Soxbadger

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 04:56 PM) So why were you so sure I was arguing the contrary in my post with no argument? Because that is the logical conclusion. If someone posts something and another person responds, it would seem like that post is a counter-argument. That is just the intuitive reading of the thread. If it was mistaken, that is my bad. But again, you just posted random statistics so you left it to the reader to try and discern what the point of the post was.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 04:29 PM) To be fair, other studies have proven what he's trying to say is true: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/s...tings.html?_r=0 Copes use excessive force more against minorities, but when it comes to shootings, there isn't a bias. edit: i should have said "use of force" not just "excessive" force. To be fair that study only was in 10 major police departments in 3 states. That being said, all I was responding to was the statistics that he presented. Those statics clearly showed that based on the numbers blacks were being shot at a disproportionate rate. Now there may be other numbers that show they are not. But I can only work with the numbers that are presented. I tried to read the paper, but honestly its 63 pages and it seems that its not raw data. I think the most important thing though is: I personally do not really know what is the truth. But anecdotally I would think that minorities are more likely to be shot, but again, that is in total, which includes the theory that minorities are investigated/arrested at a disproportionate rate in the first place. Ultimately it's not something that can be conclusively proven because there is no way to find out the statistic "White people who werent arrested that should have been, "black people who were investigated that never committed a crime", etc.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) "In fact, as of July 9, whites were 54 percent of the 440 police shooting victims this year whose race was known, blacks were 28 percent and Hispanics were 18 percent, according to The Washington Post’s ongoing database of fatal police shootings. Those ratios are similar to last year’s tally, in which whites made up 50 percent of the 987 fatal police shootings, and blacks, 26 percent. (The vast majority of those police homicide victims were armed or otherwise threatening the officer.)" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...m=.356c7bff492a I hope you are not using this to show that somehow there is not a disproportionate amount of minorities who are the victims of police shootings. According to the 2010 US survey the percentage of the US population was as follows: 72.4% white 12.6% black/african american So black people make up 12.6% of the population but account for 28% of the shootings. Ill let you figure out what the problem is (hint its that the ratio is completely out of whack.) And honestly, what is the point of just posting a quote and not actually giving your opinion on it. It leaves the reader trying to assume what you are trying to prove. My guess is that you were trying to show that there actually isnt a problem because more white people get shot. But thats like saying if there are 10million white people and 100 black people, that there is no problem when 150 white people get shot as compared to 99 black people. I mean 150 > 99 right? Old cliche, statistics never lie, but liars use statistics.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) Im not an expert in this stuff so of course Im not gonna be the one to find a smoking gun, but to act like this stuff isnt relevant is kind of ridiculous. Is it that big of a deal to you that people discuss this because youre a Clinton fan? Honestly the most relevant part of this should be these questions: What is the motive of the hackers? Why are the so worried about Hillary winning or conversely why are the trying so hard to help Trump win? That really is what people should be asking. If this was happening to Trump I would say the same thing. I am not really a fan of foreign interference in American politics, and I am actually somewhat concerned that if these hacks are successful in influencing the US election what that will mean for future elections.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 03:58 PM) The polls have taken a major shift since she abandoned discussing policy and exclusively goes after Trump. We havent even seen what Assange has yet. Im sure Ill get ridiculed for saying this but unless Trump does something devastating he is gonna win. Hes up 5 in Ohio, 2 in Florida and Nevada and these polls arent even affected by the dnc leaks yet. She's essentially running the exact campaign most people thought Trump would try to run. All of her IT guys pleading the 5th certainly doesnt help either, and Cooper admitted he had full access to her server without clearance. Realistically the only outcome of this election that wouldnt be upsetting is if the dems replace Hillary with Bernie. I loath every aspect of his politics but at least he isnt involved in the mass corruption going on. These hackers need to get GOP emails or something and blow this whole system up. If Trump wins, everyone deserves what they get. I am pretty confident it wont make any difference in my life, but there are going to be plenty of people who will likely be much worse off. The good and bad about part about freedom is that it gives people the freedom to make decisions that are against their own self-interest.

Was able to pick up LaFell for Robert Turbin and Chris Thompson for Rob Kelley. Not sure on LaFell, had some other guys who I think are equivalent options; Eddie Royal, Cole Beasley, Kerley. But I have Boyd so I figure that one of the 2 of them will start in Cinci. Thompson was just switching backups, Kelley did nothing and Thompson had the most snaps at RB. Just keeping him on the bench to see what happens. Didnt really feel like bidding on anyone, so I just put in free waiver claims.

