StrangeSox

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen. Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause. I was thinking the same thing while reading his post, but I couldn't verbalize nearly as well as you did.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Personally, I think everyone might be missing the point of Paul's argument. I think when he brings up the fact he would have never gone to war with the Confederates, people bring up the slavery issue & he responds by saying slavery would have phased out just as it had in every other country. What he is saying - is that the Union did not have the "right" to go to war with the Confederacy. He says (and is generally cut off before finishing due to the question of slavery), that it is not in the Constitution that the USA should "war" with a state that feels a general and logical reason to secede - and the Confederacy (especially at that point in time), had one. Paul is simply saying, that this time is when the beginning of civil liberties began to be taken away by the Federal government. It "should not" have been a Federal issue about slavery. It was a state issue & that is what Paul is saying when he says that the Civil War should not have happened - because it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And, I for one, agree with that statement. The states should have the power to do as they choose & the citizens can choose to move to a state that they 'agree' with more. That is Paul's point. Except the slaves, of course... Besides, the Confederacy attacked Union forts first.

More fun times of improper SWAT team use. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=85887 First-0hand account: http://ksnydersj.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/...-the-home-game/

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system. Maybe he's being outspent because he doesn't have nearly as much money because he doesn't have nearly as much support? Look at Ron Paul, he's frequently ignored by the media but still rakes in the cash.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:20 PM) now this is absurd. a Nevada judge said that Kucinich could participate in the debate. that's effing ridiculous. he's only going to screw over edwards and to be annoying. i've lost all respect for this guy. so instead of a good debate between the top three we'll have another moron wasting time. f*** it. after the poll in NV i was actually getting hopeful but this hurts Edwards. damn him. Edwards (or any other candidate) doesn't deserve anything. If he can't raise enough support on his own, without needing others to be excluded, than that's just too bad.

Ah, damn it. Can a mod edit the title for me?

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8442540/detail.html#

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) We didn't give all of it, was my point - I am sure we gave some. I recall US Defense Dept people saying, almost with pride, that they had intelligence that the UN did not. Besides, what we did give them was garbage... so what does that say? Well, all we had was garbage...

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) I agree with whats below 100%(you and Balta can read the entire article and then tell me how it's all right wing BS) You make your points above now, but if you want to tell me you were preaching that same list above back in March of 2003...sell it somewhere else. Maybe you were against the war, but you didnt know anything about the evidence of WMD's. The only thing we all knew was Saddam had chemical weapons in the past and he said he destroyed them. You believed Saddam...good for you. I'll stop making my comments now in the GOP primary thread. I think we all know everyones sides on the issue. The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed. It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates. I was. Not here, but elsewhere. There were people back in September of 2002 or earlier that were calling the evidence into question, and rightfully so. The Weekly Standard and Bilyl Kristol are, of course, unbiased sources

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 08:59 AM) Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty. What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was.... 1. The war was never, ever really about WMD 2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak 3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust 4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me" Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war. ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT". We have a winna!

Meth is a hell of a drug...

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) I will play devils advocate here for a second. If we do go to Universal Health care, and we are paying for insurance through taxes. Then should smoking and other choice vices be outlawed. Everyone knows the medical issues with certain choice vices, so why should the community as a whole have to pay for a choice that someone made on their own. In fact, lets take it further. Should you be forced to keep in some sort of shape. I mean why should the community pay for you because you decide that the hearattack menu at McDonalds and sitting on your couch is the best way to go then come in at Age 45 needing a quad bypass. How about when you are born, we do a genetic map of you to pre-determine what your diseases and tendancies will be so we can dictate a program. See where this is going. We already have "vice taxes" for things like cigarettes and booze. You can just increase/expand those.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) Because the researchers want the US to look bad? I don't know. I cannot believe that diabetics get better care anywhere else but here. Or cancer patients. I just don't see it. The article didn't say any specific kind of death, so what do they consider 'preventable'? And I question your cost estimates as well. While others may not shell out much out of pocket DIRECTLY for medical care, they sure as hell pay enough in taxes. I'm just wondering what evidence/ data you base this on.

