Y2HH

I'm so glad I'm done with school and have been for more than a decade. Looking back at all of this it reminds me of how annoying it was.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Nah, what he said in there is factually accurate. Unions are required to represent non-union members equally, which is why they always allowed an agency fee. He said quite a bit more than that in a 3 page article.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 05:32 AM) Right to work laws explained, debunked and demystified http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012...ed-demystified/ I know that's just the title of the article, but stop posting this stuff as if it's fact...this is just some left wingers opinion.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 10:52 PM) any GOPers wanna actually answer the question?? They can't, because they know I'm right. Anything I once related being Republican with (namely, being more conservative on a fiscal basis), has vanished from the party. They spend just as much as the liberal democrats they play fight with in the policial arena when they're in power. Today, what I see from them is an agenda that when you get to the bottom of it, is almost always driven by some religious belief. Anything else, such as their faux "fiscal responsibility" is a load of nonsense, since when they were in power, the only difference between them and the democrats was tax, borrow and spend.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) I disagree with the notion that the GOP ever actually tried to balance the budget beyond using it as an excuse to cut programs they don't like while also advocating for tax cuts. Of course you do, because simple explanations are simple. He's talking about Republicans of 15-20 years ago...a time I guarantee you don't remember politically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) Nobody really cares about balancing the budget. Not even the people who make their political lives on calling for one. That's why the 2001 tax cuts happened in the first place...the people who had been calling for a balanced budget as a cudgel against Clinton got a balanced budget...and immediately realized that it was the perfect excuse for an upper income tax cut. It's actually a political failure, honestly...not political brilliance. No politician will gain anything from balancing the budget unless it leads to lower interest rates and higher investment rates, which at the present it will not do. But that same politician will gain tremendously if he's able to present his financial backers with a 4% cut in the top tier tax rates paid for by whatever cuts in spending on poor people he can extract. I'm sure some politicians would want exactly this... But it is brilliance...it gives them a job where failure can never truly be tied to them...there will always be an argument in their favor...because none of what they promise can ever truly be tied back to them since it would have taken so long, without interference, to happen exactly as they promised. The only place it's a failure is to that of the people. But the people have shown they don't care...they keep voting for the same broken promises over and over again. Also, it's not a secret that this country and it's politicians (99% of them) have been bought and paid for by the corporations, either. Arguably, you can apply logic this to the entire world and it's politicians. The problem is, most people simply don't care...they just claim they do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Though just emailing her the link would stay under it. Try that out...send your girl a YouTube link of a years old video for her Christmas present...let me know how that works out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Because then you can use 30 year projections which assume continuing unsustainable health care cost growth throughout the economy as a reason to cut Social Security and Medicare today, and if you can cut social security and medicare today, then you can use that money to fund upper income tax cuts. You can also use it to pretend you're going to balance the budget, too...so long as nothing changes for 14 years after you leave office. What this truly is...is political brilliance. It's a built in excuse for every politician so when nothing comes to fruition that they've promised...they can just say, well...if nobody ever did anything in the 20 years after I left office it would have worked! Blame the people before you while you're in office. Blame the people after you when you're out of office. And the people will let you. Brilliant.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) You cited one blog referencing earlier statements made by 2 senators and Panetta. Those statements, btw, don't say whether other sources (tortured inmates) corroborated the information their source gave them. It's hardly as definitive as you're making it out to be. I was going to say something along these lines, but you already said it.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) I have revised my suggestion Hiring Justin Timberlake and Andy Sandberg to perform a stirring rendition of "Dick in a Box" would probably go signifigantly over the spending limit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) OTOH Congress in 2012 shouldn't and can't tie the hands of Congress in 2022. Exactly. So why did it become ok for them to talk about 20 years from now, when they have absolutely zero control over 20 years from now?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 07:54 AM) If she set a limit, you should spend about 10% over the limit. It's enough to show that you will go above and beyond for her, but not so much as to make her feel that you don't respect the limits that she sets. Good advice. Let's just call it like it is...if you go too far over the limit and make her gift look like crap in comparison, it'll make her feel cheap. You don't want that.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 10, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) I couldn't answer this if I tried...I'm not sure I know what constitutes being a republican anymore aside from being an evangelical religious creep.