Blago was just an idiot. I mean he barely even knew how to use a computer (watch the episodes of the Apprentice he was in). That being said I think his problem is that other people in the state didnt like him and it was an easy opportunity to go after him. I think there is also the risk factor. When you give a presidential candidate a lot of money there is no guarantee that they will win. So its seen more as a "reward" for helping. Where as if you paid Blago it was a guarantee.

People didnt know how ambassador jobs work? Ironically Strangesox posted an article today about the ambassador to Denmark. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...denmark/497543/ If this is the worst that they found, then honestly the Democratic party is a lot cleaner than I would have expected. Ambassador positions have always been this way. George W Bush. UK Ambassador- Robert Tuttle He had raised more than $200,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and inauguration ceremony. He also held the post of United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom from July 2005 to February 2009. Other examples are Canada, David Wilkins, Sweeden, Teel Bivens, etc. Its so common, it actually has a name: Patronage Appointment. And if anyone thinks that Clinton or Trump wont make them, I have a really big bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. In fact, you probably couldnt pick 2 candidates who were more likely to make patronage appointments. They both love nepotism. Anyway, I think theres a cliche, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The more they hack, the more I wonder what their true motivation is. Because I just dont believe that hackers are trying to do what is best for me. Maybe I am an old cynic, but something just seems odd about hackers all of a sudden becoming altruistic.

Any recommendations for some sites that I can read about sleepers/faab/projections etc. I just like to have a variety of places so wondering what other people use.

Sounds like Ajayi isnt even going on the trip so Foster should get carries.

Went to Disney over the weekend. I feel like after that I need an actual vacation for myself.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 11, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) What does Fox News have to do with anything? WikiLeaks makes your candidate look bad so they equal Fox News? I actually prefer Fox News. At least they dont pretend to be something they arent. Wikileaks pretends that they are unbiased, but if you spend 5 minutes doing some research you will find out who they really are. Do you wonder why Wikileaks attacked the Panama papers? Do you wonder why the Kremlin suggested Assanage be given a nobel prize? Do you wonder why he has/had a show on Russia today a program that is funded by the Kremlin? So lets be fair, Fox News is far more trustworthy than Wikileaks.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 12:35 PM) Young liberals and chauvinists have made a point of trying to change the definition of rape. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) A libertarian with interesting thoughts on consent color me shocked Technically he is right, without writing a narrative, the laws used to be that spouses were immune from raping each other. So for the better part of history rape excluded married people, which is just one of the ways that rape laws have changed since their common law inception. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing, that is up to you. I personally think that changing the definition of rape over the last 5000 years is a good thing, but I also believe that women are equal, so again, personal preference. If you think that women are property and therefore they cant be raped, you may not be so happy about the change in rape laws.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 11, 2016 -> 01:56 PM) All this "reckless" behavior the media talks about is far worth the value they provide in exposing the behavior of the governing elites. It's comical the way the media attacks WikiLeaks for doing ya know, actual journalism. You really think I needed Wikileaks to tell me that the Iraq War was a joke or that the DNC favored Clinton? These are things that anyone could have learned if they wanted to spend an afternoon actually doing their own research. None of them are any better than the other. They all answer to a master, irrespective of who that master is. Asssanage just has a different master, but no one should consider him a "trustworthy" source. Whether he is attacking Republicans, Democrats, etc he has an agenda. And that to me is not real "journalism", that is propaganda. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/669264...src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458...src=twsrc%5Etfw So it's just a matter of preference. I prefer my American master to Assanage's Russian masters.

He is a really poor public speaker. His timing and phrasing is horrific. I think that it is a leap and opportunism to suggest that phrase "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" is insinuating an assassination. Maybe it is, but again, not really what I think the intention was. The reason why he would say "2nd amendment people" is that the entire passage was about the 2nd amendment. So why would someone who was Anti-Clinton but not care about the 2nd amendment be referenced. /shrugs There are more reasons than I can count why Trump shouldnt be the next President, so I would rather stick to those issues, instead of going after him because he can barely put a sentence together.

I actually dont think he meant that Clinton should be shot. He is just a poor speaker so his phrasing comes across awkward. I think that he meant that the 2nd amendment people could fight it if she tried to abolish the 2nd amendment through the supreme court.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) Aside from spending it on flying to and from NYC every single day in his jet, what exactly is Trump going to be spending his campaign money on? He has next to zero ground game in individual states and is spending nothing on advertising. Also it's very difficult to cancel a recurring donation to Trump's campaign once you've set it up. I get 2 calls a day from him, which is surprising as I live in Chicago.

