Y2HH

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 05:06 PM) Yes. Jimmy Carter believes in that version and nobody can deny he is one helluva smart person. Some of us believe. Some don't. Actually, that makes him pretty stupid. Religion is the ONLY thing we accept in our lives where there is no burden of proof necessary. Climate change is real. NO ITS NOT YOU HIPPY LIBERAL!! PROOVE IT! Dinosaurs existed. NO THEY DIDN'T, THEY WERE NEVER MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE ONCE!! PROOVE IT! People evolved. NO THEY DIDN'T, APES STILL EXIST SO HOW DID WE EVOLVE FROM THEM?! PROOVE IT! Medicine cures diseases, not praying! NUH-UH, YOU NINNY! PROOVE IT! But if you say, "I swear to you, this magical guy floating in the sky exists, but you can't see him, talk to him or touch him...ever." OMG I COMPLETELY AGREE. ... Oh, and for the first four, even when you do show scientific proof, they won't believe you...but if you pass down a story from thousands of years ago, written by people who would be considered stupid by todays standards, we take their every superstitious word at face value without asking for a single shred of evidence.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 24, 2015 -> 08:22 PM) 17 of the last 48 times there was a 5% correction, it continued downwards to 10% or greater...so the odds are roughly 35-40% IF you can time it right. On the other hand, it bounced back positively even more frequently. Now it just depends on what you sold exactly, transaction/brokerage fees...cost to get back into the market again, if you looked at it every occasion you attempted to "time" the market and how much money you actually were able to save versus an approach of dollar cost averaging (or even doubling your investments in the midst of a correction of 5-10% or more waiting for a bounce back long-term). It's not easy to do. Bill Miller of Legg Mason famously beat the S&P Index for 13 consecutive years (Value Trust/LMVTX) and became one of the most reputable managers in the game...yet the combination of 2001-2002 and 2008-2009 did such a number on him that he was relieved of his position and in fact the name of his fund became so poisonous it had to be changed to Clear Bridge Value Trust. In a different way, the same thing has happened to Bill Gross of Pimco Total Bond Index...hubris in thinking you can time the market consistently, well, we all know what happened to Icarus. There are many instances of people beating the S&P500 Index for a span of years -- but it's never sustained. Given enough time, the S&P500 ALWAYS wins, which is why I simply invest my 401k into that, and a foreign index.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 22, 2015 -> 12:39 AM) I was watching some Bill Maher shows on youtube and enjoyed his debates with Bill O'Reilly and various other people about God and religion. Maher believes there is no God, thinks the Bible is a fairy tale, and says once we die we're kaput forever. We will have no knowledge of anything; we'll be gone. Religious people believe there is a God and our spirits will live forever. Some people elect to practice on Sundays; others do not. I was hoping to get a thorough count on Soxtalk of believers vs. nonbelievers and how many of you practice your religion by going to church services or Mass if you are Catholic on Sundays. Feel free to put any comment no matter how brutal about whether u believe or not. My guess is Soxtalk is vastly full of nonbelievers. I do not say that because I don't like Soxtalkers. I think Soxtalkers are very brash and skeptical if that is the right word and I sense an 85 nonbeliever; 15 percent believer count. You can consider me one of the sheep that got lost. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for quite a few years yet arrived -- at least at this point in my life -- where I am today. Do I believe in religion? No. I believe "religion" is short for "man made rules meant to control the masses". That said, do I believe in spirituality in that I believe there is "something greater" out there? Yes. I believe the creator of the universe, whatever that creator might be -- be it an alien, a man, a random phenomena, or an explosion -- is "God", and "God" does not necessarily have to be a being. I believe in the prime mover...and I believe -- without man made religion -- that we should all strive to better ourselves because it's the right thing to do, not because we are told to do it. I dislike the religious that lean on praising God for good things, yet not blaming him for bad things -- and of course, this is because he works in mysterious ways -- which is the weakest cop out argument ever invented. Yes, deciding to give a child brain cancer so they can live a miserably short existence is mysterious only in that he's an asshole if in fact he's making these sorts of decisions. And of course the canned response to that is they get to live a glorious afterlife -- WELL...not according to original sin they don't...because if they've not made their first confession they're headed to hell or purgatory...which is more hypocritical nonsense. And even if they did, if people truly believe the afterlife is greater than this one, why are they afraid to die? More nonsense. What I consider man made religion is often a mixture of the following: 1) impossible set of rules to follow 2) rules that change depending on completely arbitrary decisions (A few examples: there was a time that accepting communion before confession was a sin -- that's no longer the case, there was a time that eating meat on Sunday was forbidden all year, now it's just during lent. 3) hypocritical in that religious people will often poke fun at other religions and call them cults or talk about how absurd they are (look at Scientology), another made up religion that follows alien crab people (apparently), but let's be honest...what's more absurd, powerful alien life or an invisible man floating in the sky? I can go on and on with this list, but I'm growing bored of it already.