The Sir

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:51 PM) no one said you'd kill leftists, what the hell are you ranting about? Ok, maybe not "kill" per se, but it certainly sounds like he thinks I want to forcibly convert leftists.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) Soooo no reasonable discussion will ever come out of you, because one disagreement with you = liberal buttmunch who should literally be teabagged until they change their opinion. I can't be convinced that a certain strain of thought is bad for my country, bad for my people and bad for me without being hyperviolent and intolerant? I never said anything of the sort. Unlike you, I actually believe in your freedom to say what you want. I'm in the Army to fight for such freedoms. However, that doesn't change my utmost belief that your opinions are idiotic, unrealistic and bad for America. I believe that leftist politicians should be voted out of power in every election and that leftist ideas should be fought against and revealed for the bulls*** that they are. But I didn't say we should just go around killing all the leftists and forcibly converting them. Stop acting like I ever did.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:29 PM) Please, your post was written to bash the left, in a thread that it's really unnecessary. You're a walking political commercial. Well, yeah, I'm utterly convinced the left is horrible for America. So I'll continue attacking it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:11 PM) That's actually not how debate works, that's tu quoque and it's a logical fallacy. Tu quoque is a stupid fallacy. I mean, imagine Bill Clinton telling people not to get blown by their interns. Not very credible, is it? And in this case, a tu quoque argument was the best way to show my idea that NSS qualifies people as crazy based on partisan lines.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:09 PM) That's not actually what she said, that's the right-wing blog alternate universe version. Oh, replace "government" with "we". Same f***ing point.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:03 PM) I'm sorry if I'd rather see people actually talk about people they support instead of just bashing everyone else. And seriously, with the last comment? I told you what my thesis was. My post was written to follow up on that thesis. Don't like it? Ignore it. But I don't really give a s*** about your hissyfits.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) I hate people like this, let's refute another person's opinion by bashing the left some more!! Did you ask him or did he mention the sanity of Obama?? No, so why the f*** do you bring it up!? Having to attack other's to make a point is just a distracting (on purpose), annoying as hell tactic that gets the conversation no where. Geez, guy. Don't give yourself an aneurysm. He called people on the right insane. So I showed some equally insane people from the left. He called a man on the right arrogant, so I showed someone on the left who is every bit as arrogant. The post went along with my thesis that NSS's ideas of sanity and arrogance fall very much along partisan lines. If I'm wrong, he'll come back with another post clarifying his opinion and we'll go from there. That's how a debate works, Mr. I-Support-The-Troops-Cuz-I-Was-In-A-Club-Once.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:29 PM) I am saying that people like Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum all are not just conservatives - they are outright crazy ones. Gingrich, though an arrogant prick You still haven't said what's crazy about them. Bachmann and Santorum have said some odd things on homosexuality, and Perry made a controversial remark about secession in which he didn't advocate it at all but simply vouched for states rights. However, I don't think any of that qualifies as insanity. No more so than, say, Valerie Jarrett claiming that the purpose of government is to give people livelihoods so they can provide for their families. Would you call that insane? Or does it get a pass because its more in line with your own views? And Barack Obama isn't?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) I don't feel any sympathy for him and I don't personally doubt that he actually was involved with Al Qaeda Good. I agree. I'm just practical, and the fact that he is dead is all that matters to me. Crossed lines? Meh. He wasn't American like I'm American or even like you're American. So f*** him, he's dead and I'm happy. In fact, this is great. An enemy of the United States of America got blown to bits and won't ever be coming down for breakfast again, and because it was done in a controversial manner, a politician who I don't like and sincerely hope gets crushed in 2012 doesn't gain any points, but actually loses them. America wins.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) While I stop a little short of the blood thirsty rhetoric, I do agree with, and endorse, this message. Dude, it's just my style. You know that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) Al Qaeda is neither a government nor is it an official public military force. Adding adjectives like Fundamentalist or "Seeks the destruction of America" does not change that fact. You're right on the merits but the law here does not reflect the situation...if a law is out of date, the right answer isn't to get annoyed with the people pointing out the problem and then ignore the law, it is to update the law to reflect the new reality. Fair enough. In that case, the law is in need of a serious upgrade. And no matter what, I continue to hold that al-Awlaki was an evil man who endangered our way of life. His death is a victory for our country. Citizen or not, I'm glad he's dead and I will never feel sympathy for him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) In spirit you're right, but the technical definition of citizenship requires him to swear allegiance to a foreign government. It really does seem like there's reason to amend the law as it stands here to reflect this particular circumstance. If nothing else, some sort of (Brief) judicial review of the executive branch's claims that he has taken up arms against the U.S. and a rewording of this clause to weaken the standing of the term "State" appears to be required. If he passes that and manages to retain his US citizenship, it's only by the most by-the-book interpretation. Personally, I'd say living in Yemen and being in the leadership cadre of a fundamentalist organization that seeks the destruction of America falls under a couple of those guidelines. Namely, the ones about swearing allegiance to a foreign government and serving in a foreign military force. But that's just me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) Looked sane compared to most of that bunch? What's insane about them? The fact that they disagree with you? If that's the only qualifying factor for insanity, then I'd say almost the entirety of the left is insane. So much for civility.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk This seems like a pretty terrible trend. I'd imagine there would have to be some way to incentivize businesses away from these sorts of policies. Businesses are free to do it. Just seems like a moronic policy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) US citizen He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States. I will shed no tears for him. Besides, if this wasn't justice, what would have been? Allowing him to live and continue to murder innocent people out of some refusal to extrajudicially execute a "US citizen" (and I use that phrase in the loosest way)? I don't think so. Regardless of the legal implications here, the world is now a better place and AQAP is substantially weaker. I'll take it! Besides, he could have gotten his fair trial at any point by simply surrendering. But he didn't do that. Instead he continued to fight. And we have no obligation to capture individuals who take up arms against us and do not surrender to our forces, no different than the fact that a cop no longer has any obligation to capture the criminal who shoots at him. Awlaki can burn in Hell. I hope his body is devoured by wild pigs.

