Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) Its not a silly distinction at all. First of all you are co-mingling arguments. This isnt about whether you have the right to use deadly force in public (you do), its about whether you have the right to use a gun in public. Those are 2 very different things. If someone attacks you, you can kill them with your fists in public, you can take a brick and bash in their skull, you can curb stomp them, you can use a bat. So its not about protecting yourself with deadly force, its about the use of guns. And the reason guns are different is because guns pose a threat to other innocent people. So while you may protect yourself and shoot the bad guy, you could also shoot and kill an innocent civilian. So (imo) when we weigh the risk versus reward of having guns in public, the risk outweighs the reward. I'm not co-mingling anything. We've created an acceptable use of guns in the home to protect yourself. I'm saying extend that to the public arena under the same justification. The "innocent" argument doesn't fly either unless you think everyone lives alone.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Im pretty sure most reasonable people think that the horse is already out of the barn when it comes to having weapons in your house. The question is about having guns in public, when those guns present a danger to innocent citizens. Which is just a silly distinction IMO. If we think it's ok to protect your property or person with deadly force, whether you do it on your own property or in a public place shouldn't matter. That was the intent of the SYG law and of course some attorneys and judges are testing the limits of it's application.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) idgi are you still trying to defend Zimmerman? Nah, just pointing out the usefulness of guns.

Vigilante! http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120...|text|FRONTPAGE

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) We weren't convinced that he was being honest with Skylar. Maybe he told her that because he wants to spend more time with his kids, and she can't launder anymore money anyway. I'd imagine him being gone at 3-4 in the morning though would be an easy tip off that he's not really done. And then they wouldn't be the happy family again.

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) I have to rewatch the episode. Did the MRI scan ome before the long stare, sitting in front of his desk when Todd came in? I also assumed the dispenser was that way from before. That long stare was the opening shot of the episode I think.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) Well, he had the MRI scan, went to the bathroom, beat the hell out of the paper towel dispenser again, and they showed him cancer-coughing at the table just before Hank went to take his s***. You sure he hit it again? I thought he was just staring at it for a while. I assumed the shot of the beaten up dispenser was just eluding to the time he did it before. There was a lot of "remember this?" stuff throughout this episode.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) Was that said for sure, or just eluded to? I couldn't decide. It was never said, but I think it was heavily implied since he decided to get out of the game pretty quickly after the MRI scan.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) it's all the same point brother. sorry you can't comprehend that. and top tier compared to what? plumbers and firemen and the type of people who flunked out or didn't even go to college? yeah, they SHOULD be making more than those people. They got a degree in something. EDIT: before y'all flame, that was my nuclear hyperbole talking. yes, firefighters and plumbers are very important. and frankly i don't even know. they could make more than teachers... didn't do the research. But if you let that stand in the way of the point i was making you're an idiot. Is that really necessary?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) all you b****ing about how "easy" it is to be a teacher should be asking yourself why it's impossible to find good teachers for inner-city school districts. If it were easy, they'd be filled no problem right? it means that if you f*** with teachers' pensions or pay them less, fewer qualified, brilliant, incredible people will volunteer to fill the void. People aren't going to sign up to commit there lives to a profession that isn't respected enough to be paid what it deserves. I'm sure you've had fantastic teachers along the way that helped you get to where you are today (unless you're a family business baby, spoon-fed, silver platter type). If what all you GOP'ers are suggesting comes to pass, others wont have the opportunity you did to get great teachers who pushed you to do great things. That would be a travesty. I agree that there is a monumental problem with parenting in this country, but good teachers actually CAN counterbalance that. They can be a positive influence in an otherwise negative world. But not if you don't create incentives for good people to become teachers in the first place. Go back and read my posts. I never claimed teaching was easy. I said teachers are generally already compensated well enough and I get tired when teachers claim they need to be paid more. The bigger point was to combat this fallacy that paying teachers more will somehow make our educational system better. As has been pointed out, we already pay the most and yet our system isn't very good. And the bolded is just not true. Teaching has gotten even more competitive recently. We have an abundance of wannabe teachers out there with not enough good jobs to fill. You not wanting to work in the inner-city has nothing to do with your compensation. Hell, the system already provides you with massive benefits if you do that. So I don't get your point there.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 3, 2012 -> 09:30 PM) Jenks, I disagree with you on a lot, but I respect the hell out of you man. You actually respond to things directed at you. Thanks

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) It definitely lacked the punch of last years finale. Agreed. I was a little let down by the finale. It left a lot of loose ends, the main one being how Walt tied up the business so that 3 months into the future he's still alive. I fully expected during that dinner scene for a bunch of cartel goons to shoot the place up. I felt like Walt deciding to quit was also really rushed just so they could get in that perfect family scene so Hank's discovery would be that much more shocking. Either way, fantastic first half of the season and I can't wait until next summer.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 2, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) how would you have become an attorney without teachers? have you ever been one? do you have any - ANY idea - what it is to be a teacher? WTF does this even mean?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 06:49 PM) what do you do for a living jenks? Attorney

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I can remember, the Republican nominee didn't really lay out a plan? It was more of a "what hasn't our current President done" speech than a "this is what I'm going to do and how I'm going to do it." Well, it was a "this is what I'm going to do" speech, but not so much of a "and this is how I'm going to do it." There were no empty promises, nor was there a structure for those promises to eventually fill. Strange speech...but it riled up the crowd, that's for sure. I think that's the unwritten playbook for beating an incumbent. You don't offer up solutions, you just talk about the failures of the other guy. That's going to "change" the independent votes more than offering up a competing strategy.

