Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) They also wouldn't have tolerated a black person going to the same bathroom as a white person. Frankly, I don't give a s*** what someone from 1950 would think. We're not beholden to false nostalgia about a golden era of America that never existed. lol, and there's the problem right there.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) But if everyone owned guns we'd all be safer. I'd feel a whole lot safer. I dunno that anyone has argued it could decrease crime in the short term though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html I expect that within 2 months the number of crimes involving handguns will increase 10000 percent. (and apologies if there's already a gun control thread. the search function on the site doesn't work for me, so if someone can find it and add this to the end that'd be fine with me)

Senator Byrd, the primary argument for term limits. RIP.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) First of all...I'm impressed that you can include firing 200k teachers as "pointless government jobs". Secondly...if we can't keep printing more money, why do bond yields and inflation rates keep dropping? And third...hypothetically, let's say we follow your path and fiscally retrench and try to rebalance budgets. Where do the jobs come from in your case? Businesses right now have enough cash to expand hiring if it is a good business decision, but none of them are doing so, because there's no demand for their products. $8 trillion or so in consumer wealth was eliminated by the housing bubble. ON top of that, the average american hasn't gotten a raise in a decade, and unemployment has more than doubled. Your fiscal retrenchment proposal has an even worse problem with "where will the other jobs come from". I'm sure it has more to do with them being worried about the potential increase in taxes they'll have to contend with in the coming years.

Despite the "craziness," I think he has a point. There IS a big shift in our way of thinking, and it's not based on party. It's been going on for decades. I'm pretty certain that the people of the United States in say 1950 would not have tolerated a President saying that we don't need to be the leader of the world or that the rich have the responsibility to give some of their earnings to people less fortunate.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) Stephen A. Smith reporting that Lebron and Bosh are headed to Miami. http://twitter.com/stephenasmith Oh what a fun time this week will be. He's just using the LBJ soap opera to plug his new fox sports radio show.

didn't hinrich come off the bench a lot? wouldn't that change those numbers?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Except insurance companies do not want to pump more money into facilities and doctors, they want lower and lower costs, fewer and fewer treatments. That is where their profit comes from. Ok, but hospitals try to maximize their own profit by spending money to update facilities and employ the best doctors right? So, the more a hospital makes, the more it re-invests into specialty practices (and overall, better doctors) to attract the most customers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) Sadly though, it doesn't work anywhere close to that way. Um, based on what? The best hospitals in Chicago are the ones with the most money. They attract the best doctors and specialists because they have the best facilities. That's exactly how it works. If you have a serious health problem your first choice isn't Stroger.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) How does a hospital and insurance company trying to make a profit improve your health care? more money --> better facilities and programs --> easier to attract better doctors and more specialists --> you recieve better and more sophisticated health care.

anyone else been reading the Tim Donaghy posts over at Deadspin? Pretty good stuff. Really makes me hate the NBA even more. http://deadspin.com/5567321/tim-donaghy-on...ne=true&s=i

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) It was over a lack of representation and some sort of say in Parliament. It was about being told to do something and not having a say in their own governance. Tea partiers can't make the same complaint unless they only like democracy when their team wins. And you cannot ignore the legitimacy of the motivation of the movements and pretend that they're equal. Read your history books and look beyond the fluffy language. They had representation. They had British representatives (keep in mind, colonists were British too...) in the colonies that represented them in Parliament. It was taxes man. People didn't like having to pay for every item they used simply because a government across the pond told them to. But I've said my peace on both topics. I'm not wasting a day and 7 pages arguing over distinctions that IMO don't have relevance to my point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) They didn't start a war over tea or over having high tax rates. I think that's something the tea party people miss. That's exactly why they started the war. The colonists were tired of being nickle and dimed for nearly everything. Tea, paper, stamps, etc., despite the fact that Britian was forced to raise taxes because they had lost so much protecting the colonies from the French and Indians. The people didn't like it, they gathered up, Britian screwed up by bringing in a large military precense in Boston, which just pissed of the locals more, and eventually events occurred, like the boston massacre, which made everything spill over. It was ALL about being told to do something by a government they didn't agree with. My whole point is that the liberal movement that started 50 years ago was an anti-establishment, "we don't agree with the way things are going" movement. Distinguish all you like about the severity of the specific issues, but the point remains that that's what it was. That's all the tea party is doing today. They're pissed that their government is forcing them to pay for things that they don't want to pay for, that the government is leading them into a potentially dangerous future. You all laugh and think they're crazy, which is exactly what the prior generations thought of the progressive movement. Edit: and actually, my original point was that you still have f***ing retards on both sides that take these issues so damn seriously that they advocate violence over it. Tea baggers are just as guilty of that has liberals, but currently no one wants to admit that. It's easier just to say "Palin" and "Tea Party."

