StrangeSox

I dunno, ask the people whining about how unfair it is that people don't want the government proudly flying symbols of white supremacy and think they're comparable to symbols of gay pride. They seem like the type that's constantly aggrieved by something.

the "lower end" fast-food restaurants have all been declining for several years now as people look to allegedly healthier, fresher and a little more expensive options e.g. Chipotle. The exception IIRC is Taco Bell thanks to their all-in attitude towards the most bizarre 'food' products ever produced like turning Doritos into taco shells.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) But if it's a hate crime against straight white people then that's OK. That kind of hate is allowed. Is the rainbow flag a symbol of anti-white, anti-straight oppression and terrorism? [hint: no]

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) Wait, so banning a flag because one shooter identified with the flag is a bad idea? Using an act of white supremacist terrorism to get a symbol of white supremacist terrorism taken down from the state capitol is a good idea.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 08:02 AM) The shooter had a rainbow flag on his car. Need to ban the rainbow flag in order to prevent more shootings. When you're making the same argument as dinesh D'Souza, you know you've lost.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) 20+ Kindergartners were shot to death in their classroom and nothing changed. That's all you need to know about potential change in gun control. A handful of states, including Connecticut and New York, strengthened their gun laws. More states loosened gun laws.

this is awful Hungarian police arrest driver of lorry that had 71 dead migrants inside

Isaac Newton devoted much of his life to alchemy--proof that alchemy is real.

Work manual labor for 45 years and see if your body will even let you keep working until 70.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 27, 2015 -> 05:12 PM) If people made a Nats/pirates/twins/Yankees dedicated thread in this forum, we would let it exist just the same. Threads sink or swim based on interest. Obviously a few posters keep this one floating. If you don't like it, don't post. No big deal

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) Source? Hawk--every white sox game circa 2011

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 09:39 AM) Hahahaha PK will not return to the game in an announcing capacity. I could see him managing/coaching someday, but right now, PK is enjoying retirement. I hear he has a nice house in Arizona

Got my mom's old Chevy Lumina a couple of months after I got my license since she needed a new car anyway. Was worth probably $1000 so a very nice gift for a 16 yo.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 11:08 PM) The only issue with that theory is the fact that three people are dead. FALSE FLAG

I've read this book on biblical archaeology a couple of times, definitely recommend it if you're interested in that sort of stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 11:05 AM) A real simple question with Joe Biden is "what role would he actually fill in this campaign?" Is he going to ideologically tap into a group that isn't well served by the current major candidates? No. We've actually got a good spectrum from "Confederate Flags aren't that bad" to "guy who calls himself a socialist" and a good set in-between already represented. Is he a better campaigner than any of the major candidates? No. Extremely gaffe prone, without the backing of outright racists like Trump has who overlook that stuff. Could he come out with a policy proposal set that is significantly better than the current candidates? Maybe, but he's several years behind the curve in developing such policy proposals. Is he going to outdo Hillary in fundraising or something else like that? Maybe could suck up some money, but certainly not going to outdo her when again she's got a 12 month+ head start. What's the point of a Biden run? It's basically to pacify people who for some reason can't personally stand Hillary Clinton, like you. I'm ok with him meeting with some people about things, it's always nice to have a "backup plan" in case the "here's the floor plan to the structure in Benghazi and the key is under a fake rock to the left" email Republicans have been dreaming existed for 4 years actually did exist, but other than that, he'd hurt himself by getting in unnecessarily and there's no reason to think he'd be an improvement except for people like you who are actively considering voting for Donald Trump. Not exactly a strong endorsement. I think O'Malley's running his campaign as that backup plan.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 11:56 PM) those of you who support Hilly unconditionally there must be a bunch of invisible posts that only greg can see

I wouldn't see why not as long as all parties agreed on the final price when it came time to sign. There was some last-minute negotiating at the closing for our house over some dumb bs that was sorted out without delaying anything.

They might ask for some money back for repairs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2015 -> 07:50 AM) WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 05:01 PM) neither link says that he chased them two houses away and killed him. They say he chased them into the yard and shot them. From what the two stories say, the guy who got shot could have ran the two houses away before he died. He was shot in the head. I don't know how far you're going to run with a fatal shot to your head. As far as Ohio law goes, it doesn't seem to matter if he was shot in the yard or not.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 03:28 PM) After the robbers have escaped, the police are immeasurably more capable of both tracking down and bringing them to justice than the homeowner is. During the incident itself, the opposite is true. The police have no utility, while the homeowner may be able to stop the threat. I think that's really what we're debating over here--does it continue to be self-defense if you prolong the incident by chasing them? How long is it justifiable to pursue them? edit: whatever the answer is to that, though, "he can come back at some point in the future" still has trouble working as a justification. That's a preemptive self-defense claim.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 03:19 PM) That wasn't the point...odds are they'd never come back, but that isn't the psyche I'm tapping here...that family will no longer feel safe with that person out there. I know I wouldn't. It's the peace of mind that my home no longer has (not that it ever truly had it), but the perception of that safety is now shattered. So now I have a house that I paid 200+K for, that I now need to sell in a s*** market because the peace of mind that home had is gone...is this rational? No...but it's how I'd personally feel. I'd feel as if I could no longer leave my house without my family. Unfortunately I work, and I have too. And for what...and by who? For a person that even if they get caught will be back on the street in a month? And in reality, odds are they'll be back out on the street a few days later... This person did more harm than simply breaking into my home and leaving...there are repercussions, not just for that person (which in Chicago means basically no repercussions at all), but for my family. Edit: So f*** that douche right in his ass. I'm not saying that the fear and sense of violation wouldn't be real and perfectly justifiable. I'm asking for how long that's a justification for killing the perpetrator. Still in your house? Yeah, 99/100 justified. They've run out the door and you're firing at them from inside the house? Definitely more of a gray area for me, but probably justifiable under a "heat of the moment"/panic/adrenaline explanation. Leaving the safety of your home and chasing them into your yard? I think that'd be pretty hard to justify as "self-defense" since you're the one who decided to prolong the conflict and pursue them. Now what if it turns out that not only the perpetrators were a couple of houses down, but that the shooter wasn't even on his own property anymore? How long are you justified in chasing after them? If you're trying to argue immediate danger/self-defense, that runs out pretty quickly as you get farther and farther away from your own door. But if you're trying to use "I'd never feel safe in my own home so long as this person lived," doesn't that continue indefinitely?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 03:15 PM) No interest in the strawman game. How is this a straw man? I'm asking where the limit of "he could come back at some point in the future" is. If the threat would extend indefinitely, why wouldn't the justification?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 02:59 PM) None of those things actually happened. I know they didn't. I'm trying to find where the "they could come back at some point in the future" argument stops working by using a hypothetical situation. What if he had chased them out of the yard, firing at them, but never hit them? They could certainly come back to "finish the job" then. Would he be justified in hunting them down in that case? If not, why is that any different than chasing them into the yard and shooting them when they're a couple of houses down the road and running away? The potential future threat would always remain.