Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) I'd guess 1 out of 1000 people might. EDIT: I bet if you asked 10 random people on the streets of Chicago who was running for mayor that none of them would guess all of the candidates correctly. You're telling me anyone will know all of the judges on the ballot? True. Judges aren't a good example of this, but that's why you need the party identifier for alderman/council members. It's next to impossible to know every candidate, so if the illinois republican/democrat party endorses a guy then you know, generally, where they stand on issues.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) Who the heck elects judges? No one knows a thing about them. You either vote them all back in or you ignore that part of the ballot. It's not like they have a party affiliation next to their name. if you follow their decisions it's pretty easy to tell what party they fit into.

I think if you're electing people like say judges, those "national" issues do have a local connection and could be very important. Knowing the judges I know, their policy beliefs dictate their view on the law every bit as a Supreme Court judge.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) honestly, I just find that really simplistic when dealing with a city. "I'm going to cut taxes and budgets" vs "i'm going to improve social welfare and raise taxes", I really see a lot more over land management which REALLY is obscured in the two national party identities. You can have a few easy identifiers like more green parks vs. more retail space, but i don't often see that. Rent control/parking regulations/ etc. I really haven't seen consistency in the parties at this level. I'm not saying that there aren't ideological differences at the municipal level, but that you could create two new parties, find people that generally fit in either, that really don't fit that well into that national party identity. You don't think the city deals with that issue?

He couldn't have started this process like a year ago? http://www.cnbc.com/id/41131176 Oh that's right, he was too busy with health care reform, the emergency we were facing at the time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) And then most people backed off. You're not arguing against anyone in this thread on that point. Most, not all.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Are you that blind that you don't see why so many people saw a connection and brought Palin's name into the discussion? This didn't come from thin air. Congresswoman Giffords literally asked Palin to take the target down. The sniper target with Gifford's name on it. You REALLY can't see why Palin's name was brought up after all of this? Sure, as an observation, not an accusation, which most people did within minutes despite not having any evidence to back that up. Most people who did that just simply used it as an opportunity to blame her or s*** on her for doing another thing "wrong."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) I think Ezra Klein sums it up nicely here (emphasis mine): Yep, because being targeted as a cause of this tragedy minutes after it happened is the same as nobodies (Sharpton, Olbermann) apologizing for rhetoric they used in the past ONLY TO MAKE THE POINT that people who used that rhetoric without apology are awful.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) The sad part is that even after a tragedy no one wants to have a civil discussion on whether or not violent rhetoric is a problem. Who cares whether or not it was connected to this incident, the question is: Is violent rhetoric necessary? And this question should be answered by both parties. Unfortunately all people want to do is play the "gotcha" game instead of actually making a change and trying to make the US a better place. So if you dont think its natural that people are going to want to have a conversation about violent rhetoric, after a violent act, than you need to GMFAB. Itd be like saying that after 9/11 it isnt natural to talk about terrorism. Its a violent act, the target of which was a politician. If you do not see the connection between an assassination attempt and thinking about violent rhetoric, then there is nothing more to say. Certainly people have taken it to far, people have jumped to conclusions, and that is wrong. But nothing is going to every be accomplished if both sides keep digging into their position and are absolutely unwilling to try and have civil discourse. The saddest part is the idea that this is either a left or right phenomenon instead of the truth, both sides use whatever they can for political gain. How many here really think violent rhetoric is necessary in the US? Do we really need to be suggesting to citizens that they should come to public places with guns as a show of force? Here are articles about an Arizona rally from 2009, it shows that this was a concern. That allowing people to openly carry assault rifles to rallys was a concern. http://www.examiner.com/religion-culture-i...litical-rallies http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/po...cs-white_house/ Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented. Because in AZ it is just to easy to openly walk in public with an assault rifle and target innocent people. I understand your right to protect yourself, but do you really need an ak-47 at a public rally where there are going to be police? Is it really like to protect you? Or has it started to get to the point where you are actually endangering other peoples safety. Because even if you had to protect yourself with an ak-47, in an environment with a large amount of people it is very likely an innocent will get hurt. How are these not discussions that we should be having? Unfortunately for Republicans or the right or whatever label you want to give them, they were the most openly supportive about bringing weapons to rallies. A person did and it ended horrifically, you are going to get some blowback. Just like I would expect that had Democrats prior to 9/11 been saying that they should allow more box cutters on planes to get blow back. What you say has consequences. It does matter whether it was connected because we have moronic politicians who want to be caught in the public wave of outrage over this incident to change law.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) You're stereotyping all dems in this very post. I intended to do so. That's your guys' M.O., but apparently not when it involves a hated republican.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Go back to page 1 of this thread and start looking for my first post. Ironically you are stereotyping me based on the general reaction from partisan Democrats on the issue. But, really, I was just point out that it was a bad analogy because it doesn't make much sense. We're not talking about a large group of people and assigning characteristics to individuals based on the group but individuals and their actions. I don't think I've ever pointed out YOU specifically. I've always talked about those people who rushed to conclusions without knowing any of the details.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) And that is also part of the problem. One party's behavior is justified based on the wrong behavior of the other in the past or on another issue. And it just keeps spiraling downward as one manages to just barely one-up the level of deceit in the past instance, and the cycle continues. It's always "You guys" did this, therefore, this evil and deceitful thing we are doing now, is justified. Why can't someone just do what is right and honorable, for the sake of it being so, ever? I get the point, but in this case I'm specifically calling out the dems for not doing what they typically do, which is to cry about how people rush to improper conclusions without knowing any of the facts.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) I agree with this 100%. But this is happening on both sides. Just as sickening as the liberals connecting some imaginary dots here that are all a matter of a sad coincidence, the incredulous outrage from the right is just as sickening to me. The right should just refuse to even dignify these attacks with a response, other than to simply point out how ridiculous it is. Instead, they've gone just as far as the left, with their fake outrage, for fear of losing face here. Sad, sick, pathetic. So just sit back and be attacked and called nasty things? I have no doubt there's politicizing on both sides. But I think it's unfair to say it's equally as bad. There was 2 days of backlash against basically one person over this, without any evidence that she was linked in anyway. It started mere minutes after the attack for no other reason than to s*** on her and eventually the Repubs even more. I guess point me to some none-Rush/Beck talking head who is playing a huge victim card or going over the top about this. The majority of it is on one side. I don't think it's fake outrage, I think it's legitimate outrage for being fingered as the cause of this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) But it makes no sense. It's not a stereotype or any sort of generalization. It's looking at a map by Palin with Giffords name in crosshairs and Giffords being shot in the head. You can argue against his conclusions here, but your lame attack on liberals caring about minorities doesn't make any sense. Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part? Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything." That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith. Of course it is...you crack me up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) That's not stereotyping. I'm making an analogy, not a definition.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) Is palin a race? I was aiming more at the "oh it must be that awful violent rhetoric," not specifically her