I specifically said they're not on the same level, but it's the same idea. Government forcing you to do something you don't agree with. s***, let's use the best example, tax on tea. What a great and wonderous thing that was. We started a war over it (among other taxes levied to pay for a war of protection). Tens of thousands died. We don't call those people crazy and out of touch, we call them revolutionaries. You people just don't agree with the message, so of course you're not going to disagree with the people making the message.

So, might as well go crazy here, let's assume Lebron and Bosh are coming here. What does that mean? We talking instant championship contender? A year or two to gel? Will we be able to compete with an aging Boston, or Orlando? What about the Suns/Lakers? On paper I think we'd clearly be the best, but you gotta see how they all play together (and where Paul might end up). And what does this do for Rose's career? Is he going to become overshadowed and lose out on all star selections? Or will this propel him further by taking a lot of the pressure of him to carry the team?

wasn't WWW saying that Calipari would be leaving Kentucky to coach Lebron? Does he always tell the truth? Could this just be a play to get some other organization to give up something?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) Really? You think the problem with Vietnam was the process that got us there, and not the end result? Specifically, you think the problem was that the government was being too aggressive in pushing the war, and not the fact that 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese died? My point is that the liberal riots and sit-ins were in opposition to the government getting us into a war (and forcing individuals to go to a war) they didn't believe in (and which resulted in tens of thousands dying). How's that any different than people complaining about how the government just passed more legislation which is forcing them to pay for other people's heathlcare? It's not on the same level, but it's the same type of government intrusion. In the end we're talking about a group of people pissed off about what their government is doing. Back in the day those riots shut down schools and business and sometimes broke out into violence. Yet it was all in the name of a progressive movement, so it's looked upon as a GOOD thing. Today, people are doing the same thing, but they're "crazy." How does that work?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:22 AM) I believe he's talking about efficacy of their regulations, ie how well it will work, not that nobody understands the bill they wrote. Then he should have said how WELL it will work, not just how it will work. And I still have zero faith in these morons. They're being educated by lobbyists, they propose and sign legislation they don't fully understand or read. I completely agree that there needs to be a change in the financial system, but I guarantee you no matter who is proposing/signing the bill it's not done for the benefit of you and me.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) The left in the 60's and 70's weren't taking over colleges and government offices becuase their taxes were high or they were mad about government getting invloved in healthcare. They were mad because there was a war going on that was killing millions of people. They were mad because people in this country weren't allowed in restaurants and public bathrooms because of the color of their skin. To compare the two movements isn't fair. Specifically I'm talking about the Berkeley rights which were started because of 'Nam. It was government telling people they had to go to war, kinda like the government telling people they have to pay for other people's healthcare. It's not a direct comparison, but in general it's the exact same. It's government telling people to do something they don't feel they need to do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) I'm pretty sure you're taking that out of context. God I wish I were, but I'm not. Read the article.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) I don't think all tea party members are bomb throwing racists, but I think it's funny that right wing protesters are now outraged at how they are being demonized. After years of the right attacking left wing protesters in every way imaginable. Start to get mad when your leaders are targeted for assassination or the FBI starts a counter intelligence program to disrupt your groups. I think its fair to call out the absurdity of both sides acting as if what their people do is fine, but what other people do isn't fine. For the last year we've heard nothing but how the "crazy" "racist" teabaggers are ruining the country, seemingly ignoring the fact that the left has been doing the same s*** for years. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago - it cracks me up that "tea baggers" are essentially the new hippies, fighting against government interference. The left argues that's because the tea baggers are crazy and out of control. I think the conservatives in the 60's and 70's would have said the same thing. Just imagine if tea baggers took over an entire college (or more likely, a government office), requiring riot police and the like. You think the left would be ok with that since they're just expressing their dislike for the government?

Apparently the sweeping financial legislation is nearing completion. This makes me extremely confident that it will be a success: "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." Sen. Dodd. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2500675_pf.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) You say that as though it'd be a bad thing if we could get ourselves off of it. We can't, so lets stop living that dream. So I assume most here would find the argument that the ban on near-shore drilling, whic is forcing oil companies to venture out into deeper, more complex drilling areas (with inherently more difficult and complex repairs if anything were to go wrong), is not a good one?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 05:25 PM) You don't remember that long argument we had in here about death threats over Congressmen over the health care voting? (And then there was Eric Cantor blatantly making s*** up) So? That's proving my point. There are f***ed up people on both sides. It's not just "tea baggers."