Texsox

You both realize how monumentally silly it is to argue about votes that were based on faulty information.

Too bad academics aren't able to adapt to the present conditions. I guess I thought more highly of them.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) I wish I was on the jury because she wouldn't be found insane. She'd be found convicted and she'd be giving up her life. Or there'd be a retrial cause I wouldn't budge. And that is one of the problems with the system. People on juries that don't even bother with the evidence at trial. Do you realize that people like you on juries destroy the very foundation of our justice system and one reason it is, to use your words, MAJORLY FLAWED!!! The basic, most fundamental underpinning, is that all defendants receive a fair trial from an unbiased jury. Innocent until proven guilty. Only then would allowing the government to kill someone come close to being morally fair.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) Tom Hanks could play him in the movie

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) HAHAHAHAHA You know what's hilarious? Ruining people's careers while still wasting a couple billion taxpayer dollars. After all, I might have to go back more than 3 posts to find you complaining about the government wasting money. But hey, it's wasted by this shutdown, who cares. How are careers ruined? The rest of academia can't adjust to delays, even whole years?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 07:58 PM) Really? Get one of those really great government jobs without being the daughter's step-sister's cousin of a connect politician. Oh, you mean because it's easier to get work in the private sector when you don't know anyone? About what I thought. Welcome to the real world, Tex. You don't get those awesome government jobs without being born into the royal family that is US politics...or being lucky enough to actually become a freiend of a family member. What percentage of the jobs are hired that way? Is it just federal, or state, and local also? There are millions and millions of people who work for government agencies in this country, from the lady who accepts your water bill at your city office, to school teachers, garbage workers, cops, soldiers, postal carriers, inspectors, Doctors, lawyers, accountants, researchers, translators, and there are enough relatives to cover all those positions. Of course nepotism and favoritism doesn't exist in the private sector? You are joking correct?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 12:32 AM) IT IS MAJORLY FLAWED in these cases. Fortunately if the MAJORLY FLAWED system fails, we can just exhume the body, revive them, and the mistakes are corrected.

That isn't quite accurate and we execute people all the time who do not fit any of the standard diagnoses of mental disease or defect. Three in Texas just this past couple weeks, which is why Texas is the safest state in the union, we execute the most killers. But if for example she does suffer from certain kinds of dementia, schizophrenia, etc. we do not execute them. And for the same reason we do not execute say an 8 year old who has not yet developed the capacity to understand their actions.

We don't execute the mentally ill in this country.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 07:19 PM) i think we can call this a success story for the regime, a lot of U.S. workers got jobs to work on it ("shovel" ready jobs). oh wait, it was almost entirely outsourced to India. nevermind. How did Romney get in charge?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) So I couldn't resist... The entire IPO document comes in at 754,890 characters, including spaces (which twitter does) meaning you would need 5393 tweets to put the entire IPO up. Being that you are a hard working private industry employee, why aren't you getting started?

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 09:49 AM) They don't have pensions and are not nearly paid as well as their government counterpart. Are you suggesting then that competent people accept jobs that pay less and do not offer pensions? Why do they do that if government jobs are so much better?

Interesting strategy here for the Dems. Despite Rush telling his listeners that they are close to victory and giving in would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", it seems that the shut down is hurting the GOP more than it is hurting the Dems. Although it is hurting everyone. Should Dems hold out for total victory, or try to give up the least while trying to be the party that compromised and re-opened the government? What's the end game here?

Nicely played. I laughed. Then cried when I realized my vote merely cancels his.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 10:46 AM) If Romney was president today... I doubt things would be any different. The ACA would be gone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) I think there's definitely a lot of historic outrage and debate over the decision to deploy the atomic bomb in wartime. Do more argue for the use of the atomic bombs in WW2 or chemical weapons? As you noted, there is debate over the use of atomic bombs in WW2. There is no debate on chemical weapons. We seek to destroy chemical weapons where we find them, but allow Christian countries to keep atomic weapons. Where is the logic in that?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 05:51 PM) Do you even know how the government operates? Like the basics (i.e., passing bills, etc.)? Not being flippant here, but I doubt many people (myself included) fully understand all the ramifications and differences between passing a budget, which hasn't happened in years, and funding through continuing resolutions. Then toss in the too many to track procedural options that seem to change based on the current situations, and you have events that I doubt many Americans, including the elected officials, can keep track of.

Slit the enemy's throat? Cool Kill twelve with an automatic weapon while helping your fellow soldiers to escape an ambush? Win a medal Kill sixteen with a "smart bomb"? Wow, look at our technology! Kill 200,000 with a couple atomic bombs? Hey, it saved lives! Chemical weapons? NOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!! Really? Why?

We won an eighth grade soccer game a couple years ago where the opposing team felt the officials were cheating to help my team. After the game, after they finished yelling obscenities at the officials, they walked off the field and onto their bus. I kept my guys on the pitch and we watched them leave while I explained that they lost because they were undisciplined. Every call against them was blamed on the refs. The kids could play the sloppiest, dirtiest, soccer and the coaches and parents would blame the officials. So the kids played dirty, sloppy, out of control soccer and we kicked their ass, by a goal, scored in the final minutes, on a penalty kick.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 01:12 AM) this is one thing on which we agree. Term limits will fix many of these issues If you won't have to answer to the voters next election time, who will you answer to?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop. What will stay constant? An incumbent has an opportunity to build up visibility and voters and donors will know him. If we have to elect someone new, who will you get to know? The candidates that the donors want you to know. So every term or two a select group of large donors will get together and pick who gets to run, the party and the donors will have all the power. Plus we already have term limits. Elections are held all the time. Vote the guy out and put in someone new. I'm philosophically opposed to taking away the voter's right to elect the candidate they want. If the voters believe that Jane Sixtermer is the best candidate for them why should they not be allowed to select her? The incentives cut both ways. Doing the best for your district trying to get reelected or grab all you can you only get one or two terms. Having a lot of lame duck officials concerns me.

term limits will concentrate the power with the people who donate the money and the candidates they put in place.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) What is the incentive to settle? The incentive to lead. They aren't just looking for a paycheck, if that were the prime motivation what was the motive to argue in the first place? Just vote yes and you don't have to work hard at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) The shutdown or the PPACA? The PPACA. Democrats have basically just assumed that the bill is fine and the GOP is trying to save their own skin. There are plenty of intelligent people on that side who believe otherwise. I believe we should do, what we would want the GOP to do when times and advantages reverse (as they always do). The partisanship has taken us to a point where both sides are unwilling to even look at the others. Maybe, just maybe, there is more validity in the GOP position than we are willing to see.