Jump to content

squishyx

Member Since 08 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 01:42 PM
****-

#1255657 The Edmonton Oilers Bottom Out

Posted by squishyx on 24 March 2014 - 01:18 PM

I gained a ton of respect for Scrivens after watching an interview with him about the jersey incident.

+1

link to save others from googling
http://www.cbssports...-throws-it-back


  • 1


#1250926 Marty's Quote at trade deadline

Posted by squishyx on 07 March 2014 - 09:51 AM

I think you are reading too much into it. The guy wants to play every game he can, including the playoffs, who wouldn't? He qualifies it pretty well that it's on him to earn in, and thus far he hasn't.


  • 1


#1212429 More Peace From Our Friends

Posted by squishyx on 30 September 2013 - 12:00 PM

There's a certain shortcoming with the idea of looking at the percentage of bad actors among a certain population and making conclusions about the scale of the problem.  I've heard this a lot when people are defending a certain dangerous city -- say Newark -- where someone argues that only a miniscule number of people in Newark are murderers or violent criminals.  The problem is, that's still a lot of violent people and a lot of people that are affected by it.  Basically, if you live in Newark over a certain period of time, you are VERY likely to be the victim of a violent crime at some point. 

 

So yeah, the percentage of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers might be small as compared to the total number of Muslims, but the fact remains that if you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim land, the chances that something bad is going to happen to you is quite significant.  On the other hand, if you are Muslim in a non-Muslim country, the chances that you are going to be the victim of a violent "hate crime" are miniscule, because the actual number of people that are inclined to commit anti-Muslim violent hate crimes is almost negligible. 

I didn't discount the scale of the problem of terrorism. It's an obvious ongoing issue that should not be ignored (as I stated)

He asked how any one could consider this a small minority and the answer is pretty straight forward.

Re Newark: and yet, people still live there, and non-muslims still live the middle east. Again, that doesn't diminish the problem, but if you were "very likely" to die in an area at some point, you would most likely leave. I think this is a case of the squeaky wheel gets the oil. All my life I heard how Israel was a desolate war zone until I went there and felt safer walking the streets of Jerusalem at night then I ever did in Manhattan. Yes there are bad places, I am not advocating strolling around Newark at 3 am with stacks of cash in your hand to see if you get jumped or not, but the reality doesn't match the rhetoric on the other end either. There are 200 million Muslims in indonesia for example who haven't harmed a fly and don't deserve the typecasting that people like Leeds want to place on them.


  • 1


#1212408 More Peace From Our Friends

Posted by squishyx on 30 September 2013 - 10:14 AM

I'm not interested in defending monsters. period.

But the second half of your question is a math lesson so I'll take a swing at it.

Let's make some generous assumptions for your side of the argument (that radical Muslims are not a "small" minority).

-There are 500,000 ultra-radical muslims around the world who are currently willing to kill to make make whatever twisted religious point they want to make

-There are 4,500,000 near-radical muslims who, either are terrorist sypmathizers or under the right conditions could easily be converted to ultra-radical

That's about 5,000,000 Islamic terrorists, extremists, w/e

 

There are 1,600,000,000 muslims on the planet

 

5,000,000 / 1,600,000,000 = ~0.31%
(and again, I have to qualify I think I am being extremely generous with my estimates, please feel free to substitute your own values if you think I am wildly off)

 

Now this is going to be the subjective part of the argument, what constitutes "small". In my book, 0.31% qualifies as small. 5 million is a not a small number in and of itself, and certainly you only a need a fraction of that to inflict harm, nor should we just ignore the 5 million. But if you randomly encounter a muslim and you have a 99.69% chance that they are not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, then maybe you should stop trying to stereo type the entire group based on the "small" minority.


  • 1


#1209299 We All Knew It

Posted by squishyx on 06 September 2013 - 12:35 AM

Maybe some people think there is actually something wrong with it?   Should they be silenced?

If you posted this because you think it's an interesting hockey story (personally I would rather the NHL worls forget Avery exists, he is a stain on the game) then fine.

But now you are indicating that you posted it because you disapprove of someone lifestyle so yes, opinions on gay marriage have no business in the hockey section of this forum. If you consider that "silencing" then oh well, that's your fault for using such a blanket term.


  • 2


#1202758 Kovalchuk Retired Effective Immediately?

Posted by squishyx on 12 July 2013 - 12:36 PM

Get your tinfoil hats out, conspiracy theory coming in:

I still can't imagine why Lou would sign the papers and leave Kovy scott free to sign anywhere he pleases outside the NHL.  It just makes no sense; Lou's being majorly taken advantage of if he just decided to do it to be a "good guy".  Hockey is a business, and that's not how business works.

Why is this so hard to understand? Kovy was not going to play for the Devils anymore. period. Lou tolling the contract just drags the matter out, makes it a distraction going forward, brings up more drama between the hockey leagues, potentially impacts the Olympics and for what? On the off chance Kovy was going to change his mind and come back to play for the Devils again? 

Plus consider this, if he did toll the contract, and the KHL for whatever reason decided to honor it and not let Kovy play, at the start of any season Kovy could just show up to camp collect his 77m sit on the bench and play Sudoku for 82 games a year.

No thanks. Glad Lou has his head on straight.


  • 1


#1202036 Selfish homesick players

Posted by squishyx on 11 July 2013 - 04:29 PM

Being Russian has nothing to do with it. The guy just wanted to go play in his home country. You don't think that if the NHL (in some bizzaro world) where located in Europe that eventually some high profile Canadians or Americans would "defect" and come back home to play?

Don't get me wrong, this sucks. I'm pissed he is leaving, but this threads is a little ridiculous.


