Soxbadger

You guys are talking in the abstract about something that is very fact specific. The inequity comes from far fewer males report being raped by women than vice versa. Its impossible to guess what would happen if drunk guys started reporting that they were raped by girls.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 04:13 PM) The thing I find ironic is that it's sexist to suggest that a woman can't make consensual sexual decisions when she's intoxicated, but a man can. I guess people see it as a power dynamic. I dont think thats true. Anyone could be too intoxicated to consent.

Sounds like ATT may be itching for a fight. I really think that precedence of past deals is favorable to this merger.

Since this is somewhat of a catch all for sexual assault allegations, Roy Moore has now been accused. Any other moment in history id probably think it would just go away, but right now these type of allegations are getting serious attention. ,

But our crazies do more damage. More people are murdered by population in the US than comparable countries. You're argument presupposes that murder in the US will always be abnormally high. I don't believe that, and I don't believe we can't make fair rules that will allow gun owners to have some things but bar unnecessary things. Seems if people could be reasonable we could maybe solve some things most normal people agree on. I mean Democrat/Republican, how many people are arguing for the "I want more gun deaths" platform. I get its not in vogue to actually want to solve problems, sometimes swallow your pride, maybe even sometimes lose. Most people want the same thing on most ideas, I dont believe that reasonable people are incapable of coming up with solutions for problems we agree on.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 11:18 PM) Does this include outlawing hunting and target shooting? If you're including that then there is no way I would agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having firearms for these purposes. I think we could come up with something that would work. You could create hunting areas where guns could be used. And when they leave those areas guns need to be unloaded and put in a case until they are back at your house. Or you could store your gun on site. Could possibly have check point when entering exiting 1) to check that gun laws are in compliance and 2) to check that no poaching etc is occurring. You could create a boundary so that public is not put in harm's way. That is all I really want. I don't care if people want to take their own risks, that would be hypocritical to many of my other views. I'm not s huge fan of hunting, but it's be extremely hypocritical if I wanted to out right can it. That being said there should be restrictions/quota on what can be killed. But I think most reasonable hunters aren't out there to kill species to extinction.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 09:47 PM) First, let me state that I’m only talking about in the confines of your own home. I’m strongly against people being allowed to carry guns around with them in public. Having said that, I guess I don’t agree with those statistics. Suicides & murders reflect more upon the mental state of the person pulling the trigger than the dangers of gun ownership itself. Strip those (which I don’t think should be included) and the numbers greatly change. Now go buy a biometric safe and you can basically mitigate almost all risk. IMO, if you take the necessary precautions and are responsible (which some people aren’t admittedly), guns provide almost no risk to your family. I think the place to start is getting guns off the streets and out of public places. Once we do that we can then reassess guns at home. That being said, I think guns in the home are risky. I dont think there is anyway to argue against that. Now maybe you can limit the risk to almost negligible, but anything dangerous provides risk. A knife is a risk, alcohol is a risk. But in your home, I think that some deference should be given to you to make your own risky decisions.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 08:58 PM) So this was the response I was waiting for. How many of those incidents involved non-responsible gun owners, people with mental illnesses, or people with violent/criminal backgrounds? Yes, certain people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. I have said this multiple times now. But how does RockRaines owning a gun and keeping it in a safe that only he can access put his family at greater risk? If responsible, owning a gun for self defense is nothing more than an insurance policy that you will hopefully never have to use. Where I live I don’t feel one is needed, but I know plenty of people who live in areas where having a gun for home defense becomes a legitimate consideration. There is no way to predict a specific fact pattern. That would be fortune telling. To the best of my knowledge, all stats support the idea that owning a gun increases the chances that the people in the home will be part of a homicide or suicide. That does not mean it happens in every home, it just increases risk. Its no different than drunk driving or any other risky behavior. Ultimately I think that when it comes to guns in someones home, that is more of a personal preference. If you want to take part of that risky behavior, it is not that likely it will impact me. Guns outside of the home is a whole different discussion, because I could be impacted and therefore my safety should be weighed against their belief.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 08:35 PM) I have no idea what data you’re referring to or what point you’re trying to make. I own guns for hunting/sport (which I rarely use anymore) but keep none in my house so your theory that guns make me feel a certain way is odd. I’m simply speaking on behalf of people who feel they need a gun in their house for safety. Also, I have already said a normal gun was more than enough to function for home defense and assault weapons most certainly should be banned. So let me ask you this, are you suggesting that owning a gun for home defense is more dangerous than not owning a gun? If so, I’d love to hear more about this data you’re referring to, because I’m struggling to grasp how responsible gun ownership within one’s household would somehow decrease their safety. I think these are some stats Balta was referring to: https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-p...nd#.WgPAuWhSyUk https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...evidence-shows/ There are some graphs in the last article. but its around 1.7x more likely for a homicide in your home if you own a gun. It goes up if the gun is kept loaded. Now obviously stats cant predict the future, and someone owning a gun may in fact save their life. But statistically speaking homicide is more likely in homes that have guns (and thats not getting into the higher suicide rate.) The real problem is "responsible."