The Sir

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 5, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. Last I checked Mitt Romney was a Republican. The idea for the individual insurance mandate came from Richard Nixon's presidency. Last I checked Richard Nixon was a Republican President. I'd look at these as signs that the Republican Party failed. I am not a Republican. I am a right-wing conservative. That means I generally support Republicans, yes, but my opinions don't simply mirror theirs. I support small, accountable government, and limited intrusion into the lives of citizens. Yes, Obama got the healthcare idea from Romney (Romney would justify it by saying its acceptable at the state level but not the federal one...I personally don't find it justified at either, but whatever), and I don't know the history of the individual mandate, but I'll take your word for it. These still aren't conservative concepts, at least not if we agree on the definition of conservatism as stated above. It's sad to me that the GOP created these liberal concepts. Frankly, the idea that they did so is evidence for my previous point: the Republican Party is the much less ideologically pure one. Fine. Raul Grijalva and Jan Schakowsky are back benchers. How about Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Those are all Dem leaders who hold pretty solid liberal beliefs, at least as much as Allen West and Marco Rubio hold conservative ones. And why don't you take a look at our leadership? Eric Cantor's pretty damn conservative, and John Boehner is, but less so. But Mitch McConnell? And Dick Lugar (F from the NRA and supporter of the DREAM Act for starters)? Conservative in some issues, wishy washy in others. Not exactly "ideologically pure" or "extreme".

Mods, sorry if this is mislocated. Do with it what you like. I cannot find the game on any channel today. I have the MLB Extra Innings package, but it's not their either. Is it blacked out? I don't know what the regs are on that kind of stuff, but I haven't experienced any blackout issues on this package like I used to experience with MLBTV. Anyone know what the deal is?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 5, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) I think Dick Lugar is a pretty good man, and adds a breath of moderation to an ever more extreme Republican party. I probably wouldn't vote for him in the General Election, but in this primary I absolutely would (if I still lived in Indiana.) Much as ideological purity can be attractive, we need people on both sides of the aisle who are willing to bend for the sake of making our government work. Lugar has been one of those men - and on the GOP side, they've been in pretty short supply the last few years. Why is the Republican Party ever more extreme? Because we are purging the Olympia Snowes, the Charlie Crists and the Dick Lugars? You talk about needing people on both sides of the aisle who bend...where are the Democrats who do so? Is there anyone in Congress closer to the ideological extreme than, say, Raul Grijalva or Jan Schakowsky? By purging the traitors and the frauds, the GOP is merely moving to be as ideologically pure as your party is. You don't really want both sides to bend. You want Republicans to bend so that liberalism can prevail in a democratic fashion. That's understandable. You want to win. So do I. But don't be surprised when, in our efforts to move the country to the right, we reject politicians who only marginally or, in some cases, don't at all support said efforts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) DePauw has a poll out showing the Lugar race turning into a 10 point deficit for the Senator. Lugar sounds like he's desperately begging for help. I seriously don't want to believe you guys will get rid of Senator Lugar. Of course you want us to keep him around. He's one of you in our clothing.

