. It's a working theory, not a "everything is 100% this way" statement. I was attempting to explain why conservative talk shows fair much better than liberal ones. There are a handful of liberal examples and uncountable conservative ones. Yes, snark, irony and condescension does sell well to young liberals (Daily Show/Colbert Report), but I wouldn't put them in the same category as political talk radio/talk TV. They give thorough "headlines" summaries throughout their news broadcasts. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. do not provide up-to-date looks on the days' news, they provide editorial outlets to promote chosen interests. They are distinctly not actual news sources but are relied on as such by many of their listeners. CNN is a garbage network. They follow the standard Cable News idea of "two idiots shouting at each other" = balance. They report the same headlines as everyone else with minimal depth. It does not compare to how Fox News operates. That network is dominated by opinion shows. Their few news shows then emphasize the same issues their opinion hosts are talking about. That's irrelevant to why liberalism fails in the talk media markets for the most part, though. The explanation that conservatism is just such a stronger ideology in this country doesn't hold up. The gap in talk media representation is significantly larger than the gaps in the population.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are. Foreign tourists, foreign visitors, people on work/school visas etc. can't simply provide a driver's license for identification. People with brown skin and a heavy accent may be required to present more than a state driver's license simply to prove that they're here legally. That's a radical change.

I didn't particularly care for the point jenks with making in that post, but I took the 'shot' at Balta as just a little ball-busting. Is this string of posts generated by complaints of board members?

The conservative message as sold by Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc. is not diverse. The Republican party typically can stay 'on message' and votes more cohesively than Democrats. On talk radio and talking head TV, opinions and positions are dictated, not discussed. It is more cohesive to an authoritarian philosophy than to "free thought" or progressive philosophy. The opinions expressed by Limbaugh, Hannity et al are right-wing authoritarian in nature. Compare this to some show on NPR that may blather on and on in a round-table feel-good discussion of ideas. For whatever reason, the conservative message sells well via the "shout things at you and tell it the way it is over the airwaves" model. While you do get intelligent conversations from people like the late William Buckley, actual conversations and discussions (not having someone parrot what you believe or bring someone on to berate them) are the exception and not the norm. The inability of liberal talk radio to catch on may be somewhat self-fulfilling, since the people who would typically be the target audience of liberal talk radio is also going to buy into the idea of "intellectual liberal" and will not value a talk radio host as much as an NPR round table. The above may or may not make sense. I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now. Also libertarians are libertarians, not conservatives, at least imo. I think they'd describe themselves as "classical liberals" more so than associate with modern conservative movements.

Mitch McConnell with the comment today that the top tax bracket were those hit hardest by the recession. How do Republicans win elections? Seriously. eta: also, I have to laugh at Fox's "news" coverage of this. The entire segment is just Republican talking points about how bad the Democrats are and how they hate rich people (but they're not really rich, anyway!) and how the good Republicans are fighting for Americans.

Good article on the idiocy/racism of the D'Souza/Gingrich crap over the weekend. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_se...aces_birtherism

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) The difference for the RB crossing the plane and fumbling is that the running back would already have firmly established possession before fumbling the ball. Exactly. Right. It seems like the rule was made to remove as much subjectivity from the call as possible. Either you control the ball all the way through, or you don't.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 12, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) Please explain to me how this man is ever allowed to make personnel decisions? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,3994057.story From the article: This likely indicates that Thome would have had significantly more RBI opportunities with the White Sox.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 12, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) You could count last year on one hand how many times Thome managed to hit to the left side and beat the shift when with the Sox. It would take 2 hands just to count the amount of times against the Sox alone. I for one would like to offer a bif f**k you to Mr. Thome for playing out his ass now instead of the last 2 years when we needed him. Mr. clutch hit he sure wasn't. Thome had an OPS of .973 and .865 the previous two seasons. He played very well for the Sox.

