EvilMonkey

There really needs to be SOME sort of change made. With few exceptions, most of the later states don't really get a say in the primaries, as it is USUALLY locked up by then. How many times has Indiana had a primary vote that mattered? That should change.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2008 -> 09:44 PM) Was it him speculating on the word Uribe, or is Uribe being punished for being the only guy in the lineup who got 2 hits today? Am I the only one that thinks he should have scored back in the beginning of the ballgame, and was too busy picking his nose or something to notice that the softly hit ball should have allowed anyone other than Paulie to score?

QUOTE (knightni @ May 5, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) Sign out front: Free Dirt No, you put a sign on it saying 'Top Quality Dirt, $20' and leave it out overnight. It will be stolen by morning.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2008 -> 04:46 PM) Who should pay taxes? Not a grocery store who helps the community by offering lower prices, and a closer to shop alternative. Not school teachers because they contribute to better schools and increase housing values. Not the local hotels because of the boatload of money the people who stay there spend on food, booze, etc. Not a local facory who employs people and increases the property values. And maybe you would be excited to be paying higher property taxes for having a university nearby, others are not. The higher values are not always a blessing. I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying in the first part. if you want to challenge their tax exempt status, then that would be a different argument. Not sure I would challenge you on that. But as long as they ARE tax exempt, their money is theirs, not a new piggy bank for the state. And come on, you know just how fast that money would disappear into all sorts of new programs and things no where even near taking care of the things people are complaining about. I am aware that there are some colleges that don't seem to do much for the community around them. And I know there are some that do a heck of a lot. I am saying that every person who works at that scholl and goes to that school pays taxes of some sort to the state, town, couinty, whatever, every time they buy something, use services or purchase homes in the area. Just because it isn't 'income' taxes doesn't mean they don't pay their share. How much city services do students living on campus really use anyway? And the teachers living in the area are paying taxes on everything they buy and use, just like you and me. As for the higher property taxes, gentrification is a problem in many places, not just around universities. And I am sure those same people won't complain when they sell. And sort of like people moving next to the airport and complaining about noise, if you moved there, knowing that the college was there and what it entailed, then shut up and deal with it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) The local Universities have to work within their local areas, there just is not excuse for it. They take resources from the city, county, and state. Same reason I would consider changes in the tax laws concerning Churches. But at least with Churches, typically it is local tax payers supporting a local Church. With colleges, you have tax[ayers in other areas sending their students there, and they do go off campus and need services. What they should do is cut taxes 50% and send rebate checks, then they wouldn't have these budget crisis. So, the money the students spend in the community doesn't help at all? The increased value of housing due to the presence of the universtiy doesn't help at all? The local housing purchased by teachers doesn't help? Alumni returning for athletic events spending boatloads of money of food, booze, restaurants, lodging, etc don't help? While I think the scholls should use some of that money to maybe lower tuition a bit, a lot of it was given to the schools with stipulations that they be used in certain ways. But as I mentioned earlier, if you go for the schools, can the 'foundations' be next? By that logic, they should.

Here is a funny one for all you Obama-ites. The Empire Strikes Barack!

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 3, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) Oh i like this idea it's funny how the ultra-liberal places whom claim that wealth redistribution and massive tax rates for everyone should they themselves be heavily taxes. typical though, when they need to pay, 'it's uncalled for' and 'unfair'. but they sure as hell want to spend everyone else money for them. If they get away with this, will they stop at college endowments? What about groups like the Carnegoe Foundation or the Ford Foundation? I didn't see numbers for Carnegie, but Ford's endowment fund was at over $12 billion. That would be $ 120 million per year in 'taxes', just from them. Politicians of all stripes, once this door is open, would just wet themselves coming up with news social programs or tanks to spend this new money on.

