Texsox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) Interesting viewpoint given your opinions on guns and how everyone with them is a menace to society capable of killing. Setting aside the obvious baiting aspect, this is a very good question. I believe one of the categories we should treat as a distinct group are those jobs where you are responsible for other people's lives. I am not certain the connection between guns and depression is.

I forgot my log in and the reset keeps referring back to my original Yahoo account. Can someone post the standings. I want to know if I have hit last yet.

Even simpler I believe the university's process was legally fine. I also believe that process may have resulted in a decision that violates the student's rights. Just like some same sex marriage laws were passed in a legally acceptable way but the outcome were later ruled unconstitutional. No one says the process was bad, just the result. Because we sometimes write unconstitutional laws we don't demand to change the way we write laws.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) you really do not know what due process means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process now, the school admin arbitrarily took it upon themselves in dealing, rather harshly with the situation, thereby creating, what i would assume be a huge civil actions. that admin, while trying to do good, screwed the pooch. those students, i do not care for what reasons, have rights, which the school admin did not follow. i am sure they school board will deal with that at a later time. You don't really understand my question. What is the process for a student to be expelled? You keep saying they have rights. I agree. Their current right is now a civil matter with the court system. Students get expelled for grades, there is a process that is followed. Students get expelled for other actions on campus, a process is followed. What right do you believe the students have in this case before being expelled? Each university establishes the process for their school to expel students. Arbitrary? I assume then that you know the process that is established at that university, could you please let us know what it is? Depending on the infraction at my university the matter is referred to either a faculty committee, Dean of the College (if appropriate), Academic Dean, or in extraordinary circumstances, to the University President. Having the issue decided by the president doesn't violate any of their rights. His decision may have been wrong, even illegal, but again, the process the university used did not. Do you believe there is some other process that every public university student is legally entitled to and what is that? Do they have to assemble six tenured faculty members? Call a special meeting of the board? Bring in a federal judge before expelling anyone? The due process that is now available to the students is a civil matter where they may sue the school for readmission. But any court action happens after, not before the expulsion. The process at a university to expel someone doesn't need to include a trail. Now if you want to change the discussion to did the school violated the student's rights and unfairly expelled them, I believe the kids have a better than average chance to win. But the process at the school is fine. Someone has to make the decision at the school. If the decision made violates a student's rights, then the student has a legal avenue. But I don't see anywhere in the decision making process violated any of the students rights. Laws get established that are later overturned on constitutional grounds, courts make decisions that are later over turned. The law or action being judged may violate someone's rights, but the process to pass the law or the prior court case isn't the process. And the process the university used does not as well.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:58 AM) Maybe they need to allow air marshals to have a deadbolt release on the cockpit door for emergencies. Then in theory the air marshal could be forced to allow in a terrorist. I'm not certain what a flight attendant may have done besides getting killed faster by a pilot wishing harm on the aircraft. I realize this could be taken in a manner I did not intend. What I mean is the pilot would just shoot/stab/strangle the flight attendant before they could unlock the door.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police. those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice. What due process has been established to expel someone from a university? Are you suggesting it becomes a civil matter for a court to decide? If not the courts, then it would be the university. What law established who at the university judges the case?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) Constitutional rights trump the rights of public universities to operate as they wish. It's really that simple. A university can't decide to exclude blacks, women, etc just because their local rules say they can. Not sure what you're missing here. I completely agree with your points. Schools expel students all the time and it is not a civil matter in court. So any due process does not require any court involvement. So again I ask, who sets the due process for the University of Oklahoma? As long as the process they select protects the constitutional rights of the student it is ok. What law would be broken if the due process is a decision by the university president? Who at the university should make the decision? The school would not be adjudicating this in a court room initially. Legally I'm not certain if there is a difference in a due process of a faculty committee, school board hearing, or school president hearing before action. These are not the first people to ever be expelled from a public university, there should be prior law to establish that covers this. But to suggest that this should follow a due process similar to our court system isn't necessary. Constitutional rights of speech are not you can say anything, anytime, and anyplace without penalty. What due process do you think is legally required in expelling a student from a university?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) They also have the right to challenge that ruling in court and allow a court to judge those actions. The university as a state-organized institution will have some bylaws written into their rules by the state and the exact text of those rules will outline whether or not the university has that ability. That is the due process they would have access to. I agree. Isn't that what I have been saying?

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police. those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice. What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution.

Again, who defines the due process? What if the due process is the President has final decision? Or a committee of three reviews the available information and makes a decision? I imagine there is an appeal process in place that would be available to the student. Is that process enough? Placing the burden on the students to appeal? Seems like an efficient way to manage these situations. I do not believe they have a legal right to attend that university. If they did then the university would not be able to set any standards for admission.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) "Zero tolerance" policies are often dumb as well. It's not like your choices are zero tolerance or allowing public university administrators to kick people out without due process over private speech. You are correct. Who defines "due process"? Remember we are beginning with a process that excludes certain individuals from this public university. The university is not a public square that anyone can enter. If these guys had been employees of a company and fired over the behavior what would the "due process" be? They are not being prosecuted and thrown in jail, the due process for a legal procedure. There have been no efforts by the university to prosecute them in a court of law. I'm not certain what due process you are creating here. And I'm not certain how you are deciding this is private speech or why you are drawing a distinction.

