The Goat Pen

Bklyn wrote:

Gator by God's Grace wrote:

Bklyn wrote:we went to the Peruvian joint down the street and got wasted on pisco sours (me) and mojitos (her).

did they make your drink with Chilean pisco, or did they only offer Peruvian pisco there?

No idea.

eCat

Ginny Thomas getting the money isn't the worst to me...it's that Justice Thomas did not disclose it, esp when the information is likely to make some request that he recuse himself from some proceedings. Unethical bastid.

oh yea, this is the first I've heard of it and I have to hear it from Newsroom of all places. That is a story you won't see on Drudge.

Can't say that I've ever knowingly tried pisco. I usually go with an empanada<sp?> appetizer and some dish that is a mixture of chicken,potato and onions. I sometimes get a Peruvian beer called Cristal or Cristol?

this is a picture of a man who just regained his sanity back

Just drop his ass into GenPop after about 30 days and be done with it. The first 30 days, they should hurry up and get him deposed (as best as they can) and then just tell him he's going to GenPop every morning to fuck with his head. After he believes it's just talk to fuck with his head, cart him to Cell Block D and drop him off in the cell with Toss Salad Man and save the taxpayers some money.

Wait. I thought the pic with the smirk was his mug shot? (although I do remember hearing earlier that he dyed his hair to look like Nickelsons Joker).

The pic with the smirk (If I'm correct in what you're referencing) is a pic TMZ found on a swingers/alternative lifestyle website (AFF) under a profile created in early July by a guy with the handle "realjimbo" or something like that. Most people believe that profile was created by this guy. I did look similar, but I could also be convinced it was not the same guy. The nose looked a bit different...but he had the same crazy eyes and other features.

was listening to NPR at lunch having all these people call in about gun control.

The culture of this country just isn't going to allow meaningful gun control whether you believe it should happen or not.

Clearly I'm in the "not" category but I don't agree that we should have federal laws that allow a person to bring a gun into a bar or whatever.

Even in the days of America when a gun was a necessity in the west, you had towns that implemented strict gun control about carrying a gun within city limits. They understood that a gun was a protection device and in a civilized society there was no need for protection. That's not to say that somebody didn't get shot once in awhile.

I don't buy into the argument that people armed in the theater would have killed the kid - while that might be true, we live in a society where you have a more than reasonable expectation that you will not be harmed in any way when attending a public event - even in the worst neighborhoods. If that were to change, then I believe you could have a reasonable debate about the general public carrying guns into public places. I honestly don't understand the mentality of a person who thinks they need to carry a gun to watch a movie in the off chance of the 4 times you attended a theater out of 60 million ( i just made that number up) movie go'ers each year you may need it.

I know the idea of me attending a movie knowing that its full of 20 year olds packing semi-auto glocks would scare the shit out of me and would result in me from ever attending a movie in a theater again. And the number of wreckless spur of the moment deaths caused by a society where everyone carried a gun would far outpace the very rare mass killing carried out by an individual.

I know everyone has their own ideas about guns and the justification of whether you should carry them, and as an owner of 20+ guns I can say I will never carry the gun on the remote chance I'll need it. There is going to have to be a serious change in society for the worse before I'd feel compelled to carry a gun regularly. That said, if that day ever arrives, I'll be damned if there is some gun law or restriction that will prevent me from doing it.

Unfortunately the reality is the price of living in a free society is occasionally a crazy ass psycho is going to go on a shooting spree, or mix fertilizer into a truck bomb, or fly a plane into a building or drive a car head on into traffic, and taking away guns, fertilizer, planes or cars will do little to stop the next one.

I don't buy into the argument that people armed in the theater would have killed the kid - while that might be true

Tear gas, pandemonium, shots flying through the wall, into the adjacent theater hitting people...if others were carrying in that circumstance, I have no idea the level of innocents who would be hit by friendly fire.

They banned masks. Problem solved.

another thing - the NCAA coming down on Penn St for a criminal act is concerning to me.