You have it, but you don't NEED it. However, WE need it to spend on things WE decide are important. "We just want a little" Yeah, right! http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x2124113777

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 2, 2008 -> 07:04 PM) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said the firing of the EPA's top environmental regulator "looks like d éjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with its political agenda more than it values the trust or best interests of the American people." This coming from the party that threw Leiberman to the wolves because he voted what he thought was the interest of America instead of toeing the party line.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 2, 2008 -> 12:30 PM) Ok, fill context time... He says "these people are $h!t... excuse me... -ing on the White House" He wasnt talking about the People of Indiana after all. but his last phrase is still up for debate. Might the worthless white ____ he was referring to be Ross Perot'? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050..._Doctoered.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) On that I'd agree. Here's the other part though...name a press source that's actually going to ask it? McCain's not going to give an interview to RawStory (that'd be like Hillary going on Drudge), and whether or not it happened, if the reports are credible enough that there are at least a couple witnesses who don't have reason to be anti-McCain (I don't know their backgrounds well enough to testify on that, it's certainly plausible they all could have invented a story for personal reasons), is there a reason why the claim shouldn't be investigated? Maybe it already has been, and nothing was found, which is why you didn't hear that it was investigated? And no one said it shouldn't be looked into, just that it was a new low for someone to ask that, in that manner, in that forum.

Check out this real classy guy asking McCain a question at a town hall meeting. I guess he was trying to see if Johnny has anger issues or something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOl4iT46Eec The guy asking the Q is identified as a former Biden worked who is a minister and a Huffpo contributor. http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=125056 Maybe John should have responded with "No, but I DID call your mom that while I was a&&-f*cking her in the breakroom in the back. perhaps that is what you overheard", or would that have shown too much 'anger'?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 04:40 AM) There's conspiracy-theory rumors floating around that the Clintons are paying/ encouraging Wright to continue to spout off. I would be more inclined to believe that Jessie and/or Al would be paying him to keep spouting off. An Obama presidency without their help just hurts them in the long run, and diminishes their 'we are victims' mantra.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:02 AM) I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters. I seem to remember the Dems wanting to not count a huge amount of military absentee ballots a few years back for some reason.