Engaged. July 1st, 2011.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 06:51 AM) - US District Judge Virginia Phillips A federal judge threw out Don't Ask Don't Tell yesterday, in a suit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans! no less. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010...itutional-.html You now have Obama fighting Republicans to keep gays out of the military. Awesome.

I don't deny your last paragraph at all. I don't deny that there's grass-roots support for the Tea Party movement. I just think it's inaccurate to say that it is or was a grass-roots movement when it was funded by large, wealthy conservative interests from the get-go. I see at as disingenuous branding and it leads to false or at least misleading promotion of the movement as something populist. It's really a completely irrelevant side-track. Like I said earlier, it doesn't really matter if it's "grass roots" or not if there's enough votes.

If the group building this community center with a mosque was an extremist group, if they had close ties with Hamas, were vocally supportive of things like the stonings in Iran, demonized Israel and called for its destruction, if they had vehemently anti-US rhetoric, I'd agree with jenks. I'd still support their right to build it, but I would agree that it could have been done to intentionally rub salt in the wound. But that's not the case. The imam was on a speaking tour promoting inter-religious peace and communication. The center is designed for use by christians, muslims and jews.

ohyeahsurebutdoyoureallythinktheywon'tjustkillthejooswhocome?!!!?!?!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) Because you've been harping on this stupid f***ing point for weeks. Because you can't answer it. You can't actually justify the hatred, just assert that it is justified. You're a lawyer, you should know that that s*** doesn't pass for a logical argument. Sure it does. It's the entire point for your side. Hilariously bad example. We have legal limits. You haven't actually provided, you know, justification for that position.

You haven't actually made a case for why it's justified, just asserted that over and over and over. And, factually, you're wrong again. This was a non-issue until some decided to make it a political issue.

No, I don't see how it would be viewed as disrespectful unless you're a bigot who views all billion+ adherents of a religion in the light of the extremists. Muslims died in the WTC, too. Also, glad to see you backpedalling from your "on the very spot" claim and avoiding, like everyone else, the "how far is far enough?" question. All Catholic Churches within 2 blocks of parks, playgrounds, schools, public pools or any place frequented by children should be demolished. No new churches should be allowed near them. Don't you see how allowing the Catholic priests near children is a bit disrespectful to all of the kids they've raped? Really? Just a little?

Your argument lacks sense and factual basis. They want to build a place to practice their religion, among other things. Some extremists carried out an attack 9 years ago nearby, not "on the very spot", in the name of their particular extremist interpretation of that religion. How is that at all like placing a monument to a weapon? What is not "common sense" about building a religious community center a few blocks from the WTC? Why does it lack "social tact" to want to build this? How far away would it have to be to have common sense and social tact (TN not far enough for some!)? How long does this "no muslims" exclusion zone last?

Thanks for stating your bigotry so bluntly. To be a proper analogy, you'd need this: Hiroshima:US building monument to Oppenheimer/others::WTC:Al Qaeda building monument to Bin Laden The US was directly responsible for the atomic bombs. All muslims are not directly responsible for 9/11.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 02:10 PM) Also, I find it pretty funny the response this guy is getting from the rest of the world, as if one nutcase burning a book is worse for American-Muslim relations than, oh, I dunno, extremist Muslims killing westerners on a constant basis. Again, burning a book, versus slicing peoples heads off. Totally tit for tat there. Funny you should mention that... US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' We've killed plenty of Muslims in the past 9 years.

Saints

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 01:53 PM) You are way to harsh on CQ and JD 2nd half 2009 JD was terrible at baseball.

Insult is a poor description. But it's used in a derogatory manner.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) I imagine the bigger outcry would be from liberals that it's freedom of speech and while they don't advocate it, they have the right to do it. That's the message that would dominate the airwaves....not the opposition to the bible burning. The message that he has the right to do it but that it's ridiculously stupid and probably harmful to Americans abroad and at home is the message dominating the airwaves. plenty of liberals are christians. hope that helps.

Eventually gain is different from started and organized by. The first big rallies and protests were not formed by grass roots organizations. And, again, that's fine as long as you're not pretending otherwise.