Jenksismyhero

Yeah, gmab indeed. LeBron brought the expectations on himself. Durant has never opened his mouth about being the greatest

And which one colluded with an all star and a half of famer? And which one has a good, but injured SG and not much else?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 1, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) Yes, I'm saying feel sorry for a guy that's been given physical gifts that you only see in superhero movies and is on pace to become a billionaire before he turns 40. I'm just saying that if you're not going to hold KD to the same standard you hold LeBron then don't compare the two. I forget, which one anointed himself King before ever playing an NBA game? And which one was a high pick but has probably over achieved based on expectations when he was drafted?

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ May 1, 2014 -> 12:56 AM) http://grantland.com/features/sterlings-fold/ That article sort of annoyed me. The whole focus was on Sterling acting like an entitled person on a United commercial flight. Really? That's your insight into this story?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) The estate tax only applies to the wealthy in the first place. The Republicans just made it even better for them by increasing the exemptions and lowering the maximum rate. see also: capital gains tax rate, which is almost exclusively beneficial to the wealthy. edit: of course the political rhetoric may not always be so explicit as "we want to cut taxes for the Job Creators so that they can trickle down the wealth," but it often is and even when it isn't the effects of their proposals are pretty clear. Ok, so the problem is the wealthy were able to change legislation of a tax aimed at them. That, again, is a specific request that the "average citizen" isn't going to have. Same with capital gains (even though there's been a push to abolish that for everyone). I'm not saying this article doesn't point to an issue, i'm just saying it seems rather obvious. People who want specific change can often times get it. Your average citizen doesn't want one specific change.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) something something estate tax reform while blocking payroll tax cuts Well, getting rid of the estate tax has been a long standing argument. Did they change it only for those over a certain amount? If so, I don't remember reading about that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) ? Pretty much every Republican candidate I can remember for president has proposed large tax cuts on the uppermost income bracket and those were passed in 2001 and 2003. The scale of those tax cuts were such that 1% of what was cut would readily pay for >10 presidential elections. Not specifically. They wanted tax breaks for everyone. And when people specified they wanted taxes raised on people making over x, they responding that they didn't. I've never, ever heard a republican candidate say they wanted to cut taxes on the rich and NOT the middle/lower class. Most legislation passed is for small, specific items. They're not huge sweeping laws that impact every person. And the people asking for/lobbying for those changes are people with businesses/industry interests. And of course people with businesses/industry interests are the ones giving money to campaigns. They have an interest in doing so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) Who are you kidding, the business owners are doing the former, not the latter. I'm sure they do both, but the government doesn't pass a bill that says "lower taxes for anyone making 3 million or more a year." It's always tied to a specific request.

Rich people are generally business owners who are looking for some kind of government break/exception. It would make sense that specific requests for change in the law are met more frequently than an average citizen, who wants what specifically? I would think the average citizen (me) wants about 15 different things, but can't really articulate them to anyone in power or lobby them to change/create the law. In other words: "lower my taxes, i'm tired of giving the government more money" is not going to work on anyone, but "lower taxes on sale of X good which will allow me to create 1,000 jobs" will.

My parents of a Buick Enclave. I really like that a lot. Seems like it'd be great for a couple of kids.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) That (2nd kid) was the prime motivator for replacing the Escape, just like you (though we loved our Escape Hybrid). The Pilot had either the best or close to the best 2nd row leg room, which was great for dealing with kids in car seats. It's been perfect, I literally have no complaints, 2.5 years in. We don't use the 3rd row much, but it folds down flat and gives lots of room in the back. We drove to DC and back with a 5 and 1.5 year old, lots of stuff in the back. Ours is the Touring 4WD model of the Pilot, so it has the movie screen in the ceiling, and that was awfully handy for a long road trip. Worked great. Just bear in mind with ANY of these models I mentioned, the mileage won't be nearly as good as with the FEH, or even a regular Escape. We got about 30 MPG on average with our FEH. With mostly local and some highway use, we get about 19-20 on average with the Pilot. 23-24 is the max, for all highway. Only exception to this is the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, which gets like 28 MPG. But whereas the FEH was like 4k more than the regular Escape and had tax incentives, the Highlander Hybrid is like 9k more (lists at like 48k), and there are no more tax incentives on it. We figured out it would take like 8 years of heavy use to offset the cost. Not worth it, IMO, at this point. Seriously can't recommend the Pilot enough. Yeah that's about what I get now with my Escape (4wd), 19 on the low end, 23 on the high end. We'll have to take a look at the Pilot in the coming months.

QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2969583:date=Apr 30, 2014 -> 07:59 AM:name=KyYlE23)-->QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 07:59 AM) <!--quotec-->I just saw a vine of it, the story says that the other woman called Boozer a loser and then threw a beer at Boozers GF after they exchanged words. Boozers GF definitely delivered a few shots I really hate people who take videos/photos with the phone up and down like that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) We were in this market a few years ago, though we bought new - which means these are the cars you'd be buying now. I did a ton of research, looked at every 7/8 passenger SUV available that was under (at the time) 40k new (or close to that anyway). Test drove a bunch. The three that stood out as best (these were 2012 model year) were: Honda Pilot Ford Explorer Toyota Highlander In that order. We bought the Honda, it stood well above the rest and we love it. Highly recommended. The Explorer was nice too, but got worse MPG, had the somewhat-goofy Link system for the the audio and stuff, and was so long it had trouble with our garage space. Highlander was good but just felt lower in quality, and less spacious. Also looked at, but found to be lesser than any of the above: Jeep Grand Cherokee (terrible sight lines, less features, iffy reliability history), Mazda CX-9 (less features, lower quality feel), Subaru Tribeca (too pricey for same features, smaller), Ford Edge (too pricey for same stuff, smaller), Chevy something-or-other (much less features for the money), Dodge Durango (worst of the bunch - worst mileage, slowest, less features, horrible sight-lines and visibility), and others I can't even remember anymore. How's that Pilot working with the 2 kids? My wife and I seem to be following your trajectory. Got an Escape, had a kid. Starting to plan for #2, need to upgrade to something with a third row.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Then this cannot be your reaction. Why? Like I said, I don't care that this guy suffered for a few minutes. He shouldn't have been subjected to it, but if it happens i'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it. And the response shouldn't be "this is a perfect example of why we should abolish the death penalty!" But it is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 12:12 PM) Here's a bigger problem for you; a person like me. I'm somewhat sympathetic on the death penalty in general. I think it can meet the 8th amendment standard, I don't think there's much good that comes from it...but if it gives the families of some crime victims some measure of "closure" for whatever that's worth I could be convinced that it's a tolerable evil. But the only way I'd be willing to go along with it is if it's well administered. There has to be an overwhelming standard of guilt to avoid killing innocent people (which has almost certainly happened), it needs to be administered fairly/without the obvious racial biases that occur in cases right now, and it can't involve processes that clearly demolish the 8th amendment, as this case did. If you don't care about how it happens when things go wrong, then you don't get any consideration from me for support and I have every reason to be disgusted with the death penalty. I'm in agreement with you on the standards I would find acceptable. And I care, but only in the sense that this should be used as an example of how not to do things going forward. We should learn from it. We shouldn't stop the practice all together because this guy suffered for a few minutes before ultimately dying. That's all i'm saying.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) But it was done completely unnecessarily. Again, that's the major disconnect between torture that results from the DP and pain and suffering caused by war or incarceration in general. War is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary, and death and pain will result. The same is true for incarceration. But the death penalty is never actually a necessary thing. Well now wait, if you're using this logic, jail time isn't always necessary either. Maybe in a small percentage of cases, but not the majority. Necessity isn't a relevant factor here. I get what you're saying, but again, take that argument to the extreme and there's no necessary reason to do half of what we do in the criminal justice system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 11:36 AM) I think results are more important than intention in this case. Whether they intended to or not, this man suffered severe pain that was caused by the criminal justice system. Again the war analogies really just don't work. In a war, if I'm shooting at someone, they're likely trying to shoot at me as well. This prisoner was in the complete control of the DoC. If he had been left in his cell, nothing bad was going to happen to anyone else. Administering the lethal injection drugs was not something that had to be done. The improper administration of the unnecessary drugs resulted in severe pain and suffering. Taking completely unnecessary actions against a person who's completely controlled by you that have a known chance of causing severe pain and suffering and do end up causing that pain qualify as torture to me, regardless of your intent. edit: but more importantly, you're shifting around your justifications here. bmags was replying to your previous justification that we shouldn't care if he was tortured because of the torture he put those other people through. This view means that torture is sometimes justified, which is something both bmags and I strongly reject. Well, agree to disagree. If all you're looking at is the result than our entire justice system tortures criminals because on occasion they hurt themselves and/or are hurt while in our control 100% of the time. I don't think this is torture. That's why I kept putting "torture" in quotes. I think this is a horribly inhumane convicted criminal who was caused to suffer for minutes by an accident. It was not done purposefully. It was not done with delight. It was an accident and if the accident had not occurred he would not have suffered at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:59 AM) Right, but this is under the assumption that because he felt it was okay to torture and maim I should be okay with torturing him. And that's not the case. I think he should be punished, just not tortured to death. I think this is a pretty distorted view of what happened and what torture really means. A mistake was made somewhere. That's not torture, it was a mistake. That's like saying in war when you shoot at someone and you blow their arm off you're committing torture. It wasn't done with purpose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) In a (necessary and justified) war, killing people is a necessity. In the criminal justice system, it is not. I don't think a criminal justice system should be taking "does it cost more for us to kill them or keep them alive?" into account, either. That's pretty damn immoral in and of itself. I don't agree with a punitive view of a justice system, but that's less appalling than a "what costs us less" version. Even setting aside the many issues with a death penalty (it's barbaric, it has a decently high rate of killing innocent people, it has a hugely disparate racial application, it's actually more expensive than LWOP, it's not actually a deterrent), it's simply not necessary to kill someone in order to achieve justice or prevent them from harming society again. Most of the world gets by without a death penalty. Well we know a restorative justice system has never worked, so there's really no other alternative here. I just don't see the value in keeping these guys alive. Or keeping mass murders alive. Let's ignore the instances of error (a small percentage mind you) and stick to cases where we're 100% confident that the person who is charged is the person that did the killing - the boston marathon bomber, the colorado theater shooting. You're not going to restore them back to law abiding citizens. They'll never be free again. They've committed heinous and unforgivable crimes. What's the point of keeping them around? Why shouldn't death be the appropriate punishment? And just because the world gets by or does something different doesn't make it better. What are the percentages of botched attempts though? If this happens 2% of the time, is it really cruel and unusual as a whole? They basically sedate you and then paralyze you until your heart stops. If dont properly, you don't feel anything. You go to sleep.