Done. I too may have thrown it off, as I read those liberal rags every day as well.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 11:03 AM) And no urgency to refine even faster. For all practical purposes, there is a finite amount of oil. What is the incentive to pump faster for less? Are you sure that it is finite? http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) You are assuming the only people not voting because of this will be those without picture ID. I worry more that some voters with a photo ID will not tolerate the longer lines and possible denial if their picture doesn't match. How much time off do you allow your employees to go vote? And doesn't it seem a little silly to put a bandaid on a minor cut while the person is having a heart attack? This is all about access to the ballot, and absentee ballots and in person should be treated the same, both votes will count the same. Polls here are open at like 6am and go until 7 at night or later. PLus with the early voting here, people have weeks to vote. Your long lines excuse is simply not a reality. And like I said earlier, if someone sees a wait time of 10 or 15 minutes and feels 'inconvenienced' enough to not vote because of it, f*** 'em. Don't vote then. You obviously don't care enough about the freedoms won for you by countless others before you to wait for 15 minutes and excercise your right, a right that many people die to get and die to protect. Go ahead, go home and watch that Seinfeld rerun, if that is what is really important. And before you go all off crying about the single mom who had 4 kids with her and stuff, I know that there are always exceptions. Oh, my peeps get an hour (PAID) if they need it, but they usually just come in late and do it before work.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) Ok, then let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. The folks who say this law is necessary are arguing that it is necessary to prevent some limited incidence of voter fraud, and it is a worthy sacrifice to disenfranchise a significantly larger number of people than commit the fraud in the process. The arguments in reply have been that it's not that much of an undue burden, that there are plenty of other things that disenfranchise people, and so on. Therefore, I contend that it follows logically from these claims that absentee balloting should be banned. It will disenfranchise people, yes. But you have already said that does not bother you if certain groups are disenfranchised because they are unable to be polled for various reasons, such as not having a valid ID at the time of voting. Considering the factors involved, I claim that absentee ballot fraud is far more likely than the double-voting fraud that you're concerned about, and in fact exacerbates the problem. Absentee ballots make vote buying much more likely as it puts the ballots and the keys to them in people's hands and allows for verification of a vote. It enables mistakes and more fraud because it makes it impossible to determine who actually filled out a ballot, and it is impossible to guarantee chain of possession from the time that the ballot is mailed out until it is returned (And hence, you can never guarantee that the person who's ID you checked is the person actually voting). I can even point to an example in the state of Indiana of fraud happening entirely because of the existence of absentee ballots. Based on your standard, where you are willing to impose a barrier that will disenfranchise a larger group to prevent a smaller amount of fraud, I contend it follows naturally that you should oppose absentee balloting by following the exact same logic. You assume that everyone currently without an ID will suddenly be unable to get one. If they are UNWILLING to get one, then they are disenfranchising themselves. As for the number that will really be UNABLE to get one, I think that will be a very small number indeed. There are groups, charities, and more partisan groups that are more than willing to help people register to vote, I am sure there will be efforts made to help those truely in need of an ID get one. I would wager that a vast majority of those who need an ID, and really want to vote, would get one. There seems to be this concept that spending an hour or two of your life once every 6+ years to get an ID is somehow an excessive burden to many (poor and minorities hit hardest!). That's bull. And quit lumping absentee balloting with THIS issue. Different problems.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) The balance is still out of whack, though. I work in Des Plaines and live in Woodridge right now. If I wanted to get close to work ( My problem too. My current house bought for about $200,000 would be $350,000 anywhere within 10 miles of my store.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) That only get counted if it "matters". Works for me as long as it is *your* ballot that doesn't matter And how will they check absentee ballots? Why should there be less stringent requirements for those? Almost all of the fraud allegations here concern absentee ballots, not in person. And having photo ID will not stop the "paid to vote" fraud. Oh gee, this idea won't solve EVERYTHING, so I guess it is better to have nothing at all. Snark aside, it sounds like you are saying that since it doesn't address everything, it is no good. Absentee ballots are a different matter, so address it with a different law. As for the selling of votes, we have laws against that, but not sure what else you CAN do. Suggestions?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:47 AM) Interesting that the GOP folks here want *more* government intervention in our lives. They want every US voter to head to a government agency to be photographed. Everyone pull out their photo ID and see how close they resemble the picture. Now imagine that election judge denying you the opportunity to vote because you gained/lost weight, grew/shaved a beard, changed hair styles, went bald, had a weave etc. You walk in with the birth certificate, utility bills, signatures match exactly, but the election judge decides that picture doesn't match you. And it is really going to be fun when one precinct has the majority of problems. If that area is predominately one party, I can already hear the cries of bias. Now imagine longer lines to vote while people fumble for their IDs, clerks stare intently at the pictures to see if they match. But perhaps Indiana does have corruption on such a widespread basis they need this. I wonder how many elections have been decided by fraud in Indiana. Provisional ballots.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 26, 2008 -> 03:23 PM) PCs come with their own . . . ...until Microsoft decides to stop supporting them and force you to upgrade to Hanging Balls v2.0

I put it in here since it is about the military, and the conversation I am sure will get political eventually. It is on PBS and about life on the USS Nimitz carrier. I have seen the first 2 episodes. I was concerned at first that there would be this huge liberal bias being on PBS, but so far, not too bad. On a ship of several thousand, they do seem to find the people who have no clue why we are at war, or a few who insist that it is about oil, but they DO show others ranging from disinterested to ultra-patriotic. They show a lot of the average sailors complaining about their 'jobs', but from what I am told that is par for the course. In episode 2, they talk to some of the fighter pilots. They sure don't look like Tom Cruise or Val Kilmer. And their call signs are not as cool either.

When I bought my house a few years back, gas was still under $2.00/gallon. I lowered my commute from 52 miles each way to 36 each way,thinking that would be a good thing. I tried to find closer, but even houses in the s***ty neighborhoods up here cost $50,000 MORE than what I paid for, PLUS were smaller and crappier. The nicer houses were all a lot more and figuring gas at between $2 and $3 per gallon was still not worth the additional expense. However at $10, I may have to redo the math. If it hits $10, I think I just get a cot and sleep in the store all week.