Jesus. The United States didn't get screwed as much with Solyndra as we did with Danks. What were we thinking?? Two years of a mediocre record and ERA and then a crap year with an ERA in the mid fours, and we give him $12 million?!?! When he was "good", he was middle of the rotation quality at best and last year he was lower part of the rotation. I can't believe we paid so much Jon Garland, Part Deuce.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) TNC says this better than I could: I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with. The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic. This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters. That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis. How do you think we got there? If I suggest a measure that might hit black people hard, but that has nothing to do with my motives, and you scream racism anyway, isn't it logical that I'll see it as an attempt to embarass me out of my beliefs? I know what I'm thinking and why I'm doing what I'm doing. You don't. So I'm going to react poorly when you try to assign my motives. Again, you can argue my points all day. We need a social safety net, or equal income distribution is better for all of us or whatever. But when you scream racism, it just seems desperate. And it does seem to be a rhetorical instrument. There are actual racists out there. No, they aren't Tea Partiers who dislike Obama's policies or who want Herman Cain to be president because he knows his place. Someone actually said this on MSNBC...racists supporting their target so their racism is hidden? Does it get more bizarre than that? As far as I'm concerned, this silliness just distracts from actual racism and its dangerous effects.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 08:16 PM) I take this as an admission that your ideology leaves you blind to any racial issues. You made the claim that it isn't racial profiling.how did you conclude that. No. Race just isn't a cornerstone to my ideology. And I don't see why it needs to be brought into everything. Cutting welfare because its injust and using money we don't have is racism? Gimme a break. There are legit arguments against me on that one, but racism isn't one. Its a method of censorship. In short, the race card is overplayed and the race hustlers out there (Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP etc) are overemployed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 07:35 PM) how is it not racial profiling? "hispanic" is not a homogenous group. Meh. I'm not a race obsessed lefty so I wouldn't know.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) Reason number 1,429,392 not to have a myspace or facebook account: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george...-180717152.html I dont really think its relevant to the case, but it just is stupid to have this type of stuff available for a Prosecutor to use against you. Racial profiling? Nah. He's Hispanic, and he's making fun of other Hispanics for acting thuggish. It's more immature than anything else. I know those guys who post statuses with "txt" type and a bajillion exclamation points. They're annoying. I tend to defriend them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) The whole freedom of speech thing means that when someone exercises their right to say something stupid, everyone has the right to tell that person that they said something stupid. Great post.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 11:55 AM) My favorite part of this story is that he's getting hell for an opinion of his that isn't popular with a group of people. Can anyone think of another place that punishes people for the expression of their beliefs if they stray too far from, or run contrary to an accepted norm? Fidel Castro's Cuba.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) Yes, I have met serious shooters. I work with several, including ex-SF. Some gun nuts treat their guys like toys. Some gun nuts =! all gun owners. Ok, sure, some do. I won't deny that. Just like some people with ricer cars probably think they belong in Formula One. But they aren't idiot gun owners just because they partake in tactical shooting, and buy tactical lights, and meaningfully enhance their weapons (yes, some, like that joke picture you posted, are not serious enhancements). They are unserious idiots because, at the root of it all, they don't own weapons for the right reasons. Some people are just tools who want to look cool and don't realize what guns can do, and those guys are the ones you're talking about. It's a personality thing; not an "I like to read tactical gear catalogs" thing. Fair?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 08:09 PM) Funny thing is, you come off exactly like those ridiculous stereotypes I see in those movies... Cool. What movie?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 06:52 PM) Convincing argument. Putting a scope on your rifle doesn't make it a toy. Buying a tactical light doesn't mean you think guns are toys. Having a serious interest in tactical shooting, as many military/police types do for obvious reasons, doesn't mean you don't respect your weapons. Have you ever even met a serious shooter? And I'm not talking about the guy who lives in a rough neighborhood and owns a .380 for protection. I'm talking about the kind of guy who shoots every weekend and has a bunch of "SF wannabe" s***. Do you really think that is the kind of guy who thinks guns are toys? I'm telling you, I know many of those types. I'm ONE of those types. And we are the farthest thing you can be from thinking guns are just some cool looking toys that make you a badass. No s***, I think you got your ridiculous stereotypes of gun owners from a movie. If someone asked me what makes a person a tool, I'd say making haughty statements about things you know nothing about and have no experience dealing with. Keep that in mind.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) Yes, but those things are essentially being treated as toys. This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) Yeah, one tragedy is a good reason to ban DUI. We already did that. We also banned homicide. But people do it any way! Why don't we just ban guns and cars altogether? You'll get the super-safe, utopian s***hole that you desire, and I'll move to Zimbabwe.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 04:59 AM) pick up a gun magazine and look at all the toys for the special forces wanna-bes. What a lame comment. There are cool gun accessories that us gun nuts like to buy. Mag pouches, tactical lights, scopes and sights, plate carriers, etc. Yes, people who like guns also enjoy accessories designed to enhance the use of those guns. It doesn't make you an SF wannabe. I'm not going to deny that there is a fun element to guns. Shooting is a great way to spend a day. I enjoy it. A lot. That doesn't mean I think my guns are toys or I fail to show them respect. It just means I own guns for more than self-defense. It's a hobby. Geez.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 29, 2012 -> 07:19 PM) Would he have followed Martin if he had not have been carrying? Who cares? Verdicts aren't based on a guy's courage.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2012 -> 05:29 PM) No, the guy driving around with a concealed weapon who wound up killing an unarmed 17 year old who was walking home smeared gun owners quite effectively without my help. Driving around with a concealed weapon isn't a crime, whether you agree with it or not. And what if Trayvon attacked him like he claims? If the dude got blindsided and was getting his head smashed into the concrete, it's self defense. But we don't know what happened out there. So give it up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) Except for the one that caused this thread. You don't know how it went down that night. Zimmerman could have been acting in self defense. Maybe he is a clown who blew off escalation of force and killed a guy in cold blood, but we don't know that. You're just trying to smear gun owners.