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) Perhaps you need to look up the word stereotyping. You're taking a few general characteristics of the situation and painting a pretty broad brush to come to your conclusion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs? Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything. bingo, agree 100%

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened. Time line: - Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names - One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence - That same person gets shot in the head Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature. In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) No one claims that. Science is inductive, not deductive, anyway. Asimov -- The Relativity of Wrong All scientific knowledge and truths are provisional. There may have been some more bombastic statements in the late 19th century, but the scientific community as a whole has recognized the universe is a whole lot weirder than we ever expected since then. Tempering scientific hypotheses and conclusions based on research and data because of public ignorance sounds like a pretty terrible idea. It sounds like a call for better science education. You say this but don't preach it, and that's the problem. You throw out theories as absolute truth, paint the argument as if it's absolute fact, and then expect people to just accept it without question. That's not ignorance, that's just recognizing that despite all that we have, we don't know/haven't uncovered every conceivable piece of information about how the world works. You guys are claiming that all non-human factors have been explored, assuming that what we know is all that we could ever know about how the world works.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Wasn't it kind of a "rah rah go country we can recover!" pep rally? edit: I'm just asking, I didn't watch. Sort of. There were parts like that, and I think the applause was appropriate. But it also tended to be like a state of the union address where random applause broke out where it wasn't needed and/or simply inappropriate.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) Political pep rally? I didn't hear anything about policies, strategy, or politics in general. you don't think all the clapping/cheering was similar to that kind of setting?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) I appreciate the offer Balta, but I'm just not scientifically talented enough to understand it thoroughly. Same here, but from an outsiders perspective, all I hear from Balta and the like is "we know with near certainty how every mechanism of Earth works, and from that starting point we can deduce that humans are the cause of 100% or close to 100% of the problem." I think the first statement is laughable.That's not a bury your head in the sand position either. Balta, SS - you guys come from this attitude like you are all knowing, when in fact history has shown that scientific knowledge is rarely, if ever, all knowing on a given topic. Why can't you temper your hypothesis a little? Don't you think that would help your cause for the average American who doesn't understand the science of what's going on, but can clearly recall periods that were warmer/colder and thus don't believe what you're preaching?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) All the bball highlights are from before these kids were born. Welcome to IU basketball everybody!