EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) No, it's not unfair. Right here you've made the classic, obvious mistake of assuming that the total number of terrorists or people willing to kill Americans is a constant. It isn't. And you seem to be assuming that everyone over there is a potential terrorist, just waiting for that one little slight to push them over the edge.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) More than a few people in Iraq admitted they were inflamed by the Abu Ghraib videos. This kind of stuff really, really matters, at the street level, in turning people who don't like us into people who are trying to kill us. They get inflamed when they wake up. They get inflamed when KCF added bacon to their chicken bowl. They get enraged if a dog looks at them. Seriously, there isn't one person over there that wasn't a terrorist before that suddenly changed their minds after this and said "you know what, I feel like killing some Americans today, this was the final straw". And the day Karzi expresses such 'outrage' at terrorists killing the good guys over there is the day that I will listen to ANY of his complaints. He is slime trying to play both sides of the fence.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 8, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) Liberal? Andrew is pretty well balanced and definitely leans conservative on economic issues. FYI, he is gay in case you didn't know. That's why he may have a differing view on social issues than a typical right winger. Andrew is generally only considered conservative by liberals.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 7, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) Does anyone believe it is possible to not be perceived as hypocritical on anything? People push this to extremes. Unless you support something to the extremist level, someone will brand you as a hypocrite. Someone doesn't think that the animal shelter should euthanize dogs and cats? Well you better have 25 dogs and a hundred cats if you are that concerned or else you look like a hypocrite. It's old, but has happened since then as well. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2005/06/109...g-dumping-dogs/ Killing dogs that are beyond care is one thing. Killng 86% of the dogs you take in because your cash goes to salary and advertising expenses instead of actually helping animals, is hypocritical. Claiming the world is gonna end as we know it due to the use of fossil fuel while riding around of private jets to say that is hypocritical.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) also just curious, what "groups dedicated to diversity that mostly consist of white men" are you referring to? Nothing springs to mind. How about all the so-called inclusive occupy movements? Finding the black guy in most of them is harder than finding Waldo. But you would find guns, drugs, criminals and so on.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) Can you point to this email? Because I don't recall it, and I think I would have heard about it living in the New Jersey state capital. http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-christie-dea...0,3094381.story

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) It's dumb for them to do that, but Rex was pointing out the irony of a group "dedicated to protecting life" or whatever they said also organizing prayer circles of death. Comparing that to a group that doesn't espouse protecting life as its goal isn't exactly a straight-up comparison. If you will note I first compared it to groups that claim to be for diversity but yet consist of mostly white men. Or the Humane Society of the United States killing animals and dumping bodies in dumpsters when they claim to try and HELP animals. Or people in 'pro-choice' groups that have no problems killing babies who freak at the thought of killing a baby killer. I agree that what he pointed out was pretty stupid.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) I don't ever support that kind of language in political discourse, ever. However, I do think there is a very real difference from an offhanded remark about someone and organizing a prayer chain to wish for death. Those two examples are very much not the same thing. Not even shades of it. PS: I never thought you were, I just don't buy that what you initially described as the same thing. So the head of the Jersey Teachers union sending an email to all the members asking them to pray for a Christie heart attack are not the same? It isn't just some offhand remark, its how they feel. And when they get called on it, they get all mealy mouthed about it saying 'that's not what I meant' or that it was somehow taken out of context, or the always awesome "i'm sorry if you were offended".

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) That's fine. You can call them out if you'd like. I'm just gonna reserve the right to call out organizations calling for or praying for the death of people because they're gay. Because I'm gay. And I don't think that's right. And particularly hypocritical when you do things in the same of "protecting life." So you can continue with a false equivalency all you'd like, but groups promoting diversity don't often call for the death of someone based on who that person is. If 'who that person is' would encompass being a conservative/Republican, there have been some. I recall a teachers union in Jersey wishing Christie dead not too long ago. And all the vitriol aimed at Palin can't be ignored. And if you add in 'bodily harm' instead of just death, you can include just about every liberal group out there wishing it on some conservative. edit - I am not saying they are right for doing so. I hate fringe whackos like that, make everyone look bad.