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:53 PM) How many networks does Time Warner own? They've got a good solid chunk of that business too right? Such that once AT&T buys them, they not only own all the TV providers but a large chunk of the networks? Isnt that what Comcast NBC is?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) DirecTV and Time Warner Cable are direct competitors for television viewers in any market where TW is the main cable provider. If those 2 merge, then you have both companies under the same crappy AT&T headline and they dominate the entire market in those areas. While AT&T does offer its own packages - in every place where Time Warner operates, DirecTV is a competitor of theirs. I get that, but how does selling CNN help, that is the major problem im seeing with the alleged offer from the DOJ. If they sell CNN, youd still have the same problem.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 02:54 PM) You know I meant "changes everything" in terms of the midterms, right? Not in perpetuity. Actually I thought you meant for the next Presidential election. Historically speaking there are usually losses for any party who controls the Executive and Legislature. Its just the nature of US politics, voters dont seem to like 1 party in control.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) Turner being owned by someone else wouldn't change how profitable they are though, right? FT's headline "TRUMP DOJ DEMANDS CNN SALE!" is just so misleading. Again I have no first hand knowledge, but if you wanted to try and argue why it looks bad, its because CNN being owned by a massive company is a much bigger foe than CNN being owned by a smaller company. The Brietbarts of the world dont have the money/resources/reach of ATT. And the worry would be that ATT could leverage its massive advantages into knocking down CNN competitors. Or from a personal standpoint, its much easier for Trump to take on CNN when they arent backed by the full power of ATT. Just to be clear, I am not saying that there is or is not merit, I would just like to see some rationale as to why those conditions somehow make the sale better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 02:19 PM) I'm more in line with your thinking SB, but keep in mind it wasn't just governors' races. 3 or 4 of the top 5 GOP Congressmen in Virginia were tossed out last night in a huge wave. Democrats also managed to break the supermajority in one of GA's chambers. We've also seen a pretty steady trickle of GOP retirement announcements at the federal level, and it'll be interesting to see if that picks up pace now. e: it won't be in effect until the 2022 election, but last night conceivably opened up a couple of US House seats for Democrats from Virginia since they'll have a major say in the post-2020 census redistricting now. So that's some actual change, even if the effects won't be seen for awhile. Yeah those state house victories are big, but some of that has been brewing for a while. VA/GA are states that have had the writing on the wall for potentially moving Democrat. So Im not just yet going to write this up as "changing everything." QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) FYI, I appreciate your perspective, but I'm not pulling this out of my ass and it's not unbridled optimism. I'm telling you what top Republican strategists have been saying, and were saying last night to me and the group of people I was with as we watched returns in the White House. The GOP is in full crisis mode. Many of the top Republican strategists thought Trump was going to lose last year. In fact Im not sure any living past Republican President voted for Trump (Bush Sr. voted for Clinton, Bush Jr. voted for neither.) So I just dont really put a lot of faith into these "strategists" anymore. Last year I had a bad feeling (I jokingly posted on Facebook that after the Cubs won the WS nothing felt right in the world and that Trump would win.) And while Id love to think that this is a "big change", these are all states that Democrats need to win in the next election anyway. A year is a long way away, if anything my fear is that this happened to early. Surprise is a great weapon, now they have an entire year to figure out "what went wrong." In a year from now we may be saying that this was a good indication of what to come or it could be an aberration. A million things could happen between now and then that could completely change the election cycle dynamics. If I was a strategist, id be cautiously optimistic, but I would definitely be preparing for the worst. That is a lesson that needs to be learned from 2016, prepare for the worst outcome and how to combat it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 02:00 PM) Everything has changed in the narrative and the way the Republicans are approaching 2018. They're in a box. Non-Trump Trumpism failed resoundingly, which is the strategy they were all planning to run on. And Trumpism WITH Trump also fails. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is a completely different narrative than we had a day ago, and the implications are huge. Everything has changed. Then they never understood "Trumpism" in the first place. Trumpism isnt beholden to "failing" or "facts", it is continually changing the facts/narrative to fit whatever conclusion that they want. To them it doesnt matter what happened last night, they will just make things up. That is why losing those races last night "doesnt change everything." For some people in Congress it will definitely make them more nervous about their specific seat, but none of the Governor races were heavy Republican states, in fact both states went for Clinton. Now if it was Wisconsin, maybe youd be talking about some major implications, but again these races (imo) were must wins, not upsets. A little over a year ago the idea Trump would beat Clinton was only held by a very small minority. Im not going to start saying "everything changed" until there is some actual change in a state that needs to be flipped