Here's another question - the estate of the dead criminal will obviously be filing a lawsuit over this. Are you ok giving the family millions of dollars for the pain and suffering endured by this kind of criminal, a criminal whose victim suffered more than he did?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:13 AM) Probably immensely. Probably more than him. I don't see why that excuses or justifies cruel and unusual punishment, though. Killing him and doing it in a painful manner doesn't undue the damage he did, doesn't bring anyone back to life. I think what he did was morally wrong, and I think that the state killing and in this case torturing him is also morally wrong. I'm not asking or expecting you to agree with my moral stance on the death penalty, but I really don't know why you think that morally opposing the death penalty and torture necessarily requires sympathy for criminals. Because to me there are certain killings that are justified - self defense, war, etc. And it's justified based on context. Here, with convicted criminals who performed horrific acts, I think we're justified in killing them too and I think it's justified because of that context. It doesn't undue the damage, it doesn't bring anyone back to life. But it also doesn't cost the state 60k a year or whatever for the rest of their lives either. Do you think certain killings are justified? Or are they always morally wrong? If some are justified, you have to be taking something into consideration in determining that killing a convicted criminal who raped and murdered an 11 MONTH old girl doesn't deserve to die. And the only one I can think of is some kind of sympathy for him. "I don't want the state to kill people" doesn't work if you're also ok with the state killing enemies during war. Edit: I'll add too that I don't buy that cruel and unusual punishment argument. 1) it's not unusual, it's been done for thousands of years. 2) Cruel is obviously relative, but I could just as easily argue that being placed in an 8x10 cement box for 23 hours a day for 60 years is also cruel.

I mean, I agree with you guys, this was clearly a botched attempt and something that should never happen. But I don't get why this needs to be a rallying cry for anti-lethal injection people. Let's go back to hangings and firing squads if you like. I'm ok with that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 09:43 AM) I guess because I think torturing and killing people is wrong. This guy suffered for minutes. How long did his victim suffer as she was shot with a sawed off shotgun and buried alive?

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) For those buying a new car, I dont know if this has been mentioned yet but using www.edmunds.com is probably the best tool out there for those not too experienced with car buying. Through the site you can build the exact make and model car that you are looking to purchase, add all the extras features you want on it, and it will total the MSRP and (this is the big part) the INVOICE price. It sucks as a prospective buyer to have these stealerships try to make you pay more than the vehicle's MSRP once taxes and all the fees get added, so with the build-a-car feature on the edmunds web site, you can start negotiations from where it should start, the actual invoice price. I swear by the site and I bought a new Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk for $3k less than the invoice price, just by having the build-a-vehicle print out sheet with me during the negotiations. The invoice prices shown on the edmunds site are 100% accurate from my experience because everything from the print out I had matched the actual dealerships Priced Order Confirmation when they originally ordered the vehicle from the factory. As one poster here mentioned, NEVER start negotations by talking about monthly payments. This is probably the worst thing you could possibly do because lets say "Jimmy" is looking to buy a new mustang and he goes into the dealership setting his monthly limit in his head to $400 a month. Jimmy tells the dealer this number and the dealer will be more than happy to accomodate you right away. This is because now, for a vehicle thats supposed to cost $30k the dealer can manipulate a number or two here or there to add more to the OVERALL cost of the vehicle all while keeping you obliviously happy at $400 a month. The $30k car can become a $35k+ car and you wouldnt know better because you dont even know what the invoice price for the vehicle is. When you have the invoice price at hand, you can get your $400 a month and owe thousands less over the course of your loan. Hope this helps! The easiest way is they do this is by extending the loan by a year and adding something like .5% or 1% on your interest rate. That adds up to a few thousand bucks after 5-6 years. The number one piece of advice I got from friend that sells cars at a dealership - be willing to walk away. They'll bend over backwards to make a sale if you're close.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) I don't feel sympathy for that man. I feel that we're better than him and shouldn't be torturing and killing people. How is that not sympathy? You feel bad that he was "tortured" and killed. Why?