No thanks.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 12:32 AM) I just find it funny that groups committed to "protecting life" would pray for death. And groups promoting diversity being mostly white. And liberals preaching tolerance being intolerant. And groups promoting killing of babies want to keep baby killers alive. Happens all the time.

Government over-reach at its finest. The ADA should have been scrapped a long time ago as an inferior law since it was so vague as to allow over-reach like this. more at link...... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/j...te-americans-w/

Bye Carlos. Don't hit the door on your way out, at least not until the trade is finalized. Don't need to break anything before you get there.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 31, 2011 -> 12:39 AM) Oh and Rip Hamilton needs to learn how to shoot again. He's missing almost all of his long-range shots. His TS% so far looks abysmal (I think it's like .450). I'm sure he'll break out of this slump, but he's not doing anything well right now except leaking out on fast breaks. HIs career FG% is 45%, and he is currently just over 43%. For 4 games I would say he is doing about average. I di like the fact that the other team does have to pay attention to him, because when they have left him open, he has made the shots. THAT alone is something the Bulls have been lacking for a while.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) - In Iowa it doesn't matter how MUCH you spend, it matters if the people have MET you and how they feel about you. I feel like that's a pretty good barometer. Better than the rest of the primaries where you base a decision off a tv ad. - In Iowa the voters are, thus, more informed. - Higher percentage of people turn out Why NOT Iowa? I think your first point can be rephrased as In IOWA, it doesn't matter how much you SPEND, it is how much ASS YOU KISS. They want to feel 'important' and if you don't show them whatever level of 'respect' they think they deserve, they pout and go to whoever kisses up to them the most. If they were so informed, Ron Paul would be no where NEAR the lead, would be lucky to get 5%, unless all those Iowans are secretly racist, isolationists.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) Just because a lot of people are lazy and don't want to vote, doesn't mean that Republicans don't have a recent history of trying to depress turnout in minority communities in close races (for obvious reasons). Just as Democrats try and depress the military vote from overseas in just about every Democrat-led state, with their 'waivers' and late mailing of ballots overseas.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) Nearly 1/2 of the campaign spending currently happening in Iowa is being done by super-PAC's. ~$5 million worth in December alone. Iowa is so NOT worthy of that money. Time for a different state, or better yet, several states, to be first.

I think these 2 Dems need to get a life if this bugs them so much as to try and introduce a bill to combat it! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/...nterstitialskip

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) Again, if they are not voting now, even more reason to work towards eliminating those barriers. Both in registering and in voting. Doesn't matter if they are poor people in the sticks or soldiers away from home. You want to eliminate them from being poor and out in the boonies so they can vote? Voting is a right, a right YOU need to exercise. That means YOU need to put forth some effort to know it, use it and keep it. If you have to be carried from your home to the voting booth to vote, screw you. With early voting, absentee voting and a full day of voting on the actual day, if you can't be bothered to find a way to vote, I do not care. There are no government imposed barriers to the poor people in your situation that you can remove.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Tex already explained this to you. Stop being lazy and do some research if you are legitimately curious as to what the arguments are. What did he explain? That he knows some poor families way out in the sticks. Didn't say if they vote NOW or not. Didn't say if they had IDs or not. All he said was a hypothetical that they had no public transportation to get an ID. Well, THAT would also lead one to believe that they didn't vote either, so what's the problem? They are disenfranchising themselves. The mainstream arguments all center around the mistaken assumption that since ID's cost money, poor people won't have them, which is pure bull. Poor people have every reason to have an ID that anyone else does. And most states will make them available for FREE to low income people, especially for voting purposes. There goes your 'poll tax'. And if making someone spend the TIME to get an ID is a poll tax, then so is making them spend the time to actually vote. Now you want to go spouting off about polling places in poorer neighborhoods shutting down early, or lack of voting machines, that is NOT related to needing an ID to vote. And I agree that those things are problems when they occur and should be fixed. Doesn't only happen in poor neighborhoods. On local levels, depending on who's in power, it happens in certain precincts as well. Geeze, only in America can 'poor' people feel victimized by having to get a free damn ID to prove who they are. These same poor people probably could not even get in to see their congressman without an ID. They couldn't cash a check without an ID. Hell, at the press conference Eric Holder had about not needing an ID, you needed an ID to GET IN!!!!!

