Soxbadger

The refs buried the Heat. A lot of close calls didnt go there way. And the guy tried to miss a ft and he made it haha

Its just sad that the game isnt sold out. And the Heat are in a bad place right now. You can tell that they arent having any fun, its just a job.

Pomeroy is projecting Wisconsin and Illinois to tie for 3rd in Big 10 behind OSU and MSU. http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?c=B10 Preseason TEAM CONF OVRL Ohio State 14-4 26-5 Michigan State 13-5 21-7 Wisconsin 11-7 20-8 Illinois 11-7 21-9 Purdue 10-8 20-10 Minnesota 9-9 18-10 Northwestern 9-9 18-10 Penn State 7-11 16-13 Indiana 5-13 14-16 Iowa 5-13 12-16 Michigan 4-14 12-18

Yeah I should have stated that instead of implied it. These are the tie breakers for how the teams will go to Bowl games. All of the teams would still be Big 10 Champs.

Its hard to tell who will win the Big 10. Right now Wisconsin is in the lead based on a four way tie and BCS computers being the tie breaker. Iowa plays OSU so one of them has to lose. If MSU loses Wisconsin would be Big 10 champ based on head to head. If Wisconsin loses OSU would be Big 10 champ based on BCS standings. Or Iowa would be Big 10 champ based on head to head. If OSU loses Wisconsin would be Big 10 champ based on BCS standings. If Iowa loses Wisconsin would be Big 10 champ based on BCS standings. Ill just be happy if Wisconsin gets a BCS bid. Wisconsin is the only 1 loss Big 10 team to not receive one.

Cant believe I missed the exhibition game, but I guess Ive been focused on football. Most of the reports have been positive for the Badgers, and first game isnt until this weekend.

Are you even looking at the numbers? Because its obvious you are simply ignoring the truth.

Well those numbers only go through 2005, but even if NY, CA and IL for 1 year received more money than they gave out, it doesnt change the fact for the previous 20 years they gave more than they received. Furthermore, the largest states are going to get the most money. But that is not what the argument was. It was what states receive more money than they give to the federal govt. Who will foot the bill? My guess is the same states that have historically had to pay for the other states: CA, NY and IL In 2005 CA, NY and IL donated to other states (in millions): 19,000 from IL, 47,000 from CA and 24,000 from NY.

Its not a politician problem, its an upper class problem. The reason there are accountants, tax attorneys etc is to try and bend the tax code in the most favorable way to the client. The people who have access to this type of bending are generally those who can pay the most for it. In your own statement you basically admit that its a problem for both parties. Yet previously you try and paint it as a "Democrat" issue. That being said, I think there should be a rule that you can not run for govt office or be employed by the govt if you owe back taxes. The problem is that the people with the most power and who can actually change things, get benefits from the way the current system runs.

Just because people arent as well versed in political theory doesnt mean they cant have rational dialogue. You just hope that when people are presented with facts that they can objectively view them and some times realize what they thought was true, may not be true.

Yep Democrats give away other peoples money. There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket. I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY. Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid. It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for. Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break. I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states.

I concur with the above analysis.

Exactly, the second team brought them back, now you bring in your best players who are fresh to try and win the game. You dont just sit there and hope the Knicks will keep missing every shot and that CJ Watson will throw the ball to Korver and pray. l Rose can throw the ball to Korver just as well.

The Knicks shot insane from 3. Most players wont hit 70% if there is no defense on the court. And you can tell the only reason Rose was hurt was that his coach was playing CJ 1-7 Watson over him while he sat next to Noah and lost an inexcusable game. Even the announcers were killing Thibs in the end.

I dont think you understand. Democrats are a Republican stereotype. They give away rich peoples money, none of them work and all of them are on welfare. No Democrat has ever worked hard to succeed nor do they care about personal responsibility.

If I was the GM or owned the Bulls, Id fire the coach before he even got back to the locker room. There is just no excuse for this, the Bulls had a legitimate shot and they dont put in their damn best player. I cant even fathom this, what the hell.

This is seriously ridiculous. The crowd is chanting "We want Rose"

Really sends a great message when your best player is benched in the 4th.

Well the idea was first discussed by Hobbes in Leviathan and but it was basically stolen from Locke. The below quote is from John Locke Two Treatises of Government: http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/locke%20decindep.htm I didnt want to paraphrase or parse, because it doesnt do Locke justice.

Those people would be foolish for not qualifying the statement. But im pretty sure that in every instance of my argument I qualified my stance saying that "If it is true" or "assuming that it is true" and further followed up with "I assume that the govt wont spend lavishly just to spend" and statements like "its hard to tell what is reasonable without the facts." I just sincerely doubt anyone said "An outlandish number is acceptable". I think the crux of the argument was, that whatever the number may be, it is likely an acceptable number, given the fact that there is no incentive for the administration to excessively spend. That if the number was $200mil, there was most likely a legitimate reason for that spending.

I think that most reasonable people would be fine trying to make sure that only those people who are out there trying to get a job or do the right thing receive benefits, benefits shouldnt be a free handout. And I think the first step to defeating anyone is to deny their existence.

3,000 /$200,000,000 $70,000 a person per day. That would be a hell of a trip, youd be knee deep in bollywood strippers.

But it presupposes that spending money in India wont result in jobs for Americans. It also suggests that we can just use the 200bil to create jobs, which I would be absolutely fine with, the problem being that people are seemingly against large govt works projects that would employ people. Would I be fine with the US cutting spending in military and other expenditures and instead creating large govt works projects to create jobs? Of course I am. But that option isnt on the table. In the grand scheme of things, money spent on India (imo) will be invaluable. That means that there is no price that I can put on having the goodwill of India. And I actually wouldnt doubt that the numbers are in the thousands. Even on a small trip where its just Obama a lone you have to expect they are bringing 50-100. I mean I think he brings about that many to Chicago. So Id expect that in a country closer to an active war front with much less security to rely on, the numbers would grow quickly.

Well the premise of my argument is that the US is spending whatever they justifiably have to spend to make the trip and keep the President safe. For the sake of not fighting numbers, I am just using the $200mil and saying "If that is true, then its okay". I dont have any information of whether its true or not, so I just feel that is a dead end road. I dont know the operational costs of Presidential travel, nor do I know what other countries spend on similar trips. $200mil may be completely out of line, $200mil may be average, there just is no way of knowing with out having the number in context. Because I have no way of putting the number in context, I have no way of knowing whether or not spending $200mil is reasonable. Reasonable is defined by the circumstances, which I would have to know before commenting.

I dont think anyone believes that India will cut ties with America. But I dont think its a good idea to snub them either. I also dont believe that the US is spending money just to spend money, and that if it is $200mil a day, there is a justifiable reason. What would be the incentive to spend lavishly in India for no reason? And we rely on India too. India will become one of the largest markets in the world. The US will need the Indian markets. Its just not a risk Im willing to take. And because I doubt the US is spending money just to spend money, than the $200mil, $200bil or whatever it may be is worth it.