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 10, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) While I understand slowing growth could be considered a win, you are right. The other thing I dislike are announcing $100 bazillion dollars in cuts spread over 20 years The worst thing about this -- and it's something nobody talks about -- is that when they make these promises, they're making promises based on tenure they do not even have. Most of them won't be here in 4, or 8 or 10 years to see any of this happen...and the next crop of politicians that take over office undo all of these promises. That, and there is no tie to the accountability factor. If I'm the CEO of Soxtalk, and I promise you I'll increase traffic and profits 10000% in 10 years...but I know I won't be around in 3 years for whatever reason...it matters quite a bit less if that ever actually happens. In 10 years, almost nobody will remember I ever made that promise...but I'll still have gotten paid.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 07:41 AM) My hot button issues are immigration, a balanced budget, health access for everyone, engaging in wars as a last and final resort, I prefer money be in the hands of the middle class, if someone should be allowed to kill another human, I prefer a woman killing her fetus to the government killing an adult. (I pray neither happens). I think we can always do better by going forward not returning to the 1950s. It's actually amazing how much I agree with you from time to time... However, I don't like being lumped in with a group hive mind simply because I agree with some of what they think or say. I think it should be acceptable to agree with either side depending on the issue at hand. On certain issues, I lean to the conservative side, and on certain issues I lean to the liberal side, to a varying degree on both accounts. The "all or nothing" mentality is what really hurts political discourse in this nation...especially when the system implemented forces you to make such all or nothing decisions. * Note I said conservative side, not republican side...most republicans are not conservatives. Just like all democrats are not liberals.

Simply because I don't feel either party is a logical choice to be made. There is a massive spectrum of issues, some major, some minor, but in the grand scheme of things, all are important to some degree. To say you can agree on every last issue with a specific party is seemingly impossible, but that's not the say it couldn't happen...I just find it highly unlikely. It's also important to keep in mind that over time, party opinions tend to change, drastic shifts in their "core values" take place and at times, a party my resist those changes and while they once agreed with you, they no longer do. I don't care of you agree with 80% of what one party says...that other 20% is just as important as far as I'm concerned. It's a forced dismissal of a minority opinion simply out of necessity because of a corrupted/broken political system others built and we now have to deal with. It's making the best of a bad situation, that honestly shouldn't exist. When does it become ok to dismiss some of your views just to side with a party because it's the "lesser of two evils"? As an example, I believe in abortion rights, gay rights (because it shouldn't even be an issue), but I also believe and live my life on a fiscally conservative basis...I don't agree with spending money you don't have or cannot repay via collateral, etc. (think of a mortgage or a student loan in this instance). Being a fiscal conservative in and of itself dismisses my association with either majority party right now...Democrat or Republican...since neither resemble anything close to being fiscally conservative. Republicans pretend to be when it's convenient...but they're not. See 8 years of Bush spending as evidence. And don't get me started on Democrats...I grew up in a Democrat neighborhood (Bridgeport, the home of former Mayor Daley), and I know they care even less about spending other peoples money. They won't even pretend, either.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) Well that sucks. It quite possibly doesn't suck, you just don't know it yet.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) when i say games i mean doing things specifically for the sole purpose of getting a desired reaction out of someone. going NC because you think it will make her miss you. sending emails like the one i did saying I want something that I absolutely don't want, JUST so it'll elicit some sort of response from her. that's what I can't stand. so it does actually go hand in hand with my honesty crusade! that said, what's interesting about your post, is that going through all this right now I've done an awful, awful lot of soul searching. i've learned a lot about myself, about the way i react to things, the way i view the world, the way i view my interactions with other people. i've never in my life felt like i was ANYWHERE NEAR ready to get married. That always seemed like something distant and far away, but in re-evaluating the things that matter to me over the last few months, I'm realizing that there's more to life than being a successful actor, and while that's something I desperately want, I think I could also be happy doing something else, as long as it meant sharing that with someone and having a family. The fact that I just wrote that blows my friggin' mind, because that's never been me. Ever. So yes, this has been a learning experience, but this girl IS someone I would sacrifice for. It's such a cliche to talk about finding someone who makes you want to be better, but until her, I'd never experienced that. I'm sure I'll find another girl who I feel the same way about, but right now, I don't want to. Simple as that. Haha isn't it funny how much you can bare your soul to strangers on the internet? I don't know if there's anyone else in my life I'd be willing to say all that to besides my ex. Maybe that's part of my problem. lol Goes hand in hand with what I was saying to my wife. It's quite possible that you simply met this girl at the wrong time in your life. Had you met her AFTER you learned all of this about yourself, starting fresh, things would have worked differently IF she was also in that same state of mind (having learned, played the games, did some growing up, etc). Since you actually met her, you could call it like this : you were in the right place for the meeting to happen, you were just in the wrong time for it to work. That's not to say this thing cannot be rescued...but that state of mind you find yourself in now (after your soul searching), she has to be there, too... Had you met her a few years later...things wouldn't be the same.