Did people not sit down and see what their payments would be when (not if) their ARMs adjusted?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) That is a THEORY, and it is not an absolute, even according to its proponents. Not all tax decreases, or increases, have the same effect. I actually agree it can do something like that - but its SOMETIMES, with the right cuts in the right situations. Hence the caveat, "in the right manner." Same thing if you run a sale and slash prices too deep to make up for in volume or too little to make up for in increased sales.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) Why is Rudy cutting taxes? WHat programs does he want to cut to compensate for the already MASSIVE national debt. I can understand not RAISING taxes, but to cut them? If you cut taxes in the right manner, you actually increase overall tax revenue because the economy is going stronger (I believe the government has record tax revenues right now thanks in part to Bush's tax cuts). It's like cutting prices; you're making less on each transaction, but you sell more volume so make more in the end. If you cut too much, though, you'll hurt yourself.

On NPR, anecdotally, a lot of independents chose to vote for McCain instead of Obama because of Obama's perceived large lead.

We've had what? 6 or 7 days of trading? YTD is meaningless at this point.

If you're looking for a good place to start some research, go here: www.avsforum.com It's the Soxtalk of the Audio-Visual world.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) Oh, I never said you cannot draw some conclusions. What I am arguing is that we cannot establish extremely accurate conclusions which show cause/effect relationships for climate change based upon a century of data keeping. It's quite clear that in the past, there have been periods of warming and cooling far more dramatic than what we've seen in the industrialized age. And this is not to advocate to ignore what information our data-keeping does provide us with. But to make claims and draw conclusions about the temperature climbing in the 90's compared to patterns in the 1880's really isn't telling us squat. It's like comparing how you felt this minute to how you felt 10 minutes ago, but not taking into account how you've felt for the rest of your life. It's simply not enough of a sample size to make accurate conclusions from. That's the thing, though. Using ice core samples (and I'm sure there's other methods), we have data for hundreds of thousands of years.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) So which Presidential candidate would you want to have a beer with? I pick Mitt Romney. He's mormon, and therefore does not drink. So I would get both beers. Your choice? Q: Why should you always take TWO Mormons fishing with you? A: If you only take one, he'll drink all your beer.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) And I tend to disagree with the idea that using SWAT for, say, warrant service, increases risk of problems. Quite the opposite, in my experience - a more professional, better trained and better equiped group will be more likely to execute a warrant with less risk of bad situations (shootings, hostages) than a bunch of regular uniforms. If they're used for the right situations, sure. If they're being used to serve warrants on non-violent criminals in a house full of other people? I think it will just escalate the situation, panic, and confusion. Well, there's the problem. These squads aren't being held accountable. The cheifs say "we got bad information, how were we supposed to know it was the wrong address?" Or they make excuses for the guy who's trigger-finger slipped and killed someone.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) Sometimes, the cops need access to the same hardware that the military does. Events occur, in this country, that are on scale with military-like situations. You may not like that, but is the solution to then allow then to run rampant? The funny thing is, many US police departments are adding tactical units for the express purpose of becoming more like departments in Europe or Australia/NZ - where you have specialized tactical units, and the mainline force is less well-armed and more community service-focused. This ultimately helps build a bridge between police forces and the communities they serve. This trend started out with that shootout with those bank robbers in LA. Since then, more and more towns are getting their own SWAT teams. These units are very expensive, and will be needed rarely, if ever. So, instead of letting the equipment sit around, they're using it in situations that they shouldn't. There's stories like the ones I posted from all over the country -- SWAT teams being used to serve warrants, situation escalates, someone dies. Or they burn down their house and kill their puppy. Or they assault the wrong home, and someone ends up getting shot.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, more and more po-dunk city PD's are getting SWAT teams and just can't wait to use them: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/medical_raid http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7583987 http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm If you want to pretend you're some special ops unit, just join the military.

Did you ever think that a lot of people have heard and understood Edwards' message and simply don't like it?