Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Is there anything that Conservatives would care enough about to go downtown and protest? I'm sure there are some things. Being called a nappy headed ho isn't one of them... In general I think the right has a 'who cares' attitude with a lot of this politically correct crap. You say things you don't mean, I say things I don't mean, it shouldn't have been said but whatever, lets move on. The thing that cracks me up the most is the double standard that these ubber-liberals follow. How are their actions any different from conservatives who are religious wacko's yelling about gays burning in hell? You say one stupid comment and you're burning in hell as a racist, sexist pig. You screw a guy in the ass and you're burning in hell as a homo. Don't you have a right to say what you want? Don't you have a right to sleep with who you want? They're both f*cked in the head. The reason the left nut-jobs get their opinions justified is their status as celebrities.

hmm, my federal income tax law book is wrong...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 09:05 PM) I can confirm this, I've done it myself. Company stock purchased via ESPP like that you pay taxes on them like they are income, if you sell within 2 years. After that, its capital gains, at that rate only. Your income tax rate depends on your income. The income tax could really bite you in the rear if you sell early. Careful also of cost basis. Was the LAST purchase less than 2 years ago, or all at once at some point? If it was periodic purchase, some of the purchases may have come longer ago. Look into your trade dates. You sure it's two years? I thought it was only one?

This is a pretty good list so far. My addition would be the esurance.com commercials, the cartoon with the guy and the girl. In every commercial they're in a different action sequence, but they NEVER talk about what they're doing. It's like: "Esurance is the fastest and easiest way to buy insurance and you can do it online" - que the huge monster, scantily clad chick jumps 500 ft in the air and blows up Nashville. Every time I just stare and think "what are they trying to sell?!" "It's just like, it's just like, a mini.....mall!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiHaqCFQLxA...ted&search=

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) You cant. The only extremely troubled people that are well known are usually locked up already somewhere. Mental illness is something we just have to deal with, its old as time. From serial killers in the old country to school shooters now, some people are just f-in crazy I would agree, but at the same time in this particular instance, the guy should not have been given the opportunity to act. He had a series of events that pointed to something like this. Obviously who knows how many people are currently diagnosed or committed to a mental health facility that will eventually act on it (probably a small, small number) but you could at least keep them unarmed. Soxy- I understand what you're saying but we're limiting it to severe cases. Again, just because it's difficult to define 'severe' doesn't mean it can't be done. There are fine lines in a lot of the law but we still make that determination. We'd have to research and debate what that line is, but it can be found. I just feel like if you've gotten to that degree, where you've had someone put a judgement against you saying you're a danger to yourself, we're you've been ordered to a mental health facility, those types of serious mental illness problems should somehow be documented and available to gun shop owners to keep the guns away from them. As for fear of any career problems down the road, are these people really going to eventually run a Fortune 500 company? Or are they going to be cleaning the toilets at the state rest stop? I don't think that's going to be a major problem at all.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) What is the real Sawyer? And Sawyer better not die, he's right behind Sayid as my favorite Character (with Jack being a close 3rd). Highlight below if you want to know about the 'real' Sawyer. It's not a spoiler persay, if you followed the clues it points to a character with a link between Sawyer and Locke. At the age of eight, Sawyers' parents were swindled out of their life savings by a man known as Sawyer, who slept with James' mother. James ultimately witnessed his father murder his mother, and finally turn the gun on himself in despair. James wrote a letter to the con man, hoping to deliver it to him personally. All clues point to this con man being Anthony Cooper/Adam Seward, aka Locke's Dad. Taken from LostPedia.com: "Astute fans have noted that the names "Anthony Cooper, Adam Seward" is an anagram for "Sawyer, the con man, a poor dad." It is suspected that Cooper has some connection to Sawyer (and the original Sawyer), since the two are con-men. Also, there was mention that Sawyer had been to Tallahassee himself, and Cooper is referred to as "The Man From Tallahassee". "

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) And that's the big reason I am against that kind of profiling. It would really make things worse. People with mental illness couldn't get jobs, would lose health care, their disability would go untreated. Imagine that trainwreck. All these arguments can be used to say that criminal records should be kept private, but they aren't. Of course the retort is well, you don't have a choice with mental illness and you do with committing a crime. Which brings me back to my original post on this thread which is - why are we looking for a reason that people like this act they way they do. It's all about how their brain is wired, not about their environment. Coincidentally, it didn't take long for there to be a 'look it's violent movies that did it' story: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261563,00.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 01:46 PM) I think this piece from a few years ago looking at the psychological profiles of the Columbine shooters adds something to this discussion. Yikes.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 01:39 PM) How would you define "severe mental issues"? Being suicidal as a teenager? Having at least one psychotic break? Having parents with significant mental issues (as some of these traits seem highly heritable)? Having sought therapy? Having been referred to therapy? Do you think there is a difference between people who have had issues with depression and suicide as teenagers and those who struggled with it as an adult? Or do you think there is a difference between someone who is suicidal and someone who is homicidal? And, I think this is key here: what percentage of people that commit these sort of mass atrocities actually have a paper trail of mental illness behind them? I am willing to bet it's very few. And I really disagree with you that having a mental illness is on par with committing a crime. I'm not saying it would be easy, but a starting point would be anyone who's been deemed a harm to themselves. I think once you get into the issue you can see a difference between someone who needs a little help versus someone who needs a lot of help dealing with their issues. Another one might be if you have to take X amount of Y medicine versus simply talking it out with someone. Again though, just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. And i'm not sure about the timing. We'd have to find a study that determined how many people get over their suicidal tendencies as teenagers versus those people that deal with it throughout their lives. My guess is that if its in the early teens you probably can get over it. Getting into the later teens/college years it's probably going to stick with you. But that's just a guess. As to comparing mental illness to committing a crime, I'm just saying the level of private information should be the same, not the severity. If you're a threat to society, you're a threat to society. It doesn't matter that in one instance your brain works fine but your judgement doesn't, or if you're brain doesn't work as it should and your judgement doesn't either. In both instances that information is key and could become imporant. It shouldn't be kept private for fear of what, embarassment?

