Hjeada

I don't think this is accurate...my stock velo slider was 2" deeper in the chord than the PD RDS... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I was working for St. Paul Companies at the time, and I used to park on Cathedral Hill and walk down to the office...I was walking down that hill when the first plane hit. By the time I got into the office, there was a group of coworkers all surrounding a TV in a conference room watching the news coverage. Shortly after I started watching the coverage the second plane hit. I remember vividly that a VP named Archie looked over at me and said, I don't think this is accident, and rushed to his office to look at policies to see if acts of terror were covered in the policies. Eventually, it didn't matter if they were or weren't, as we paid all claims that came as a result of the attacks. It is a day that will forever be burned into my memory. As a kid, my dad would always talk about how he would never forget where he was when Kennedy was shot, or for the first moon landing...I always thought it kinda weird, but after that day, we all have our own memory that will last until we die. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Could the inverse not be said of your position, and for that matter 'your kind' (I am not placing you or your views in any bucket as I don't know what they truly are, I am just making a point)? There is an equal push from the opposite view wanting to force others to accept their position on abortion. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is moral, just the same as morality doesn't equate to legality. So, from the opposing view it will always feel, well, a bit "Talibanesque". Whether the driving force behind one's position is religion, morality, or legality really is moot, as opposing parties will almost always discredit positions that aren't the same as their own as inferior. Latest polls that I found (in a 3 second search) show the US is still split between prolife and prochoice (http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx), so while completely legal (and I would argue that it should remain legal), the morality of the topic is still definitely not decided. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Don't bother him with facts, they just result in confusion. Clearly he knows more about Chicago than I do, I only live and work there. Yes, obviously you do, there are only museum, parks, architecture and daisies in your illustrious city...definitely no ghettos, no gangs, no murders...it is truly the Camelot of the world...so pompous and arrogant. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Three, not two. Gary IN, East Chicago IN, and Harvey IL are all pretty much "Greater Chicago Area." The definition is pretty vague, but all three of those are on the "Chicago" city map in the Rand McNally road atlas. So lets see. Three cities** which are NOT Chicago (and two of which are even in a different state) have higher murder rates than Chicago, which somehow indicates that walking through (non-existent) projects at night in Chicago is risky. ** That's three among at least thirty in the list. I see Hjaeda has been taking lessons in logic from rushmc. First, you are responding to someone other than me, second, I corrected myself about the projects, but you still cling to that desperate attempt at a redirect, and third, CMA and other Metropolitan Statistical Areas (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_metro.htm), are often considered as a whole when looking at statistical information. However, you continue to be intellectually dishonest (falls in line with past behavior from you so I'm not sure why I'm surprised, the whole south side misrepresentation). So tell me, how about that evening walk down Halsted & 77th? Dudeist Skydiver #0511

More telling is 2 of the top 30 are part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area...but hey, it's not part of Chicago proper so it doesn't count! Fascinating how the goalposts get moved. Chicago is NOT in the top 30 at all. Unlike, say Baton Rouge, Memphis or Little Rock. 28 of the top 30 are not in the Chicago area. You posted the list, I just made an observation of that list. The fact that you were being intellectually dishonest with that list doesn't mean I was moving the goal posts. The only intellectual dishonesty here is from the person who (1) suggests a walk through "projects", when the "projects" have been gone 10 years, and (2) when that ploy fails, then weasels by trying to equate Chicago with cities that are not Chicago. That person would be Hjeada. There is no weaseling here, except by you... How can one not consider cities that are considered to be part of the "Chicago Metropolitan Area" when evaluating crime statistics unless they are being intellectually dishonest? Two of the top fifteen cities for murder are within a stones throw of Chicago, so close that they are grouped as part of Chicagoland, but you want to toss that little bit out to make a point that Chicago proper isn't in the top 30 murder capitols of America... that is the very definition of being intellectually dishonest. Your credibility is waning, "professor". Referring to the projects was a semantics error. I should have referred to a neighborhood instead of using the generic term 'projects', last I checked, not intellectual dishonesty. So, how about that evening stroll down Halsted & 77th? I mean, since Chicago is super safe and all. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

More telling is 2 of the top 30 are part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area...but hey, it's not part of Chicago proper so it doesn't count! Fascinating how the goalposts get moved. Chicago is NOT in the top 30 at all. Unlike, say Baton Rouge, Memphis or Little Rock. 28 of the top 30 are not in the Chicago area. You posted the list, I just made an observation of that list. The fact that you were being intellectually dishonest with that list doesn't mean I was moving the goal posts. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Look John I love you man....But my town has a Fortune 500 company and we are about 15K....you pissy little town sucks. Get over it. You'll be up here in 2 weeks. You can check it out for real. Go to the beach, the museums, the 25 miles of parks along the lakeshore, admire the architecture... If you want to 'check it out for real' you would also include a tour of the projects and ghettos/slums, a foot tour after dark of those areas should provide a more comprehensive and balanced look at the whole of Chicago. Out of date information. The projects were ALL abandoned a decade ago and subsequentlydemolished Funny how people who don't live in Chicago think they know more about the place than people who do. Telling how you would rather focus on semantics than the point, but then again, that's what you do all the time, so I'm not surprised...since crime isn't a problem anymore you should take a walk after dark down Halsted & 77th. I bet you will feel all safe and warm on the inside. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

