StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) The photos are easily explained. I didnt want people to see what she looked like for her own safety. So we just picked a random girl that kind of looked like her. Her privacy was important. Once again, we are dealing with internet reports on internet reports. The databases that they checked not conclusive, especially because we do not know what her exact name is. If I worked for deadspin's legal department I would have told them to keep it more "opinion", just in case it turns out we are wrong. The last thing I want is to fight the wealth of ND and ABC/SI/ESPN, etc. Either way my website broke the story. Her account existed long before Te'o.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) This will be fun, because one of the comments already said that she had a different real name. "Erm, that's because she was registered under her real name, Lennay Marie Wochinski. Lennay Marie Kekua was her professional name." Follow-ups to that comment state it was a Seinfeld joke. I don't remember it, but Jerry used a fake name when he said he was working in Atlantic City to avoid going to Florida, apparently.

Even leaving the lack of records aside, there's the whole weird relationship with Tuiasosopo and the photos of the other girl being used. Bizarre.

I dunno, plenty of regular police go hog-wild with pepper spray and tasers.

It's updated annually for inflation I think.

Probably due to the huge backlog of other appointments the minority party in the Senate won't let come to a confirmation vote.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/...slation_on.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/16/...E9CG39420130116

Yeah, they all look depressed. Even the retired couple who saw no tax increase is despondent. Like none of them know how they're going to put food on the table next week and pay both the electric and gas bills on the 31st. They could have made a better point by showing a single mother who works two jobs to make $35k a year who's going to see higher taxes as a result of the end of the payroll tax reduction. Or at least a point that 99% of Americans could relate to instead of this.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today breaking down the new tax policies from the Fiscal Cliff deal. Article itself was a fairly straight-forward, accurate and thorough explanation. What's funny about it is the graphic on the side: The lowest income on that chart is a single mother making $180,000 in wages and $35,000 in investment income alone. The people depicted are making several times the median household income, yet they look like someone just ran over their dog because their taxes are going up a little bit. I mean, am I really supposed to feel sorry for the married couple making almost 12 times the median, and over three times the median purely on investment income (enough to live very comfortably and never have to labor another day)?

Article started off with an SNES cartridge? Top-loading NES and SNES were never a problem, what a noob

So there's the answer to your question, I guess. Why not? Because there doesn't appear to be a need or public desire to do so! Not so with guns, though the absolutionist RKBA position has been dead for almost a century now, maybe longer. I don't see how someone can justify a RKBA objection to the AWB without also rejecting the NFA. So unless you're wanting to repeal 80 years worth of gun control, you're already living with an updated understanding of the 2nd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) All I am asking for is some consistency. If the constitution is outdated and needs to be modernized for guns, why not free speech and voting rights as well? After all, the Patriot Act is just to protect you. The constitution has been modernized for voting rights several times directly and many times through legislation and court rulings. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn one of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act later this year and undue that modernization. What sort of modernization to you envision for free speech rights? What problems are you trying to solve or prevent?

there's a lot more mass shootings and everyday gun homicides than Waco or Ruby incidents, though.

they're coming to get you. all of you.

Why would he want to go work for the tyrannical government instead of living in this nice libertarian enclave?

Duke I've found your new home:

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 09:09 AM) Anything less than a WMD (biological or nuclear weapons) should be available for private ownership. Is that your view of what the Constitution says or your preferred policy (or both)?

That may be, but saying "owning guns is a right" doesn't grant you a blanket exemption from justifying your proposed policy unless you really want to go all the way to "any restrictions on arms whatsoever are unconstitutional." And even then, I'd like to know if that's your view of the law simply as it is, or if you believe that it should be that way. One person's "overbearing" is another person's "reasonable."

Carter isn't "full of America hate" and I'd be interested in his various humanitarian efforts.

Says Congress and the courts, yeah.

But owning any gun you want isn't a right.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 08:20 AM) That's badass.

Garrett Wolfe was on M&H this morning, he played under Trestman this year in the CFL. Sounds like he respected the guy a lot.