StrangeSox

Lol Beckham suspension gonna be overturned oops nevermind solid reporting

Tennessee has charged a woman who attempted an abortion on herself with attempted first-degree murder. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local...&autologin=

your numbers suck you left out the whigs what a noob

So I just learned about "low-background" steel, which is steel produced prior to the first nuclear detonations in 1945. It's needed for some precise instrumentation and experiments, so they'll do things like harvest it from old shipwrecks. We had so many atmospheric nuclear detonations between 1945 and 1980 that literally everything made since then is tainted by higher levels of background radiation.

missed the game is there a highlights video of what everyone is talking about?

Thanks!

recommend me some other good podcasts because work boredom

There were a couple of good posts from ss2k5 and NSS a couple of weeks back in the Repub thread on this: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 01:41 PM) They are good for the economy, but a sign of weakness in the economy typically. I would say in this specific example a oil is being hit by more external forces and isn't going to be exhibiting typical behavior because of the supply war going on, and the decade of the 2000's push to drill as much as possible all coming together at once in the last year or so.

Religious guy did kick out poor women from a shelter because they were having sex with men, though. edit: they are actually closing the shelter temporarily for renovations. I still don't know what sort of renovations you'd need if you wanted to segregate men and women. Like jenks said, it kinda looks like a motel so you'd think it's separate rooms already? http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Homeless-...-362038531.html edit2: but this also really undercuts the original claim that there were more men than women:

Fiorina made another objectively false claim in the debate this week, this time claiming that Obama forced General Keane out because he disagreed with the administration (she also claimed the same happened to Patreaus and McCrystal which is also silly). Keane retired in 2003. Fiorina's response? Dig in, admit nothing, claim to have the truth on your side. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carly-fiori...ory?id=35808113 With that sort of intellectual prowess it's amazing that HP didn't do better under her tenure.

Shkreli, CEO Reviled for Drug Price Gouging, Arrested on Securities Fraud Charges eta: kinda sucks that theft via price-gouging by massive amounts on rare and life-saving drugs is completely legal but theft via securities fraud is what would get you thrown in jail.

Yep, I must have hit that sweet spot between nuclear bomb drills and terrorist attack drills. Even after Columbine, nothing really changed locally.

Nyt blew another big story. According to the FBI there was no jihadi Facebook presence for the wife. Same reporters that blew the "Hillary Clinton under criminal investigation for classified emails" story this summer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-na...n-social-media/

Women and children are barred from coming to the shelter. I don't know why you think hypothetical future renovations or policy changes means that they are not right now barred from the shelter. You keep doing a great job of illustrating the truth of what I said. The meme was making fun of myself btw

Yes, that is a correct statement. Today, right now, they have kicked the women that were there out and barred any more from coming into the shelter. That at some hypothetical point in the future they may possibly renovate the facilities and would then accept women again doesn't change that. edit: this is a selfie I just took though

He did not actually say that he hoped to accept women or that any renovations are planned or were even in the conceptual phase. I don't need to prove anything because my statement, that women and children are barred from this shelter, is true regardless of hypothetical future renovations. I did not say "banned forever" but it appears people in this thread really want to argue against things I didn't say for some reason.

Seems contradictory, no?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 06:01 PM) Ya I was just pointing out to you that the other article mentioned something that contradicted something you posted. You are right though, I guess I dont have any CONCRETE evidence that this shelter has any plans to EVER accept women or children! For all we know they might never even do any renovations! Until I see 3 handwritten quotes from contractors for the pertinent upgrades Im gonna boycott this charity. Yeah see that's the problem, what you quoted doesn't contradict what I said even if you are assuming that they have some renovations planned and funded in order to be able to accept women (even though renovations after not actually needed as evidenced by the fact that women were there until recently!). "I'd like to be able to buy a Ferrari, but I'd need $300k" doesn't mean I actually have a plan or the funding to get one. What I said is that they aren't accepting women or children, which they aren't. That they would after hypothetical renovations doesn't make that statement wrong.

You're the one who quoted and bolded my post on the first place. I was responding to that.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:22 PM) What does this even mean lol? I was just pointing out that they said they were planning on taking women and children in the future after renovations. He said that he'd "like to be able" to accept women in the future, but that he'd need to renovate. There's nothing concrete about him ever actually accepting women in the future.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:21 PM) Pretty tough to get to the shelter that's 30 minutes away if you don't have transportation. Because these women and children are homeless, it's reasonable to assume that at the very least some lack sufficient transportation. Because this is a rural area, it's reasonable to infer that public transportation doesn't service the area. This guy certainly doesn't have to provide shelter to the homeless, and the charity provides an objective benefit (ie, some homeless sheltered is better than no homeless sheltered), but it does illustrate the limitations of the social safety net relying on the whims of religious dogma. This was my (perhaps poorly communicated) point, not that all private religious or secular (see Red Cross post in the Dem thread) charity is bad and should be supplanted by government programs.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 03:19 PM) Sounds like the first trial on the Freddie Gray case will be a mistrial. Deadlocked after 2 days and 9 hours deliberating. Judge told the jury to keep trying. Mistrail. The grand jury in the Tamir Rice case has turned into a gigantic circus. Really need a national push for independent AD's when there are police involved as defendants. http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/...Rice-Letter.pdf

Woodward is not currently accepting women or children into the shelter i.e. he has barred any more from coming in, like I said. Because some men and women had sex (which jenks characterized as a "whore house" for some reason? did I miss the alleged prostitution angle?)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:10 PM) I never said private charities are free of corruption. I don't think robust implies that a given program would be free of corruption, but it does imply oversight to prevent it, or at the very least, curtail it. I doubt there is a single instance in the history of government where you won't find corruption when oversight doesn't exist. And I never said public programs would be 100% free of corruption and in fact never mentioned corruption, so I still don't know what set you off in the first place. Any government program would have some level of fraud/corruption (so would any large private program, it's the nature of large programs!) and would also have oversight mechanisms in place. I never said or implied otherwise.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:07 PM) s***ty charity > No charity is the point youre missing. Who is talking about supporting this charity anyway? Should the shelter close down and should they throw out everyone else now? Or maybe, just maybe the fact that theyre helping some homeless people (no matter how ridiculous the circumstances are) better than not helping anyone? I'm not missing that point. I was using the story to illustrate a different point (religious charities sometimes do s***ty things for religious reasons), so it's not particularly relevant. Ideally, the shelter just doesn't do the dumb thing it did. There's no need for them to close down, but there was no need to ship women and children out and bar any more from coming, either. If their funding comes from donations, I'd hope people send their money to shelters that wouldn't do the same things they did, but again not really central to the point.