More telling is 2 of the top 30 are part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area...but hey, it's not part of Chicago proper so it doesn't count! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Look John I love you man....But my town has a Fortune 500 company and we are about 15K....you pissy little town sucks. Get over it. You'll be up here in 2 weeks. You can check it out for real. Go to the beach, the museums, the 25 miles of parks along the lakeshore, admire the architecture... If you want to 'check it out for real' you would also include a tour of the projects and ghettos/slums, a foot tour after dark of those areas should provide a more comprehensive and balanced look at the whole of Chicago. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

You are being generous calling this a "composition", I would have labeled it a pile of steaming shit, but hey, that's just me... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Fair enough, we can agree that is it a contributing factor to a person's overall responsibility, although the level to which we weigh that factor may vary slightly. Absolutely, education makes sense, and any reduction in accidental deaths is a good thing. Is a person acting more responsibly when something is mandated and they abide to the mandate? If a condition of gun ownership is to carry liability insurance, then the person isn't acting responsibly, they are simply meeting the criteria for ownership. But, yes, as I said above, it could be considered a contributing factor toward responsibility, but I still don't think that it the determining factor. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Depends on perspective, when someone turns 25 insurance goes down, so you can either view it as a penalty for younger drivers, or a reward for those who have matured or have more experience. The argument wasn't against the effectiveness of the law, the debate is on if having insurance equates to responsibility, which I hold isn't an accurate association (on that note, I don't think it is necessarily an inaccurate association either), it is just one data element one could use to determine overall responsibility. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Agreed that there may be a financial incentive to act in a more responsible way, however, incentives don't mean all will act in a responsible way, just as we see with drivers, there are still those that drive drunk, or speed, etc. They have insurance and by John's logic are therefore responsible...additionally, the penalty for not acting responsibly, in the case of insurance, only applies after being caught (dui, accident, speeding ticket, etc.). So in the case of firearms insurance, more than likely after it's too late to remedy the situation (kid killed his mom, or shoots a friend, etc.). All the insurance does is provide monetary compensation for an incident in which fault is applied, carrying said insurance doesn't inherently mean one is responsible or acts responsibly. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Really? You have liability insurance on your parachutes? I have liability insurance against injuring someone when using my parachutes. When put away in my basement they are covered by my homeowners policy should they decide to go rogue and kill someone on their own. Yes, my mistake, I thought the USPA Membership insurance only protected against property damage, not physical injuries, so poor example. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others. Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter. Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance. There are many many irresponsible drivers that have liability insurance...being insured doesn't mean someone is going to act responsibly, it just means that if they fuck up they have some insurance to help cover them. Which is, ipso facto, being responsible. No it doesn't...an insured driver can drive drunk, or at 120mph, or recklessly swerve in and out of traffic. The fact that they have insurance does not mean they are responsible. Insurance != responsibility. Your logic holds that financial compensation is an adequate level of 'responsibility' in your world. You know, if a drunk driver puts someone in the hospital (or grave), as long as they get some $'s, then they were a responsible driver. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Really? You have liability insurance on your parachutes? Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others. Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter. Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance. There are many many irresponsible drivers that have liability insurance...being insured doesn't mean someone is going to act responsibly, it just means that if they fuck up they have some insurance to help cover them. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Going to this tonight! So excited to see this! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

He got arrested for making eye contact and running. Why would some one who doesn't have anything illegal on him run when he sees a group of cops? Perhaps because he had a lengthy criminal record and had committed other crimes and thought the police were onto him again, perhaps because he had previously been whooped by the police, perhaps because that is was his engrained response for many years...perhaps perhaps perhaps...doesn't really matter why he ran, what matters is how the situation was handled, which was criminal. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Did you just Godwin Law yourself!? On the very first post even! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

My understanding is that since it is still federally illegal, employers can do what they please in that regard. Same as how employers in CA can still drug test as a condition of employment. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

The war on drugs is extremely lucrative for police...confiscation of cars, property, monies, etc with limited ability of the average citizen to get their property back without expensive court battles. Additionally, low level 'drug busts' for possession certainly help with clearing rates. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them. Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government. So you have no problem with the banker bail outs, or how they bankers spent those funds. Got it. Care to recant your statements about gov't bailing out corporations, or how the bonuses of those executives were spent? Personal responsibility without accountability is never a good proposition. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Lots and lots of disturbing behavior by LEO's, and it's been going on for a really long time. I don't understand the mentality...suspect running, gets down on the ground arm and legs out (obviously surrendering), now, let's beat the hell out of him...WTF? Dudeist Skydiver #0511