  • 1


#1172086 How success kills good teams (and why S. Gionta needs benching)

Posted by squishyx on 18 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

For a guy "killing this team" he is tied for 5th in team scoring and is half the reason we got a point tonight.

Or we could bench him because he is bound to regress to the mean on some contrived stat or something.
  • 1


#1156225 Election Night Coverage (radio)

Posted by squishyx on 09 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.


I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.

Well that didn't take too long.

Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.

Republicans are now 1 in 6 in the last few elections in terms of winning the popular vote. Quite frankly your advice is wrong. What they need is a strong center-right candidate that people can relate too that doesn't make disparaging remarks about those very minorities you are wishful about currying. Self deportation, binders full of women, the 47% comment, moving further to the right is not going to win you any more votes.

Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.

And yet, more money was dumped into attacking Obama then Romney, 329million dollars went towards Obama opposition ads vs 97m for Romney (via opensecrets). Attack ads work, that's why they do them, and it's pretty funny to see you accuse the democrats playing dirty tactics and then not nick republicans for doing the same thing... only on a much grander scale.
  • 2


#1156162 Election Night Coverage (radio)

Posted by squishyx on 08 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

He didn't end any wars. He tried to extend the war in Iraq but wasn't able to so the troops came home at the deadline that was set by Bush. He has tripled the amount spent on the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't really call that winding it down. He also started wars in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

http://mises.org/daily/5231

I said we would likely disagree, you asked for merit and I gave you my reasons.

As far as spending in Afghanistan, his surge there was going to be expensive, I don't really agree with it and would have preferred if he just brought the troops home now. But there is a deadline and given his track record I believe he will live up to his promise in that regard.
  • 1


#1156132 Election Night Coverage (radio)

Posted by squishyx on 07 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

Lol, typical liberal bias foaming at the mouth. My point was simple that Obama has done nothing to merit a re-election the last four years and you pull out this crap.

He saw us out of a recession, ended 1 war, winded down another, refocused our special forces attention that eventually killed bin laden, cut taxes for working families, passed a universal healthcare law, I liked the auto bailout and I understand the reasoning behind continuing TARP, he ended don't ask don't tell, showed that we can support democracy abroad without committing troops on the ground and kept this nation relatively safe

I don't agree with everything he did, I don't agree with some aspects of what he accomplished, and I certainly don't think he did any of that by himself. Obviously you probably don't like most of the things on that list, or down play how much he had a roll in. But there's your "merit" from my point of view, overall I like the way the country has been moving the last 4 years and that's why I voted for him for another term.
  • 1


#1156131 Election Night Coverage (radio)

Posted by squishyx on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 PM

I poo-poohed Nate Silver's prediction. Boy was I wrong.

The only quibble I still have with his type of analysis is that he put a percentage chance on a one time event. I mean, I could put a 99 percent chance that aliens will land on earth tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I could just say that the one percent scenario is what played out.

Yes but that's focusing on one aspect on his analysis. The fact is while we can't know if his "odds of Obama winning" was correct, we can look at how he preforms on swing states and start to look at the trend. He went 9/9 last night, and I think 7/8 in 2008 (the other calls were fairly trivial). He also called the popular vote, and did fairly well at the state levels too (although I haven't examined them all). It's not just about the odds he had Obama winning, it's about his overall accuracy and that his model has merit, a lot more then the supposed pundits who go off their gut.
  • 1


#1155324 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by squishyx on 25 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

Cherry picked? I used the poll that was released today. Every news organization is reporting this poll.

I guess if I used a month old poll that would have been less cherry picked. :lol:

6 major polls are released daily as well as other scattered ones, it's more accurate to view them in aggregate. But, like I said if you were going to try and pick a poll that favored your guy, a few days ago gall up had him +7 and still has him +3, so I guess my point is less about you cherry picking to be disingenuous and more about "who cares one what given poll says".
  • 1


#1155140 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by squishyx on 24 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

...........and this is why Romney wins in a landslide because it's about the economy.

Obama's basically on track for a second term, so get the "voter intimidation", "liberals lied and cheated", "mass liberal media conspiracy", "dirty Chicago politics" cards ready for all the QQ that's about to come our way in two weeks.

For my part I'll say it now, if Romney wins I won't complain or cry foul.

How on earth do people think Romney is going to win in a landslide? I understand that's a subjective term but I doubt many conservatives thought Obama's 10 million voter edge in 2008 was a landslide, and Romney will be lucky to win by half that.
  • 1


#1155088 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by squishyx on 23 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

Obama loves shooting down Romney's budget while neglecting the fact he hasn't come close to passing one in four years. Romney should have made a bigger deal of the blunder with Russia, half of the country probably didn't understand it.

If Obama proposed Romney's budget as his own he would have been torn a new one from fiscal conservatives screaming from the high heavens about the biggest tax grab on the rich in our nations history, about redistribution, class warfare, and mostly how it doesn't even get prom point A to point B, "there is no free lunch" lecture.

Romney is promising a revenue neutral budget that lowers taxes 20% across the board and does so by limiting deductions, but not the popular ones that people like. Somehow this 500b annual cut in taxes will be paid for by who? magic gnomes? if the rich are paying for it (and they can't because there doesn't enough enough deductions to begin with) then it's a massive tax increase on them. Socialism!

It deserves to be mocked and ridiculed because when asked how he is going to pay for it he can't cite specifics and just says to "throw out a number" on a deduction cap (17, now its 25, maybe tomorrow it will be -3, who knows).

I don't think Obama's plan is great by any means, but by all reasonable accounts it's plausible that it can pass congress, and it's actually in line with math.
  • 1