Penn St. did not gain a competitive advantage for this - there was no recruiting violation, no payoffs, etc

I understand they covered up something that is about as bad as gets - but Baylor didn't get their penalties because of the murder, the murder uncovered all kinds of recruiting issues (IIRC) which led to the penalty. Now granted, the penalties were probably worse because of the murder but I'm concerned of the power this gives the NCAA.

They didn't even give Penn St. the "due process" of their investigation procedures, even if it was a foregone conclusion. This country is just too quick to bypass standards and processes that were established for good reason.

Dear Lord, I hope the NCAA will use this to hammer UK in the future. If so, I am all for this bullshit. If not, it's fucking disgusting.

There is no need to own an assault rifle. None.

Clearly I'm in the "not" category but I don't agree that we should have federal laws that allow a person to bring a gun into a bar or whatever.

Virtually every American believes in some gun control (The second Amendment actually doesn't use the word gun but instead uses "arms"). The real question is where the line should be drawn. At handguns or handheld surface-to-air missiles.

eCat wrote:another thing - the NCAA coming down on Penn St for a criminal act is concerning to me.

Penn St. did not gain a competitive advantage for this - there was no recruiting violation, no payoffs, etc

I understand they covered up something that is about as bad as gets - but Baylor didn't get their penalties because of the murder, the murder uncovered all kinds of recruiting issues (IIRC) which led to the penalty. Now granted, the penalties were probably worse because of the murder but I'm concerned of the power this gives the NCAA.

They didn't even give Penn St. the "due process" of their investigation procedures, even if it was a foregone conclusion. This country is just too quick to bypass standards and processes that were established for good reason.

sheeyit, maybe they'll finally hammer da Miami Hurricanes...

any of youse wingnuts going to the GOP national convention?

The allegation by the NCAA is that Penn State put the football program before it put the community, the university and society, something 'they say' is under their bylaws.

As for the due process (they don't have to as a private entity), plus they just looked at the thoroughness of the university investigation and adopted it (this has been done before, unlike the above).

My big question is since this is a state institution, can the state step in and put a limit on the fine?

Interesting take on the PSU issue. However, I believe that the NCAA was not going to get involved until it was disclosed that the cover up was due, directly, to the football team. Essentially, the football program (and specifically, its head coach) made this go away. Instead of it being a few skill players getting their grades changed so they stayed eligible or Tressel hiding his knowledge of pay outs to protect his BCS chances, Paterno had a criminal investigation go away to protect his football team.

Actually, I think it was well in the NCAA's bounds (if you are following the standard of "precedence") and if Freeh's report did not show Paterno's direct involvement with the coverup...essentially leading the coverup...I doubt the NCAA would have done anything.

Also, Penn State did gain a competitive advantage. They saved probably a boatload of recruits from striking them immediately off their list after watching for a year the child rape trial of the Penn State Defensive Coordinator. Paterno's interference was totally self-serving and the program deserved to take a hit because the actions of the coach impact the fate of the whole team (from an NCAA sanctions perspective).

I don't think they got a competitive advantage. If Paterno had turned Sandusky in, as he should have, in 1998, I doubt seriously they lose even one recruit. No, instead, it would be the parents who said, "See, JoePa is a man of integrity and turned in his best friend and his best coach, without flinching, to answer for his heinous crimes."

Well, they lost one recruit last year over this. Now, the argument could be made that the defection (to OSU, I believe) was due to the longstanding coverup, not the sex scandal, per se. But, I'm not so confident that a teen will not look at a school with a homosexual child sex scandal being broadcast daily for the greater part of a year, involving the coaching staff of their chosen sport, with a bit of hesitation when it comes to Signing Day.

I also think you think way more highly of the parents of D1 college football players than I do.

There are many restrictions on owning true assault rifles in most states now. Any thing truly automatic requires a federal license.

What this guy did is about him being crazy, not lawful gun ownership.

100 clip that luckily jammed (at least that was one report). 40% of all legal gun sales have no background check.