StrangeSox

yeah the camp ends tomorrow. I don't know what people are saying, though.

it seems like twitter has become a fantastic way to get tons of bulls*** out there as quickly as possible.

There was a point to that though. It was Marston trying to settle down and lead that mundane rancher life.

what's the best option phone options for an AT&T phone?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 08:24 AM) Over the years, I swear, every food we eat has been found by one study or another to both cause, AND prevent, cancer. I think that has something to do with this:

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Please debunk any of it. It's kinda hard to do that without references and cites. That's a pretty good indicator of pseudoscience.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 06:27 PM) What will the Bulls have lost? Hinrich's bad contract and maybe Deng's bad contract as well? Not much to lose. Depending on where they all go, if the Bulls don't land anyone, they won't be contenders for a while.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 06:18 PM) Ugh I am trying to read comments on that ESPN article and these dumb motherf***ers are talking about whether marijuana should be legal. God I hate internet users. Never read comments on news articles. Ever. no matter the topic, it will turn into a very stupid political "debate"

funny to see Steele calling the war in Afghanistan a war of choice though.

Or human memory of when the Afghan war began.

Don't you remember Obama choosing to invade Afghanistan in 2001? Bush was just an Obama puppet. I'm shocked that Steele is talking out of both sides of his ass. Shocked!

There's a shocker.

Hey, that's great, I didn't say they provide no service. I asked what innovations we get out of a for-profit model of insurance. I don't see that really being answered there.

Hey kap, why does a for-profit insurance company benefit me? Explain it to me because I'm a dumb lib.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) McClatchey on the Jones Act topic YEah but didn't you hear? Fact Check is run by the ANnENBERG FOUNDATION! And B. Hussein OSama and terrorist William Ayers served on the Chicago Annenberg Project! Do you really think thy're impartial? LOL! Obama controls them! ^actual argument from birthers

I have to post this great image: Also the standard "shoulder thing that goes up here" video, the only time in history someone out-stupids Tucker Carlson: And "heat-seeking bullets":

LeBron to LA, Kobe to the Nets, Johnson to the Bucks, Bosh, Wade, Stoudamire, Nash and Dirk to Cleveland. Mello to sign-and-trade to the Bulls for Deng. Deron Williams leaves the NBA for Lacrosse. This is based on just as many sources as the rest of the garbage out there right now.

Why is anyone even bothering with the rumors anymore at this point? We're hearing something different about every 10 minutes.

HELLO! Awesome!

HELLO! Awesome! LOL Hawk.

Yeah, I have no problem with requiring some sort of training course.

Tex, there's a decent amount of studies that support what you just said. There's a liberal lean in a lot of networks, but they tend to be more socially liberal but conservative economically. Hard-core liberals see the entire media as a puppet of conservative/ corporate interests/ big government. Hard-core conservatives see everyone left of Hannity and Limbaugh as flaming liberals bent on destroying America.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) I agree. The problem with banning a certain type of firearm is defining what is, and what is not, defined. Plus at some point, you pull the trigger and something potentially lethal flies out. Doesn't really matter if it is an assault weapon, something that looks like an assault weapon, or a simple remington .22 There's also the definition of an "assault weapon". Typically, it's a gun that looks scary but has the same or less lethal force than a rifle used for hunting. That, and they're rarely used in crimes, anyway.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) For overall crime rates, my hypothosis would be less guns equals less gun crimes. So I'm not certain that the ban would have no affect on gun crimes. But gun bans don't necessarily mean less guns in the hands of people likely to commit crimes. It means less guns in the hands of those likely to obey laws. I'm glad we have tight control on automatic weapons. I'm glad not everyone is allowed to own explosives and rockets. I don't have a problem with restrictions on weapons, but I don't see an outright ban on handguns as 1) common-sense or 2) effective.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone. Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example. The AWB was a complete joke, Balta. It banned guns based on cosmetic features but not on functionality in most cases. It was just a crappy law that didn't actually address anything important. And it didn't do anything wrt the weapons most often used in crimes -- cheap handguns. The SC agrees with you. They're still leaving states/ cities to best solve their own local issues, they just cannot enact outright bans.