StrangeSox

That's hilarious. "I went to the Naval Academy and we had an honor code. [...] You don't report [on people lying in a presidential campaign.]" What a tool.

QUOTE(Princess Dye @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) RE: Fields.... Crede's a great fielder. If there's no trade, he's gonna play. Fields would have had to KO him this spring and didnt. Fault them for their overall logic of winning now, fine. But this is in line with it. Crede was a great fielder. He hasn't shown those same abilities post-back surgery.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Because McCain's relationship wasn't some bad joke like this Sinclair thing is. They were close, people in HIS campaign were worried about it. Besides, even that story died a quick death. And plenty of people heavily criticized the NYT for printing that article without much basis.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) I am not claiming Obama did any of this. In fact, I doubt it. My main point in this thread was actually the complete bias by the main-stream media, and how they are willing to cover up anything Obama. If this Sinclair guy claimed this crap with McCain or even Hillary, you can bet your ass this would have been covered a whole lot more. I post the reverse speech, and other stuff to not prove he was telling the truth, but rather there are still plenty of questions out there, and this should be getting some coverage. It's not bias. The media does not have an obligation to report every bat-s*** crazy accusation someone makes against a public figure. Good journalists determine if there's any truth to a story before reporting it.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) why not? To the Clinton's the caucuses dont count. Nothing wrong at all -- that's politics. Make yourself look as strong as possible. He's doing a better job than the Clintons, who'd just tell us that that state doesn't matter anyway, what really matters is her winning Dem strongholds.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Yea. Once again I'll go to the math. If she wins Penn by "only" 10 points, she needs to win roughly 68-70% of the remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count. Obama has said a lose in Penn by 10 or less is a victory for him since it's a "Clinton state". that's good spin. Downplay your own expectations so that you can look better than expected and turn a slight loss or win into a positive.

She is a compulsive liar.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) Excellent post. Yep, summed up my feelings on them better than I had them in my own head.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Since its apparent that nobody will acknowledge the possibility of AA unless it is written in finite I will state why I think she is racist contingent on this being true, which I strongly believe it is. IMO, AA is a form of racism in its own degree and if it is used then it doesnt only affect the beneficiary. That would mean someone more qualified was turned down because of the color of their skin and missed out on going to Princeton. Then she writes about having a chip on her shoulder and that people treated her differently because of the color of her skin and she is making it sound like she is some kind of victim of racism even though the ONLY victim of racism in that case is the student that got denied entry to the university. So in this country that she has never been proud of until recently gave her an advantage with her education and instead of being grateful she acts like she was entitled to something. I also hold her to the same criticism I do Barrack in terms of choosing their church and continuing to support such an open racist. So, in other words, you don't have anything to back up your assertions aside from a quote from a friend? Aside from that quote from her friend, there's no evidence pointing towards her getting in because of AA. If she truely wasn't qualified to be there, would she have excelled and graduated with honors? Doesn't that prove that she was qualified regardless of admissions standards? Do you think its possible for a black person to be treated differently because of the color of her skin? For whites to look at her in school and think "I wonder if she's only here because of AA?" I heard some classmates make comments like that at U of I about minority students. I don't support AA and I agree that it is a form of racism. There's still not much basis for your claims. There's your problem; your most solid basis for your claim that its a FACT that she got into Princeton or Harvard because of AA is a quote from a friend in Newsweek that M. Obama disagrees with.

Base price is expected to be $50k, last I heard.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) It could be a number of things. It could have been because of her standardized testing scores compared to universities requirements. Someone could have told her, etc. Obviously the thought has crossed her mind because it has been brought up and discussed on various platforms. I'm sure the thought crossed her mind. She wrote a thesis about it. Does she KNOW that she got in because of AA? Has she clearly stated that she believes she got in because of AA? The article you keep posting is a quote from Verna Williams, not Michele Obama.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) Out of curiosity are any of the people that have continued to question my stance on Michelle getting into Princeton because of affirmative action going to address the proof I posted or just ignore it and move on to something else? Im just waiting for someone to tell me that they are going to take the word of a campaign spokesperson over the actual person that is the topic of discussion. Everyone was up in arms when I bring this up and then when I show where Im getting the info from nobody is even going to consider the fact that maybe its true? I'm still going to question how any individual person knows that they got into school on their own merit or because of AA. She graduated with honors from Princeton -- I think that tends to point to her getting by on her own merit. She may believe she benefited from AA, but does she know for sure? Would should still have gotten in without AA?