And the huge douche that is Tom Brady gets to go home in defeat. Woohoo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) Fitzpatrick nearly fumbled the ball and the Bills just had a penalty on their O-Line. Stopping the clock. Yeah, I didn't anticipate that the Bills would do retarded things like running into the pile instead of simply stepping back and down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) This is really f***ing Risky by Buffalo if they Can't get into the end zone on 3rd down. Really? I think this is brilliant. I thought it was a huge advantage that the touchdown was overturned. And now with that stupid move from NE, the Bills have a first down and can run this thing down to the final seconds.

Holy crap. How many close games can there be? I've got the NFL Sunday Ticket and trying to choose which final minute to watch is about to make my head explode.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Haha, Juan Pierre is pathetic. Alexei Ramirez is pathetic.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 06:17 AM) You're making it sound like it has to be Baines/Buehrle or the steroid guys. None of them needs to be in there. There's no prerequisite for how many players need to be elected every year. There are still enough guys that are honorable and have the numbers to back it up. The last thing the Hall of Fame needs is more dilution. You said it better than I did. Kudos.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) Guys like Mark and Baines not only played well for a long time, but are solid citizens and great ambassadors to the sport. I believe that has value and should be considered in the voting. It's their entire contribution to baseball, not just stats. I agree with you. However, I would apply it more to keeping dishonorable people out, rather than letting lesser skilled but absolutely honorable people in. Don't admit Roger Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, and company into the Hall to tarnish it. But don't let Buehrle and Baines and other supposedly good people in either simply for being good people. Lack of honor should keep you out. Having it doesn't get you in.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) Right there with Ted Lyons & Billy Pierce as the greatest Sox pitchers. Totally. After all, Ed Walsh never did anything except post the lowest career ERA in baseball history.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Personally, I think Mark Buehrle's resume is stacked enough to warrant HoF. The IP thing is impressive. The perfect game and no hitter are impressive and memorable. The two GGs are impressive. But those things don't make you HoF worthy. Not without some greater statistical backing that he doesn't have. He never won 20 games. He never led the league in anything significant other than IP, and he only did that twice. The highest he's ever gotten in CY voting is 5th (it was the only time he even got votes). His career ERA is 3.84 (the highest ERA in the Hall currently is that of Red Ruffing at 3.80; Red won 114 more games than Mark and had the advantage of being a Yankee...also, I think most view Ruffing as one of the weaker HoF pitchers). He hasn't won 200 games (and it's starting to look like he'll barely get there, if at all). And then look at the much better pitchers who still aren't enshrined. Jack Morris, Milt Pappas, Mickey Lolich, Tommy John, Billy Pierce, Jim Kaat (16 Gold Gloves), Luis Tiant, etc. Mark Buehrle is a slightly above average pitcher with some very impressive achievements and some pretty mediocre stats. His number should be retired by the White Sox after he departs, but in no way is he Hall of Fame material.

Censorship is bulls***. That being said, nothing in here suggests that Palin or her followers had anything to do with the censorship. It seems the newspapers did that on their own. So this isn't her or her followers fault. At least, not as far as I can tell from these sources.