I dont know enough about the case, but I cant figure out the equivalence of the request. I was under the impression ATT offered cable/television outside of Direct TV, so I dont really see what Direct TV has anything to do with the merger and its not equivalent to CNN's parent company. Also dont know enough about ATT, but do they own other cable channels/networks?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 01:34 PM) If they shot horrifically means they couldn't get to the rim. here are the stats I could find: Badgers shot 25-53 (47%), including 8-20 (40%) from 3FGs and 18-24 (75%) on FTs Mizzou shot 17-57 (30%) overall and 4-22 (18%) 3FGs. Ethan Happ had 17 and 8 while Michael Porter had 24 and 8, but did not shoot a good percentage from the field. Michael Porter Jr. had 24 points on 5-of-16 shooting, while Jontay Porter added 11 points on 3-of-10 shooting.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) They beat missouri in a scrimmage. Still a well coached team Sounds like Misssouri shot horrifically though. One strange stat is Happ went 5-6 on ft. If he improved there it could be big for Wisconsin.

Wisconsin not ranked to start the year. A lot of question marks but I think its a team that may really surprise some people. Doubt they win the Big 10, but could see them as a top 4 finisher.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 12:27 PM) Yesterday was honestly one of the best days of my young political career. Got to watch a blue wave of returns come in while sitting in the White House bouncing questions off a high-ranking administration official. Everything has changed after last night. It's pretty exciting. Its nice to have optimism, but its way too early to say "everything has changed." We are about 1 year away from being even remotely close to that conclusion.

Just read the SI Copy from 2014 is going for a few hundred dollars on ebay. I think I just threw mine out in the last few months because my gf was complaining that I kept all my old SI's for no reason. Boooooo

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Nov 2, 2017 -> 04:27 PM) That should absolutely be Kaepernick's job. But yeah, injuries are definitely ruining the NFL this year. McNair would hire me before Kaepernick.

Thats just horrible. Hopefully by some miracle its just a bad sprain or something.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 07:43 PM) You serious right now? I hadn't read the other recent posts. I'm allowed to post about whatever the hell I want to post about. It was sarcastic. Rabbit kept trying to avoid arguments by saying I should create another thread. If you read the previous posts I try to explain it's the Democrat catch all thread. So I was just joking about the post.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 04:47 PM) Recognizing that US foreign policy is a major factor in why the middle East is what it is today and then saying we shouldn't offer refuge to the people that are suffering from our country's actions send pretty cruel. Of course its cruel, the whole discussion is cruel, but its easy. Its easy to blame other people. Its easy to say "oh they are dangerous", etc. That is the easy route. The hard route is to stand up for other people, to take risks, to give people a chance. (This isnt to you SS) I have no problem if people have different opinions. That is what the world is built on. I do have a problem when people try to mislead others into believing something is more than "opinion." That is why I clash heavily with certain people on these boards. I dont care if people want to say that we should ban refugees, immigrants, etc. But I am going to argue just as hard for the reverse. Because while I may be here, while its been over a century since any of my immediate family has lived in an area that was oppressed or dangerous, I feel an obligation to fight for those who are oppressed/suffering. Because when my family moved here, they were the "others" they were the people that nobody wanted. And if people like me forget where we came from, then who will be left to give the other people a chance, to argue for those who dont have a say? Maybe Im wrong, maybe letting in immigrants/refugees will be the end of the US as we know it, that everything I care about, believe in, will be destroyed. I dont know, and hopefully I never will know.