We don't have kids. In my house, there is myself, my equally gun-crazy/trained girlfriend and our two Siberian huskies. So we don't have to take extra measures to secure the weapons. Each weapon has the selector rotated to safe and a round in the chamber. The SIG 556 is in the master bedroom closet, leaning against the wall. The HK USP .45 is in the nightstand. The Glock 19, compact, and the Springfield 1911 Loaded Version are in the gun safe next to the sofa downstairs. The Mossberg 590A1 is hidden in the coat closet next to the front door. When we have kids, this level of security will change. But until then, our weapons are going to stay at the ready at all times. If you have to access, load and cock your weapons AFTER the bad guys have entered your house, you're in trouble. It removes the whole point of owning weapons for home defense.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) I honestly try to look at the issues and see who best aligns with my priorities. I wish we had a strong 3rd party because the two major ones are pretty awful for the most part. I can understand that from the other side of the spectrum. I'm constantly torn between being an idealist and a pragmatist. Do I want the perfect ultra-right guy who's going to get his ass beat because he can't get any independent votes, or do I want a less perfect guy who's got a good shot at winning? And while I know some people who want the perfect one at all costs, for me, the choice is obvious. Romney's not perfect, but I like him, and more importantly, I'm not going to let his few flaws keep me away in November and send Barry back to the White House. Seems counterproductive. I might as well do what I can to push the country in my favored direction, even if the steps are small, right? So call me a Republican by default. It's not perfect, but it is a vehicle for electoral victory and it's currently the right wing's modicum for change, whether we like it or not. Oh yeah, somewhere I rethought my vets-only thing. Military experience is always a big plus for a candidate who wants my vote, and I really do wish that it was like the old days when a CiC was simply expected to be a vet (OK, maybe I'm dreaming a little...I just learned that Taft through FDR weren't vets, but Truman through Bush 41 were). Either way, if there isn't a right-wing vet to vote for, I'm going to go with the pragmatism expressed in the last paragraph. Romney didn't serve but it makes no sense to reject him for it, and in doing so, return to the White House a different guy who doesn't share my views and also didn't serve. Small steps, if nothing else is possible.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) I think I've mentioned it here before but Kerry and Obama are the only Dem candidates I have ever voted for President. Who do you usually vote for?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) I don't know why there is so much Jane Fonda hate. She was great in Barbarella. You were obviously never in the service.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) Arguably, those weapons won't stop them either if they know what they're doing. As a gunowner, I've always believed that having a gun doesn't make you armed. It's not so much how much they know what they're doing; it's how much you know what you're doing. If you don't practice at the range and don't know where to take good cover/concealment and get the best field of fire on your enemy's avenue of approach, then I don't give a s*** if you have a freakin' bazooka. You're screwed! But if you know what you're doing and if you have a defense plan, you'll be fine. I know my family will be fine.