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 03:26 PM) I'm not saying that the fear and sense of violation wouldn't be real and perfectly justifiable. I'm asking for how long that's a justification for killing the perpetrator. Still in your house? Yeah, 99/100 justified. They've run out the door and you're firing at them from inside the house? Definitely more of a gray area for me, but probably justifiable under a "heat of the moment"/panic/adrenaline explanation. Leaving the safety of your home and chasing them into your yard? I think that'd be pretty hard to justify as "self-defense" since you're the one who decided to prolong the conflict and pursue them. Now what if it turns out that not only the perpetrators were a couple of houses down, but that the shooter wasn't even on his own property anymore? How long are you justified in chasing after them? If you're trying to argue immediate danger/self-defense, that runs out pretty quickly as you get farther and farther away from your own door. But if you're trying to use "I'd never feel safe in my own home so long as this person lived," doesn't that continue indefinitely? I guess my issue is lack of faith in the system, because Chicago is particular has shown it can't be trusted. Violent, illegal gun toting criminals are set free or jailed for minimal amounts of time while the politicians scream about gun laws. So, in knowing that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume if the armed burglar lives -- even if caught -- they'll be back on the street in short order, if not to return and do it to me again, to pick another random victim that may not be so lucky. I've repeated this on many occasions, but if they want to solve the gun issue in Chicago all they have to do is pass mandatory minimum sentencing (7+ years without parole) if caught with an illegal gun...and our infamous gun issue would resolve itself rather quickly. But as it is, they're often back on the street within a month (if that). So I have zero faith in the system that's there is defend me/others from this sort of situation because it won't really do much to curtail it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 03:12 PM) I know they didn't. I'm trying to find where the "they could come back at some point in the future" argument stops working by using a hypothetical situation. What if he had chased them out of the yard, firing at them, but never hit them? They could certainly come back to "finish the job" then. Would he be justified in hunting them down in that case? If not, why is that any different than chasing them into the yard and shooting them when they're a couple of houses down the road and running away? The potential future threat would always remain. That wasn't the point...odds are they'd never come back, but that isn't the psyche I'm tapping here...that family will no longer feel safe with that person out there. I know I wouldn't. It's the peace of mind that my home no longer has (not that it ever truly had it), but the perception of that safety is now shattered. So now I have a house that I paid 200+K for, that I now need to sell in a s*** market because the peace of mind that home had is gone...is this rational? No...but it's how I'd personally feel. I'd feel as if I could no longer leave my house without my family. Unfortunately I work, and I have too. And for what...and by who? For a person that even if they get caught will be back on the street in a month? And in reality, odds are they'll be back out on the street a few days later... This person did more harm than simply breaking into my home and leaving...there are repercussions, not just for that person (which in Chicago means basically no repercussions at all), but for my family. Edit: So f*** that douche right in his ass.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 02:55 PM) Okay? But if you follow the argument "they could come back in the future and kill me" to its conclusion, that means that someone who commits armed robbery should be permanently removed from society (LWP) or put to death. What if the guy in the home wasn't armed at the time and the robbers got away? Would he be justified in hunting them down and shooting them so they couldn't come back to "finish the job?" If not, where can you draw the line? The day something like this actually happens to you, you know what we'll all call you? A republican.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) Ok, but in this case, the guy did chase them out of the house and into the yard and continued firing at them as they fled. The man he shot was two houses away. Still in the house? I'm going to be less forgiving than you guys depending on what, exactly, the actions were (think of this case and this case), but once they've fled and are still running away from your property? It's no longer self defense. Well, I'd love to say I wouldn't have done the same...but in such a situation, where I see a person that just struck fear into my wife/children and now they have to live in a home they will never again feel is "safe" ... I might have done the same depending on what ran through my head in that moment in time. But I'd love to say I'd let him go...it's the logical thing to do...but then again...now I get to live in a home with a mortgage in which nobody feels safe ever again because the threat is still out there. Even if the police do catch him, what do they get him on, possession of a firearm (which Chicago does nothing about), and B&E? Great...he'd be out in a few months time...and maybe he'll come back and finish the job because he feels "we caused him to get caught". The more I think about it the more I'd want that person gone forever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) Following that logic to its conclusion, it'd be okay to hunt him down. Nope, I absolutely wouldn't exit my home to get him, but while he's in my house, he's fair game...just as I was minutes before he realized I was 1) home and 2) had a gun, too.