lostfan

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 06:23 PM) The media folk are a notoriously defensive group, and I'm not just talking about sports. I can totally see them clinging to their spite, even though they clearly shouldn't. Not everybody's personality is well-suited to spewing PR lines, and that has nothing to do with their baseball abilities or even their community relations. Stupid media... This is Jay Cutler's "problem" in a nutshell. He doesn't really give a s*** about the agendas of reporters and doesn't really play their game and they hate him for it, so they go out of their way to write stupid s*** about his personality that has nothing to do with his ability as a player.

Flacco is folding.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Iphone and Evo are both fantastic phones. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Bush 41 was the president. You can count on one hand the # of republicans who voted for tax increases in the last 10 or 15 years.

Rice had that ball slapped right out of his hand, can't let that happen.

Republicans in Congress do not raise taxes. Ever. For any reason. It's something they are literally sworn not to do.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 06:00 PM) http://www.nesn.com/2011/01/celtics-still-...ason-aside.html THAT IS AN ACTUAL ARTICLE. He actually makes a pretty reasonable argument. Basic points: Rose > Rondo Rose is the PG to build a franchise around if you're starting from scratch Rondo fits Boston's specific needs better than Rose does

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) Is this supposed to be sarcasm? um yes. lol edit: i forgot you use hearing aids, but yeah he was being sarcastic.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) Ravens not in control of themselves yet. Well they've got this now.

The "Fort Dix Six" plot got broken up because a guy at Costco saw a jihad video that the would-be terrorists had made and he said he had a long moral debate with himself whether he should tell the police/FBI about it.

LOL at all those dumb f***s just standing around watching the ball.

we have ourselves a game, folks

Ravens not in control of themselves yet.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) Um, when the entire world's governments are out to get you, I'm pretty sure you are pretty important. That said, I think the calls to prosecute are nonsense. And I generally support wikileaks. It does more good than evil. It just helped bring down a dictatorship and I am pro democracy. And even still he manages to have an inflated sense of self-importance. There is this massive disconnect between what he thinks he's accomplishing and what he's actually accomplishing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) You're correct I misunderstood what I was reading/citing. My apologies. More specifically, even if they're in combat, the fact that they're not officially listed as in combat units can prevent them from moving up the chain of command to higher rank. that mostly applies to high-ranking officers, not really an issue with enlisted types or junior officers though (you are only competing against people in your same job for promotion)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) Problem with this logic is...it really doesn't work any more, considering that combat support people, especially in these last 2 campaigns, have been heavily involved in actual combat, as I'm sure you know. The nice benefit for the army though is that they don't have to offer them combat/hazard pay even though they're in combat, because they're not combat troops. Thus saving the taxpayers money and helping balance the budget. Not true. Everyone who goes to a combat zone gets hazardous duty pay. I had a combat support role and combat wasn't my job but I saw it and my DD214 has a Combat Action Badge on it (this was made about 5 years or so ago because infantrymen had the Combat Infantryman Badge, but that's outdated because in modern warfare infantrymen aren't the only ones who see combat)

Women can be "in combat" in the literal sense (after all, they have guns) but they aren't allowed in pure combat-arms roles like infantry, armor, or special forces. In the Army there are 3 types of jobs, there is combat (the ones I listed that exist only for direct combat and are the ones women aren't allowed in), combat support (intelligence, supply and logistics, medical, etc. jobs that aren't directly related to combat but get close to it and sometimes directly in it), and combat service support (clerical jobs that have nothing to do with combat, and while it's possible for them to be in some kind of combat, they almost never leave the big basecamps)

"The night before the rampage, authorities say, Mr. Loughner, 22, dropped off at a drugstore a roll of 35-millimeter film containing images he had shot of himself posing with a Glock semiautomatic pistol while wearing a red G-string." Am i the only one that read this part of what Balta quoted?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) Wait so we didn't have partisanship while guys like Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan etc were Presidents? That is just flat out not true. lol, it's really not. Liberals and conservatives were both confrontational towards the USSR but they had completely and totally different ways of going about it, and there was plenty of name-calling and labeling and smearing of anyone who disagreed (Joseph Mccarthy anyone?)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:56 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. Yeah, you should go find some Fox News articles on that event, read the comments, and get back to me... that's not where the media went with it, but bloggers and whoever else were definitely coming right out and saying that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) So I guess what I am saying is that coming from someone who is not really on either side here, I find the immediate finger pointing by the Dems to be insensitive and almost sickening, but the dramatic "how could you possibly say such a thing" by the Republicans to be disingenuous and pathetic. qft

Julian Assange has an inflated since of self-importance.

lol at me for forgetting about the withholding. Borrowing against your 401k is still better than taking money out of it.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) That's what I figure. We have 3 kids and claim 0 so we get a lot back anyway. you don't claim any kids on your taxes? Why? That's just basically giving away money to the IRS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea. Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle. edit: here's a blog post I found expanding on the idea a little more. http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1718/pu..._ground_fallacy ^^example, first round of tax cuts in '01. Democrats want $300 billion and want to keep the surplus. Republicans want some absurdly high number like $1.3 trillion and absolutely won't compromise on it. After a while of gridlock some hack senator comes out and says, as if this was an ingenious solution, "I got an idea, how about we all just vote for a $800 billion tax cut instead!" That's not moderation, that's just political hackery. There really isn't any principle driving it. And yes I did mean argument to moderation.