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Actually campaigns, Churches, and other groups do offer transportation to the polls on election day. You believe it is lame, I've volunteered in some very poor areas of this county. People who barely survive. Living in colonias with no running water or electricity. Are they really going to spend even $1 in trying to vote? That $1 is a week's worth of tortillas or a couple pounds of beans. You may believe that it doesn't matter if they can vote or not. I believe every citizen should be allowed to vote and we should work to eliminate any barriers to that basic and fundamental right. You spoke of those soldiers. Several of our wars have been to being democracy to other countries. We are willing to invest time, treasure, and talent for people in other countries to vote, why seek to prevent citizens here from voting? If they can get to the voting places, why can't they get ID's? Do they vote now? Do they have ID's now? Hell I have more restrictions on my right to own a gun than most people have on voting. Would you favor banning ID's for that as well? I still think it is a lame excuse. Needing an ID does not discriminate against poor people.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) alpha, there is an expense to get to a facility for the id. In many places there is no public transportation to get to the facility. Also, the hours are an issue for the working poor who do not have the benefits of taking off to go get the id. It is a barrier that is more of an issue for the poor than anyone else. So it may be a stretch, but a small one, to call it a "tax". It is an expense that is more of a burden on the poor and unemployed than anyone else. There is an expense to get to the voting place as well, why don't we just go door to door and take everyones vote then? That is a very weak and lame excuse Tex. Very weak and lame.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27171...s-von-spakovsky Some exerpts... ...Most of the states did a good job counting the ballots they actually got back — the overall acceptance rate was more than 94 percent. However, there was one glaring and shameful exception: The state of New York rejected nearly one-third of all absentee ballots from military voters. ...One troubling aspect of the MOVE Act was a provision that allowed states to apply for a one-time waiver from the 45-day deadline. Ten states and the District of Columbia applied for a waiver, most of them submitting their applications less than 50 days before the deadline ...The report also details other errors and egregious mistakes made by the Justice Department, which is charged with enforcing compliance with these federal requirements. This included telling states like Maryland that they could avoid the need for a waiver by sending a ballot that contained only federal races at least 45 days before the election, even though that meant depriving the military voters of their right to vote in state races. ...New York also got a waiver — and then violated the terms of the waiver, sending out its ballots even later than the date agreed to by DOD and DOJ in a settlement agreement. ...New York also got a waiver — and then violated the terms of the waiver, sending out its ballots even later than the date agreed to by DOD and DOJ in a settlement agreement.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) They shut down id-issuing facilities and make it more difficult for the poor to get id's. It also amounts to a poll tax. Again, shutting of facilities is a different issue. And I believe that most, if not all, the ID to vote requirements allow for a waiver of any fees for poor people. if the ID is FREE, there is no tax. Making someone have to prove who they are is not a tax, no mater how you may want to stretch it. So AGAIN, how is having to show an ID to vote a bad thing for poor people?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) Haha ha jesus christ. Alpha, just google. I know I've posted stories somewhat recently of increased voting id laws being passed in conjunction with shutting down id-issuing facilities in poor communities. Hell, some politicians have been open about their desire to restrict voting access because poor and/or young people don't vote correctly. Those are two, or ever three, different things. How is showing an ID to vote restricting poor people's right to vote. Shutting down voting places in poorer neighborhoods is a different matter. And for all the Dems complaining about making it easy to vote, they sure shut the hell up when it comes to getting the votes from soldiers overseas in time.