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) It wasn't just some random person though, it was a guy that just invaded your home and pulled a gun on you. But you have to agree this is a very limited case. This isn't some mini-bar fight gone bad. This guy had his house invaded and a gun pulled on him. And in such as case, let's look at the reality of the situation. Guy enters your home, pulls a gun, realizes fight is fair and runs -- your choices are 1) let him go call the police and hope for the best, or 2) make sure he never does this to another person OR returns to do it when you aren't home, and maybe your wife is alone... These aren't the smartest people in the world, so him returning isn't a stretch...after all he's armed...and letting him run/calling the police and hoping they capture him is also kind of a "meh" alternative...because you know he's just going to go rob someone else, and they may not be so lucky...because you let him run. f*** that, if you enter my house I don't care what direction you're facing...you shall die if I get the chance. One less f***wad for society to worry about.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) Little bit of both... I like nice suits, what can I say? Getting them completely custom made drives up the price but it really matters in the fit and finish. I only have one of these -- but it's also my only suit. The difference in everything, from the material to how it drapes while wearing it is night and day versus a cheaper suit. It's not even close. The material has a slight sheen to it, while NOT being shiny, it just looks and feels amazing. Most suits I find uncomfortable, but this one was worth the money.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) They deserve it for going to jail right? Lol? Some deserve far worse than just going to jail, but of course, that's just my opinion. But really, rape isn't quite what enters the mind for the worst of the worst that are caught red handed/without a shadow of a doubt...I'd rather see those select few dipped in acid without painkillers so they can live their final moments in absolute pain.

I don't think "prison rape" is something we allow, it's more like something that happens. You are talking about some of the worst of the worst people from society performing these acts. This is a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you wan't to get rid of rape in prison, there are two very simple solutions -- get caught raping someone -- you get the choice of the death penalty or life in solitary. The situation will then resolve itself. But the reality is, I'm sure you'd protest that, too. Because it's inhumane to be inhumane to the inhumane and all...and yes, I said that properly.

What a way to flush your life after being handed the brass ring for doing something a million other fat people have done before you...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 10:40 AM) In high school and college I took the utilitarian approach: Hey, keep these babies around and think of the cost! But as I grew older, as I experienced my wife being pregnant and giving birth to our son, as I experienced friends of mine suffer for years to have children, as I experienced friends who just didn't want to have a kid yet go through with an abortion because it wasn't convenient for them to do so ("I haven't traveled much yet!"), the more and more I grew to really hate the practice. Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle. So much has to go right. So much can go wrong. Seems like such a terrible practice if that miracle can actually happen. I went through a very similar and expensive experience when we were trying to have our first child -- we now have two -- but for over year we were convinced it wasn't going to happen. THAT being said...we WANTED a kid/kids...we aren't talking about people that want them. These kids will undoubtedly end up growing up in a broken family or an even more broken foster system, leading to broken lives. Everyone just loves to assume the baby will be given over to adoption and grow up happy, but more often than not, this isn't what's happening. The child is born into terrible circumstances to parents that don't want it, it get's neglected and lives a s*** life...all because they're forced to do so? I find that insane, and unfair...I'm for abortion for all the reasons you gloss over in your little miracle speech here. Giving birth isn't hard, or we wouldn't still be here...and while it may be a miracle for some couples, for other's it's a burden they don't want, nor should we force them too...and telling them to just not have sex is ignoring the science behind countless thousands of years of evolution telling them the exact opposite.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 09:34 AM) Oh, ok. This is why I didn't understand what you were saying. I was giving Carson too much credit; I didn't realize his position was bats*** insane. I think it is... Someone else here said it best, and highlights exactly why I'm for abortion...something along the lines of "banning abortion so people are forced to have kids they cannot/will not take care of"...because THAT'S a solution! I'm not a huge fan of religion, in case that wasn't clear. Now, don't take that out of context, either...it doesn't mean I'm against those that believe in something/spirituality, I simply do not believe in the made up "written" religions that drive this sort of insanity have much use today.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 09:24 AM) Ok, but what he's trying to say is meaningless nonsense. Which is where this started. Of course I agree when applied to the politics...he's just another political hack that will change his opinion based on any number of factors...I was simply pointing out that I understand his "explanation", not that I agree with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 09:16 AM) His opinion doesn't make sense, that's the problem. Nobody is "harvesting" fetal tissue for research in that they're getting women pregnant and then terminating the pregnancies in order to collect fetal tissue (and I don't think Carson was trying to say that happens, either). But in order to get fetal tissue for research, it must be "harvested" during an abortion and processed specifically to be used for research. There isn't another way to get it. There isn't a grey area. Based in the context of this current PP "controversy", I think that's exactly what he's saying, and in that context, that's why what he's saying here makes sense to me...