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) So the Hawkeroo was right. It's not who you play, it's when you play 'em In an odd way, yes.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) Reddy, I knew at the beginning when you said the breakup was amicable and mutual that you were fibbing. Im sorry man, but the best advice is to sit tight and let her play her hand. If you jump in and go after her, it will be over for good That's impossible...Reddy just got finished going on and on about being open and honest for 50 posts in this very thread...if he was fibbing, that'd mean he was actually playing games and being dishonest (seemingly with himself), which he claims he doesn't do. I don't really want to mess with him in this case, as I can tell by his words hes hurting and I hope he emerges from this getting what he's looking for. Unfortunately, I think the reality is when it comes to relationships, "games" will be played until BOTH tire of that aspect of dating. Also, calling it "games" may, in fact, be the wrong way of looking at what this really is...which is gaining experience, learning about yourself and others, and ultimately, finding someone you're actually willing to sacrifice for. I actually told my wife this once...and I believe it's 100% true. I was happy to have met her when I did (when I was 31), because she ended up with the version of me that was no longer interested in games/learning/experience...I was at the point where I understood myself, what I wanted, and why. There are a few of my ex-girlfriends (still friends), that if I had met at a different time in my life, everything would be different today...and I wouldn't have ended up with my wife (or daughters). At the time, I couldn't have foreseen, or understood anything that complex unfolding...but it was. It was the wrong "us" at the wrong time...nothing more. But that opened the possibility of the family I have and love now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) jim demint is an awful person though: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/...-demint-resign/ My post wasn't a defense of how awesome Demint was/is, in any regard.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Sorry for my post. It was in the same mold as the post that started it all. I should have elevated the conversation instead of lowering myself to that level. I'm not really sure an apology (real or fake) is necessary...I just don't get it when I hear people say things like that. If a Republican was caught evading taxes, I'm MORE than positive it would be all over the news...so, why do people try to pretend otherwise? The same applies to a Democrat caught for something similar. This is like hearing people say things like, "the major media is republican biased", when it's obviously not (MSNBC), or having to listen to Fox news followers claim how fair and balanced their "centrist" reporting is, when it's glaringly Republican skewed. No, the major media is not "Republican biased", and no, Fox news is not "fair and balanced"...regardless, I hear people say things like this all the time and I just don't get it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 6, 2012 -> 10:35 PM) Republicans don't get into government to commit crimes like that, they get in government to make those would-be crimes legal Riiiighhht...because a Democrat would NEVER attempt to stuff hidden agendas, special laws, earmarks or pork into bills they introduce that nobody can decipher or anything...that's just an evil Republican thing! I sincerely hope the lot of you are kidding with these statements...I really do.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Because there isn't much different between Dems and Reps in the real world. Of course the media only seems to report when it is a Dem who does that. The first part I agree with...the second part...are you kidding me with this? Any politician that does something like this eventually gets reported on for doing it, regardless of their party affiliation. The media merely has to catch wind of it, and I guarantee it gets reported. Edit: This is why it's so hard to have political discussions on this forum with many of you -- it's like trying to have a discussion with a bunch of Ostriches that stick their heads in the sand after they make an obviously biased statement like this one. A statement that I'm positive they know is a total fabrication of reality, but they make it anyway, because it sounds good or something.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) damnit this is what sucks about agreeing to disagree. that was the most exciting thread i've participated in on this site in like... months. #ihatetheoffseason (when deals aren't being made) I'm not sure we ended up agreeing to disagree...I think we both came to more of an understanding as to what the other person was trying to say. That's often what's hard about forums...trying to make sure nothing get's lost in translation. Often we write small sentences and "fill in the blanks" in our own minds, assuming everyone will understand what we mean when we say something without having expand on it...but more often than not, they don't. My point wasn't that communication cannot work...it's that it often doesn't work because people find out their incompatibilities are so major, communicating them doesn't and cannot fix them.