It seems that during every season there is a time when you just need to get lucky. Throw all the names in a hat, pull one out, and the odds feel about the same of getting a quality start out of them. After expansion every roster is thin in spots, usually pitching.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 06:17 PM) Giving school administrators that much power would be absolutely terrible. And you'd still need to get a chant said in a private event which was recorded and distributed without the chanters knowledge as reaching public incitement, educational disruption etc. There are tenured professors at schools who say things approximately as terrible and still receive tenure protections. And when we take away power from school administrators we have to accept situations like second grade students who bring a butter knife to school being arrested, an Eagle Scout with a hatchet locked in his car trunk being expelled from school, etc.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 06:14 PM) Something breaking out and you happening to be there isn't the same as getting all excited to go see that negro lynching or any other public execution. Being more interested in filming that doing anything to stop the violence seems like a clear vote for what is more important in our society. How about a good hockey fight to fire up the crowd? Corner seats at car races sell out first. When boxing isn't enough we increase the potential violence to sell tickets. Video games continue to become more and more violent. If the violence doesn't matter than we wouldn't need to continue to increase the carnage to keep people interested. The same level of movie violence that was shocking in the 1950s is really lame by today's standards. The best explanation I can think of is we are much more accepting of these violent acts in our entertainment today than two generations ago. Entertainment both reflects and reinforces what is happening in society. We've done a nice job of reducing some forms of violence and making them something we talk about and no longer accept. Child physical and psychological abuse, sexual assaults against men and women, spousal abuse, racially motivated attacks . . . yet there are other areas we still need to look at.

That is great news. Also, I basically cringe at every variation on left handed with southpaw being the worst.

I loved working the door at a club.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Yes. But they do not now. I'm not 100% with you on that point. ' If a violent fight breaks out most people pull out their cell phones to . . . A. Call police B. Take pics for Instagram C. Video for Vine D. Document the carnage

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous. Excellent points. I agree it is "clearly superior", "we do not do that now", and it "clearly (is) outside the norms of this country". So are we going to continue and decided that is would be superior to also have the same reaction to people using any violent depictions against (for example) women? I believe we will agree that we've decided that racially charged violence is bad. Perhaps we will expand that In the arena of lynching we have moved that, over time, into the unacceptable zone. What else should be there?

Which is a great point I was hoping someone would mention. Is the media we use important to the actual theme? Is passive entertainment on an issue less of a visceral experience than being immersed and active? We are entertained by death. Public executions draw large crowds.

Another thought. Look around the back of your unit and see if there is a second input you could tap into. Some of the older stuff allowed for a iPod to be mounted elsewhere like a glovebox.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) I definitely need to get it fixed or fix it myself. I am certain it is AUX input as it's visibly damaged and I've tried different devices/cords. Unfortunately the AUX module is not one that pops right out. I would have to take the whole radio out. Do you think any shop would work on this? If it is integral to the head unit, I'd be looking at http://www.crutchfield.com/ picking one out and installing it myself. Their on line technicians and installation guides are top notch. It will probably be cheaper to replace than repairing. Crutchfield is where all the cool kids go for cheap prices on quality gear. If you want to try pull the unit and attempt to take it apart. There may be a youtube video showing how,

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 04:28 PM) Literally no one is saying this, but I am more concerned with songs/movies/whatever talking favorably about white supremacy than with the awful, deplorable violence that noted degenerate Johnny cash sang about. I am not saying that anyone besides myself is saying this, It is a question I am proposing. Why is it OK to celebrate random acts of violence and murder against men, women, and children for entertainment? If we agree that the chanting exposed their character as racist, what does it say about the character of people who simulate killing for fun? How do we immediately know these kids are guilty and the frat boys playing a video game are OK? Both are being entertained by simulating murder and terror. Why do we find murder so much fun?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 02:00 PM) Who cares, you are deflecting blame. A chant is not entertainment. People don't start up chants for fun, they listen to music, video games, etc. One has nothing to do with the other. You are just performing a deflection of blame. There is a culture at issue here, and it isn't violent video games. I guess I am not explaining my point correctly. I place the blame directly on the kids. Let me try this again. They got caught by chanting. I believe they also should be in trouble for playing any entertainment with that theme. THEY are clearly wrong no matter the entertainment venue. Do we agree that a racists theme game (if it existed) would be wrong also? Now, if we agree that a racists themed video game would be wrong, we have now agreed that there are potentially themes that would be wrong on a video game. Next I propose that random acts of killing, no matter the motivation, in video games are potentially bad. The culture supports random acts of violence against innocent people. We can all agree that the racist killing of black people is wrong. Buy why is it OK to randomly kill blacks, whites, women, children, in video games? Or maybe this way. They are obviously wrong for celebrating the potential lynching of a black person. Why isn't it also wrong to celebrate the random killing of another person?

Arresting someone isn't always easy. I hope the solution is somewhere fair to everyone. Perhaps some citizens training on placing your hands on top of your head and following directions combined with don't abuse the citizens for the police. I would assume that once the decision is made to cuff someone each second after that becomes more stressful for the officers. I don't see much value in standing there arguing with someone for five minutes to put the cuffs on.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 10:16 AM) It's not the first time we've helped her out. We actually had temporary custody of her daughter for about a year a couple of years ago, so we are pretty close. I think we can get everything worked out. It's kinda of shocking to see how someone can get stuck in a downward cycle with almost no way out. It is really difficult to pull yourself up today. The classic strategy of get a job and work hard is nice, but one car failure, one illness, one financial misstep and years of gains collapse.