I was just too lazy to post. I thought it was good but it's tough to compare to some of the 'wow' episodes of the past few weeks. I liked how the showed Desmonds flashes so you could see how they worked. I liked the beginning where Charlie died (too bad that couldn't have been real). I really liked Sawyer this episode, his line about making a mixed tape was great. BTW I read in the RedEye this morn: According to tvguide.com, at least five characters will die on the ABC show in May. Executive producer Carlton Cuse also told the site that during the two-hour season finale on May 22, Jack and Locke will battle. Their showdown will have "an extremely significant outcome for the future of the castaways," he said. In two weeks the episode summary is that Locke leaves the Others and grabs Sawyer to deal with a problem that's altered both of their lives. (the real sawyer)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Its really easy to say that, its much harder to actually put that into practice. To be honest this pretty much would have just taken the consititution and wiped your ass with it. First of all the spectrum of "any mental health issue" is so huge, there would be no consititutional way of deciding who is fit or not to own a gun. Second would be the fact that it would be difficult to keep a persons medical records private in the scenario you are painting. I guarentee you that statistically you know people who would be labeled as having "mental health issues" who function just fine in everyday society, and you have no clue about. Also realize that anyone who has a mental health issue, doesn't make them crazy. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. What is pornography? What is discrimination? Difficult questions yet we still have legislation covering those hard-to-define issues. Here's an easy one: If you've ever been deemed by a magistrate or judge to be a harm to yourself, you have mental issues sufficient to warrant never, ever getting a gun. I think you're right that mental issues should be distinct from insanity. But severe mental issues, while a touchy subject, should be no different than criminal records. If gun shops can access those, they should be able to access your mental medical records. They wouldn't be running around asking for records to see who might have an STD or AIDS or something else that can be humiliating and life-altering if it became public knowledge. Administratvely it could be as easy as the gun shop sending a form into some state office where they simply reply 'yes' or 'no' to whether they should get a gun. No questions asked, no information provided, lives possibly saved.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) I can't since I'm vegan. There's a shocker

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) 2 times the length of the chunnel Cool idea, but you couldn't pay me enough money to drive 64 miles in a tunnel.

I don't see what the point is of figuring out what started this. It's obvious the kid was nuts - he was pyschopath who snapped. Why does there need to be a reason, be it music, video games, movies, or our culture? We diagnose crazies and argue that it's not their fault because some wires in their brain connected the wrong way or they suffer from some sort of chemical imbalance. But when it comes to crazy people acting out there always has to be some outside influence that caused it, especially when dealing with younger people. The kid missed the boat on normal development. It obviously wasn't a result of his environment as his sister grew up to be a Princeton grad with an Economics degree (who is now working for the State Dept on rebuilding Iraq). He should have been put into an asylum a long time ago. He should never have been allowed to attend a public university (or more importantly, STAY at a public university after being labeled a harm to himself) and he definitely should not have been given the opportunity to purchase a gun. The ONE gun related law I'd like to see change would be a background check on any mental health issue. Crazy people should not have guns.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) Guns are made to kill whether it be an animal or a person. That is its sole purpose. I see absolutely no need for them aside from law enforcement or armed services. Alcohol is not created to kill anything although people who abuse it can unintentionally cause death. What's the difference? Your issue is that guns cause 'blood baths.' Well, with alcohol, more people die per year in similiar baths. So why is that loss acceptable?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) Hunting isn't the primary issue. And yes, these things do and have happened in the UK, Australia, etc. Maybe not this exact example, but they still happen. You cannot remove guns from the equation - its not possible. So why on earth would you take them away only from those who obtain them legally? And why doesn't anyone talk about alcohol?? We know, for a fact, that hundreds and hundreds will die every year, solely because of alochol. Yet we don't have this crazy uproar about how we need to ban alcohol. Crazy things happen once every few years that involve guns and the country goes crazy. Why do we accept terrible tragedies in some instances but not in others? Is the opportunity cost of giving up alcohol really that great?

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/17/ru...into-book-deal/ Just remember the whole Imus thing was about racism, not opportunism.... where's the 'i'm puking' emoticon?