So this Asus Infinity tablet? Pretty amazing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) I wasn't talking only about this thread. How often have state Republicans attacked teachers and teachers unions lately? There have been several recall elections in Wisconsin over this. This isn't a republican issue. The great Messiah Emanuel is saying the same things right now in Chicago.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 09:39 AM) They shouldn't stop their b****ing because plenty in this country constantly attack teachers and their hard-fought wages and benefits. Who? Did anyone in this thread start by saying teachers suck and need to shut up? Or did a teacher b**** about their pay first? That's the way this argument always starts.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 12:04 AM) I watched the replay just now. Thought Romney had a bizarre smirk on his face at times. Do you agree? I think he's kind of creepy. Obama in a landslide. Obama has the best thing going. He can just say in his conversational tone: "Look folks. It takes longer than four years to fix this mess, especially when the other side tries to block my every move. Give me more time; trust me, it'll all be fine." You know what message plays best to the majority of people out there: 4 years of little to no improvement in just about anything. The "just trust me and give me 4 more years" crap is just not going to sell. He'll probably win again, but he won't "win" it so much as Romney will "lose" it by not being very likeable. It'll be like Bush/Kerry.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 11:00 PM) I haven't read the entire thread, but it shocks me that I haven't seen anyone posit the argument that perhaps teachers' jobs should have more "perks" because they are one of, if not the most important profession for the maintenance of American society. Good educators are the key to social mobility, ie the American Dream. We can't really control if kids are born into ideal situations, but we do have some control over their educational experience -- it should be a huge priority that children should have every opportunity to utilize their public education to move up the socioeconomic ladder if they wish. It starts with teachers. Pay them more, give them more protection if that's what it takes to attract the truly talented people to the profession. I can't even begin to tell you all the people I know who consider their dream job to teach, but they can't fathom taking on all the debt to become college educated (post-graduate experience needed in some states, even MORE debt) and then receive what is often not nearly enough to live a decent lifestyle and make meaningful progress on paying down loans. I realize there are exceptions to this based on where you teach, where you went to school, if you were able to get financial assistance in college, etc. I don't want to s*** on teachers here, as they are very important. But I'm gonna say this is all an overstatement. Parents are more important than teachers, and your mentality has been bought by the vast majority of the country unfortunately, and that's why our educational system sucks. We demand too much of teachers and when they fail to perform we point the finger at them. It's not the parents fault for not being a parent and teaching their kids the importance of education, it's the teachers fault for not being miracle workers. But no amount of money will provide kids that good parenting, so it's just hard for me to believe that more money=better teachers=better education system. I mean, I had good teachers and I had s***ty teachers. But I had better parents, so regardless of the teacher I learned what I needed to learn because I knew what the end goal was and what I had to get through to get there. You guys just crack me up with this summer time off crap. You have it better than 95% of the people in this country that are working. You have a decent pay, you have a good amount of time off, and you get crazy good benefits. So, stop yo b****in'.

Didn't help either that half the WR core (Hello, Devin!) ran the wrong routes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) Special education kids cost a whole lot more to educate. It has as much to do with the tenure system as any of ss2k5's posts. I'm still waiting for an explanation on how our system is different and why that explains differences in outcomes. I don't doubt it is more expensive, but what percent of the educational system is for special needs? 3%? 6%? Can't be much more than that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) Let's not have massive wealth accumulation and hording among a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. But that's not exactly directly addressing my comments on workplace and employee rights. See, there's the difference to me. You don't get "mass wealth accumulation" by adding people to the government payroll. You get people that become dependent on the government for more and more. Clearly poverty in this country has dropped to low levels after the government swooped in with assistance. And for the record, i'm not opposed to some social services and assistance. I just don't think it's some fundamental role that government ought to play for lifetimes like the system we have now. People in public housing in Chicago are generational. That's a problem. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) You need to be able to pay a competent lawyer if you're trying to sue any non-small business employer that has a legal team. Plus it's still ridiculously hard to prove ageism since the company will find some BS reasons to fire you. Nope. ADA cases are taken on contingency. You don't need a dime.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) If you want to talk about a real waste of resources, lets talk about special education and how much money is spent on each student. /crickets Argh damn once again no one wants to be the bad guy. In the grand scheme I'm not sure those costs are really that much. But what's that have to do with the tenure system?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) Unemployment benefits keep someone from instant poverty, but they run out. And unless you can get coverage through a spouse, COBRA is incredibly expensive. I'd be fine with a freer labor market if we had an actually robust social welfare system and Medicare-for-all health coverage, but until then, losing your job is a devastating event for most people. Let's just have the government print money for everyone! Problem solved. Socialism FTW. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) Ageism suits aren't exactly easy to win, and you have to be able to afford the litigation on your unemployment benefits. Not a real option for most people. You don't need a dime to bring an ADA claim.