Cant really find the words, but hopefully everything starts to get better and the worst is behind you. In the spirit of Chisoxfn, I donated.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:15 PM) So no matter what happens between now and the end of time, we should never reconsider NATO or the obligations and responsibilities of its members. If 25 of the 28 members say f*** it, i'm done paying my share and sending out my people to be in the armed forces, we should still be obligated to play our part simply because they are our partners? That's bulls***. They are partners as well. So when we feel like they're taking advantage of us, that's not being a good partner. We should be able to consider leaving. That's our right. Simply talking about that in hypothetical (and not even in complete hypothetical!) doesn't harm anything. That's a bunch of made up fear-mongering nonsense. If we want NATO, that is how it works. Now maybe there is a day when NATO makes no sense for the US, but you cant have it both ways. You cant threaten your partners while at the same time wanting to work with them. The problem is that Trump/Pence are taking positions that are contradictory. If they both said "screw being the world police, screw NATO, let them all fight for themselves," I would have no problem with it. That is their opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But according to Pence's speech: So which is it?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:10 PM) Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic. If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that? Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why? Because the US is the one who is trying to entice and keep Eastern European nations in NATO. With Putin trying to expand his influence in that region it is a buyers market. So sure, you can discuss changing things at the cost of losing influence in Eastern Europe, but what is the end game here? NATO isnt why the US is bleeding money, NATO allies arent the reason why Putin is getting more bold in Eastern Europe. The reason is that the US congress lacks any sort of direction and ability to work together. Instead of having a mutual understanding that ultimately we are ALL better off if we work together, we instead fight over inane nonsense that results in higher debt and more waste. That is the real problem and everyone in the world knows it and is trying to take advantage of it.

Anything is possible, but its hard to imagine Nebraska leaving the Big10. They would have to buy themselves out of the GOR, and unless the BIG10 could find a suitable replacement, they would be looking for a massive check. Even worse is that if Nebraska left, that would create an opening in the BIG10 which would then likely result in a few schools reaching out to try and join. It could happen, but I think that in the end its 2 teams that are not in the Big10, PAC, SEC or ACC. So UCONN, UCF, Memphis, Cinci, Houston, BYU, etc are the likely schools. Possibly something strange like Tulane.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) But his statement about the Baltic states or of Ukraine in particular are just examples, right? It's him spitballing. Everything he said in that interview is consistent with his general foreign policy, which is we can't afford to be the world's police and other countries should start picking up the slack and/or starting paying us to be their defenders. He's an isolationist. That's part of it. Yes, we can argue whether that's good policy of the US or not, but it doesn't mean that it's Trump's desire to back out of NATO and let Putin run roughshod over eastern europe, which is what that article says and what bmags wants to believe. But Mike Pence said last night that we need to be more assertive in foreign policy, that we have become too weak. So which is it? No President should ever even imply that we will not 100% hold up our end of NATO. This is not a settlement negotiation, this is not "My client is going to file BK so if you dont take $.10 on the dollar you get nothing", these are treaties that were put into place to protect other countries, with the US fully well knowing that it would never be an equal partnership. Even more importantly this isn't a negotiation at all, members of NATO are supposed to be our partners. I dont even know what the Republican party is anymore. And its become blatantly obvious that Trump has not even contemplated how to implement his ideas. Its really easy to say "I am going to make a better car that is also cheaper." The hard part is actually delivering, and anyone who has ever had the displeasure of working with a Trump run business knows that he very rarely delivers.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 12:31 PM) Any TV show that talks politics would be unbearable. It already is now and he's just the nominee. edit: they all find the smallest thing to b**** about, just like this speech issue. Yes, it was dumb, yes, it was lazy speech writing. But i'm confident if you go back and reread/watch speeches you'll find Obama and Hillary and everyone else using similar platitudes. This was just slightly more egregious than normal. It's the cover up, not the crime. It wouldnt have been that big of a deal if they just owned up to borrowing some of the ideas. The problem is that they refuse to admit the mistake. If they cant admit to something so small and trivial, what will they do if there is a mistake about something that is actually important. Will they brush it off, will they act like everyone else in the world is wrong? I am pretty sure that 99.9% of the world has made a mistake, done something stupid, etc. Its not the mistake that defines a person, its what they do after.

I dont know why, but I just feel something is strange about the entire situation.

Reports now of tanks firing. (edit) This site has a livestream of one of the bridges being blocked. It sounds like you can hear the chanting. (Possible gunfire) https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016...-gunfire-ankara