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) It's all good. off top of my head: Arguments in favor - self-defense, being more heavily armed than any criminal or organization, safety of the community, etc. Arguments against - not enough criminal activity to justify need for high-cailber weapons in a relatively safe society (i.e. not like an out-of-control warring African nation), too much risk for collateral damage, waste of ammunition and inability to control direction of fire I don't think many people would be advocating using a fully-automatic weapon for self-defense from a criminal. It'd be more along the lines of using it for fun at a shooting range primarily and supporting the idea that the citizens should well-armed so that the government cannot become too powerful. Like I've pointed out, crimes just aren't committed with legally-owned automatic weapons, and those guns haven't even been sold new here in over 20 years. Most probably sit on a shelf somewhere or get taken to the shooting range for some fun. Then you've got the militia nuts who see it not as a right but as a duty to be armed.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 12:28 PM) lol what? I have no idea how you figured that's what I was saying, in fact I think based off that you're completely misinterpreting my stance on the whole issue. That statement made no argument, it was intended to stand at face value. I think his point was this: You shouldn't have to justify a use for something for the government to allow it; the government should have to justify an overall benefit to ban something.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 12:21 PM) This is the same arguement I hear over and over again for making illegal drugs legal. If a gun ban is in place to reduce violent crimes but does not, what good is it? Then you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the choice to protect themselves. It's my opinion that if a law or policy isn't working or makes the situation worse (like with prohibition and criminalization of a lot of drugs), then it should be revised or removed.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:25 AM) Yeah, and how many committed with illegally owned automatic weapons? Thousands? Doubtful. Most crimes are committed with semi-automatic handguns, not rifles. I'm sure some crimes are committed with illegally-modified guns, but making it illegal to modify a gun isn't going to stop someone who is going to use that gun to commit a crime anyway. My point was that you can get an automatic weapon and if you're going through all of the BS to get one, you're not going to be the type of person using it for the wrong reason. Edit: The machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986. FYI, QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) The key word here is "illegal." Criminals are already breaking the law by default, so I'm not sure what putting extra restrictions on people who do follow the law is really supposed to accomplish. Actually I am sure. It'll accomlish nothing. Nothing real, anyway. Bingo. Time and time again, empirical evidence shows that gun bans just don't really work. A majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns anyway, so making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns doesn't do much of anything to stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 08:09 AM) Most gun owners would have no problems with 'reasonable' limits, restrictions, licensing, etc. But with our society today, you know full well that give an inch, take a mile. Automatic weapons are already against the law, except in certain cases (law enforcement and some collectors, but that is mostly vintage stuff). Sure, there is no real need for cop killer bullets and plastic handguns, but when buzz words like 'semi-automatic' get thrown around and nobody seems to understand what that really is, things get heated and misunderstood. Just about any gun today that isn't a single-shot rifle or muzzleloader is semi-automatic. OK, make gun owners take a safety class. The NRA sponsors alot of those, as do some police departments (not many, though). License them. Background checks are good. But some states go overboard. California is trying to pass new laws that will make you have to apply for another permit just to buy ammunition. And they want to make it a crime to give anyone, spouse included, more than 50 rounds of ammo in any 30-day period. You can go thru over 100 rounds at a target range easy. TEx had some good thoughts about this topic, some of which I agree with. I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns. I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose. I think owning a gun is fine. I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at. I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed. I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens. You can still have them, there's just a decent amount of red tape to go through first . They're not illegal by any means. There's also been only 1 or two crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons in the past 70 years. Edit: The machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) Also, I forgot to address this but do you realize that SHE personally said in the interview that she got into Princeton because of affirmative action but a CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON said otherwise? Is that seriously what you tried to use to combat the argument? Youre going to take a campaign spokespersons word over the actual person and then act like I had been exposed by trying to cover that page up or something. Is anyone actually told "you got in because of affirmative action?" How would anyone except the admissions office know?

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) In the unlikely event this were to happen though, wouldn't that be in direct conflict with the first 4 words? ("A well-regulated militia") Regulated and organized are two different things, and you have to be aware of what regulated means in 1792 vs. 2008.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) I would assume that in a word definition, that all definitions would be valid. Not when the definitions vary in meaning and are describing militias as defined around the world. Reading the rest of that wiki, along with the associated US militia wiki and official US code makes it pretty clear on what the definition of a militia in the US is, and its a bit more than your chopped up definition. A military draft is not the same as calling out the unorganized militia.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125538.html Who needs actual police work to corroborate "informant" tips when you can just go in and bust some doors down?

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia No but the Army Reserve and National Guard apply. You selected one definition out of several they provide. Here's the entire definition portion: The Army is not a militia. The National Guard is not a militia in the sense of 2A, as it is part of the Army. Here is a more complete article on the United States militia. Note that in 1903, the organized and unorganized militias were split up legally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29 Why should only military and police get handguns? Don't civilians deserve the right to defend themselves?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) To my eyes, this simply makes no sense in the modern era. Having an armed populace does not in any way make the government more afraid of the people today...because the government is so much better armed. If the government felt the urge to execute every American (and could convince the army to go along with it) it wouldn't matter at all whether or not you had your small arms. Yes, it is an additional power denied to the government and I understand that. However, pretending that the 2nd Amendment is going to keep George from declaring himself King George the 2nd doesn't make sense to me, and hence, I don't see how you can consider it integral to anything. If the right to bear arms went away tomorrow and every gun in the nation magically vanished, aside from denying a few people the ability to go hunting and making a few areas more dangerous to travel because of actual wildlife, the impact on most people's lives would be practically zero, and the government wouldn't suddenly be more able to decide to become oppressive and start listening in on all my phone calls or something like that. That's another straw man. The government would never conceivably do such a thing and the 2nd amendment is not there to stop such an action (never mind that large chunks of the armed forces would break off and fight back under such circumstances). It would not benefit them. The right to bear arms is a check on oppression, not genocide. Again, look at what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan and what's happening to us in Iraq. Small groups of loosely organized people who are vastly overpowered in weapons, tactics, and numbers are causing an awful lot of problems.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) Because my .22 is going to be able to stand up to a couple of Abrams tanks and a few B-2's. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (2000's and 1980's versions)