What does this guy believe? I have not heard of him before.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) I really wish some of this anger about guns would be directed at people driving drunk or otherwise unsafely, which kills hundreds of times more people per year than guns. Or at the rise of violence generally in American society - the fact that we seem to be OK with grotesque violence on TV and in movies, but god forbid a naked breast shows up. Completely agree.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) I think my main point is that there are different levels of gun control that are appropriate for different situations. Simple example. Please, if you will...I would like for one person here to tell me that the city of Los Angeles allowing people to carry concealed weapons legally would make this city a safer place. Probably ditto New York. There are some places where increasing the number of guns or putting them on the streets is just not going to do anything but get a lot more people killed. I think that most businesses and most universities are similar places...I just don't want the people walking past me on campus to be carrying unless they're wearing security shirts. I don't know that it'll be safer in terms of the general crime statistics, but it certainly wouldn't make it worse. But making it safer isn't the point. It's not something that should be banned unless it's doing more harm than good. At this point all statistics point to it having a positive change or no change at all in the crime rate. And it's not going to stop gang violence with guns. It's going to protect responsible individuals who would have to go through a long process of background checks, safety courses, etc. You're not going to just hand out guns to people and say 'here's a gun, run amok'

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 01:39 PM) We should all be able to bring a concealed gun anywhere we want to to (school, church, work, Sox game, etc) because you never know when a crazed gunman might go postal. In fact we should all carry a fire extinguisher, snake anti-venom, automated defibrillator, and a gas mask on us at all times as well because you never know if you'll be trapped in a fire, bit by a snake, witness a heart attack, or be attacked by mustard gas. Ha, isn't it funny though that you can, if you wanted, do all of those things?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) Well, there's always the issue of how much you're willing to risk to prevent the worst case scenario. I'll give you an example. There's a remote chance an asteroid could strike the earth this year. It's not exactly likely, but it's not zero. What is the appropriate response? Should we immediately begin digging gigantic caves and keeping a million people locked up in there every year for the rest of time because the chance isn't zero? You can only do so much to prevent an event like this. You can't confine everyone to their homes for the rest of time, you can't shut down every school or city in the country, and so on. Would arming people have helped? Possibly. But it's also possible that allowing people to carry in an environment like a school, especialy where people are untrained and things like alcohol could be involved, you'll wind up with more casualties due to the people carrying in the first place. And I'm not talking about just the event yesterday...if a lot of people were carrying and it wound up gradually piling up 30 bodies over the course of a year or two, it would get much less attention, but the casualties would still be there. There are probably some places where it would not be a terrible idea to allow people to carry concealed weapons. I think a college campus though, especially a large one, would be a terrible place for that. All good and true but the fact is there are states that allow concealed weapons right now. The fears you speak of have not happened. So why assume they would in other parts of the country? I'm failing to see the logic here. And really, crazy things happen all the time with police officers enforcing the laws. Bullets ricochet and hit unintended targets, police chases often end in collateral damage, etc etc. None of these were intended and all of these are considered acceptable loses in the name of enforcing the law. So whats the difference if there are a few occasions throughout the country where innocent people get hurt or killed?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) And now you believe they thought that you should be able to go into McDonalds with a concealed weapon? They envisioned a day with Atomic weapons, mega shopping malls, and thought, hey we better put something in here to allow everyone to have a weapon? You can't convince me that they could foresee today's environment. They could foresee the need for an Army against foreign invaders and would want a militia against them. They could foresee needing guns for food and probably from the native savages, and I'll even give you they thought you would need one to take up arms against a tyrannical US government. If their reasoning was to protect against government tyranny, what would they have written today? Citizens should be allowed weapons equal to whatever the military has? The reason I should be allowed to own a firearm is I am not a criminal and use it responsibly. I do not believe more guns in the hands of average citizens and readily available will make us less violent. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Criminals don't give a rip about penalties and gun violence. Gang bangers all ready live in a world where a rival gang could drive by and take them out. From the other issues you've posted about, I'm quite surprised you are an originalist/textualist. Your new nickname to me is Scalia.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 10:01 PM) I believe it is wrong to take my guns away because some people use them in crimes. Those people are criminals, I am not. I have never committed a crime with a gun or otherwise and should not be punished. Anymore than prohibition to end drunk driving. Bingo.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) Bush I and his administration wrote about why they weren't going in to Baghdad back in '91. They predicted that exactly what is happening now would happen. It would be a disaster. Just about every event in recent history, along with a knowledge of all of the regional conflicts and power struggles withing the country, pointed to a disaster and not sunshine and flowers. To expect that outcome was completely delusional. We knew the resistance wouldn't come from an organized army but from guerrilla fighters. It's f*cking war man, of course it's not all sunshine and flowers. They never came out and said 'hey everyone, we're going to war and guess what, no one will die! Nope, not a single soul. That's right, we're waging a war and can promise that not one person will lose their life, great right?' Just because YOU might have thought that doesn't mean the rest of the country did. So it's ok for normal citizens like yourself or SS or whoever to say that military professionals were wrong in their preperation from the war? Geez, I didn't know you had to be an expert at everything to have an opinion. I mean I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night but...