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) There's no difference at all. It's the same source. That statement is true, but if his name is on the paper, then he knew about the other parts of the study, including the use of aborted fetal tissue. I don't think the source matters in his explanation...it's how it was acquired by that source. One source can acquire tissue in a way he finds legit, and in a way he finds immoral... I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 08:57 AM) Exactly. It's not like there's some fetal tissue factory, getting women pregnant and aborting the fetuses in order to harvest fetal tissue. It's all sourced from terminated pregnancies. I don't like the idea of speaking for Dr. Carson, but I think it's of his opinion that it's not the source that's the problem, it's the how and why it was acquired in the first place. So, from what I gather, he's against "harvesting" this type of tissue specifically for the sake of research...it's grey area, but I still get his point. So, it's not the same unless you completely ignore his opinion on the subject. Maybe the way PP operated then vs now no longer jives with his morals...or maybe he's just another political hack that flip-flops when it's convenient. In either case, I still see what hes trying to say.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 07:52 AM) so what you are saying is that we should delete this thread I'd delete a lot of threads. But to be fair to Soxtalk -- there happens to be a LOT of intelligent people that post here, whether I agree with them or not -- you should see some of these same topics being discussed on places like Facebook...it destroys my faith in humanity with the sheer stupidity of the opinions on either side, regardless of the argument taking place. And I'm not even sure that stupidity is a strong enough word to describe it.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 16, 2015 -> 01:36 AM) Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. She's firmly in command. That email thing isn't going to bring her down. It's just going to add to her "greatness" legacy. ... "She overcame all obstacles even the ridiculous campaign to bring her down through alleged secret emails. She proved those accusations false." Listen to this Michael Savage attack on Meghan Kelly. He makes some great points. The debate ended and Kelly interviewed some Hillary worshiper and that person had the nerve to say, "This debate tells me the Democratic nominee will have no trouble winning. And the Republicans are having so few debates because they know they don't fare well." Huh?? Will there even be a Democratic debate? Should be interesting to see the Journalists toss Hillary softballs and ruin their careers if there ever is a Democratic debate. Now she'll probably have one soon IMO before Gore and Biden decide to run and tear her apart. But listen to Savage and tell me what u think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yawAyr4Ch-o I doubt Hillary is worried about Biden. At all.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Aug 16, 2015 -> 08:25 PM) Have we established they are profiting? What evidence do we have other than you don't like them? Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove? How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 08:22 AM) How so? Ben Carson is outraged that Planned Parenthood would donate aborted fetal tissue to medical researchers. Ben Carson formerly performed medical research involving donated aborted fetal tissue. I think a lot of this is coming in light of the story that PP story and he says there is a difference in using tissue donated that wasn't "harvested" for that specific purpose vs tissue that exists and it's better to perform research it than to throw it away. Also, he didn't conduct the entire study we are all talking about, many people were involved and I think he's being credited with things he didn't actually perform in that experiment simply because it helps paint the picture of him the media wanted. I believe his claim is that, just because my name is on a study doesn't mean I carried out every action taken during that study. Also, I don't care about Ben Carson, but I believe this is why.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 03:38 PM) Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue his explanations for why it was different in his case don't really make a lot of sense. They seem to make perfect sense to me.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 08:05 AM) Guess I'm one of the rare few. I've always been against hunting for sport. I can see what you mean about jumping on bandwagons for causes. I witness it on FB as well. And don't get me wrong, I have no issues with people "chiming in" with their opinions, it's what social media is for. We all do it here for the sake of discussion. But that's not the type I'm talking about. As a good recent example, I'm talking about the ones that never cared about or spoke out for gay rights -- not once -- but suddenly their entire Facebook page was splashed in rainbows when it became the thing to do, and in a way, it became about them more than the actual cause.