Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) So, what about 3 months in Chicago? 2 months? 1.5 months? 0.75 months? 0.15 months? Please tell me where the black and white line that everyone here would agree upon sits. That line "resides" wherever *I* say it resides. You are now under my dictatorship. So whatever I say, everyone here agrees. The answer is: 42

Apparently my hypocrisy knows no end... I should clarify... While I "hope" Emanuel does not get back on the ballot because I feel he will win and I do not care for him very much, I also "know" that he belongs on the ballot and should be allowed to run.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) Wait, so there are different definitions of "Residency" depending on the type of law we're discussing? I thought "We all know what a resident is". I have no idea what they consider a resident in this case, but whatever it is needs to be applied universally. I may not like Rahm, but I think he belongs on the ballot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) What if he was a snowbird with a home in Florida/Arizona that he was at for 4 or 5 months a year, but was in Chicago for 7 or 8? Does that not count as a resident? I think in tax law, wherever you reside longer, is where you reside...the other is just a place you own property. I recall this from the 1980's when the then president of Commodore Computer lived in Canada exactly 1/2 year + 1 day per year, and lived here the remainder of the year...to dodge a huge portion of taxes legally. There were stories that he was nearly out of "days" left to live in the US and would plan when he could "vacation" here from his "home" in Canada...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) I think it's fairly embarrassing that you just assumed that because you were reading something written, it had to be by a male. I don't, considering it doesn't matter whatsoever. I find it funny you'd find something so trivial to be an "embarrassment" in this case, since sex has absolutely nothing to do with that story.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Your ideology is showing as well, as you assumed that the author was obviously a male. That has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I don't even know why you felt it necessary to point out sex...my referral to her as he doesn't mean anything at all, it was nothing more than a generalization, which you had to latch onto to argue because you had no real argument. I don't care if its a male, female, black, white or green alien from mars...no bearing whatsoever on the conversation you utterly and completely missed. And "ideology" has nothing to do with male or female...wtf are you talking about?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) Not going to endorse everything in this one, and some language that is nsfw, but this read at least came close to my thoughts in a number of ways. I see the point he's attempting to make, but I feel his ideology has infected his opinion. Living beyond our means was never the intention of our government, but it's exactly what we do, and if you read what he says, it's what he wants us to continue to do. He uses this as the excuse that he "respects" that Obama has "given up". I have no respect for that at all. Now, he'd have a point if throwing money at these problems solved them, such as eduction, for example...but throwing money at education the way our government does doesn't make it better, and in some cases, makes it worse. It's not that money doesn't help...but it has to be spent properly, and it's not. Buying 50,000,000 worth of computers doesn't make anyone more computer literate when the way in which they use them or install them is completely wrong. It's pouring money down the drain.

IMO, for democracy to work properly, the people in the system have to care. Sadly, the MAJORITY of the people in our system care about voting, but not about knowing who or what they're voting for. The creation of parties, group-think, and other such ideals have infected democracy, and thus I cannot and do not trust the voters. People voting for candidates in which they have no idea what these candidates represent, IMO, is a complete and absolute bastardization of what this democracy was meant to be. And it's come down to the fact that politicians KNOW this, and exploit it. Entire parties know this, and they too, exploit it. And to me, it's not all right...and it's not working as intended. They've corrupted and broken the system, and convinced almost (it seems) everyone that the system is working perfectly fine, as intended.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:22 PM) Unlimited everything on the Verizon iPhone will cost $150 a month. Inside info. That's expensive.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 12:19 PM) But isn't that what we are ultimately doing anyways? Why have a vote if we can't trust the voters? Why have a electoral college then? There are many reasons, you just have to consider them (or think of them if you haven't). Fact is, we cannot trust the voters, because the majority of voters aren't voting based on anything tangible or even intelligent, they're voting because they're "democrats", or "republicans". So, no thank you. It's bad enough people are allowed to vote "just because", without having to bother knowing anything about the candidates, their politics, or even their pasts...all we need to do is make things even worse by "trusting" these same people because they get their information from NBC or FOX, or whoever else... I loved watching the Jay Leno interviews on the street during the Obama campaign asking voters what they think of his running mate, Sarah Palin, and the voters were saying Obama chose her because she will do a good job. You really want to "trust" that? What's worse, is they are out there, completely uninformed, in droves...so again, I say no thank you.

Today: 1) Satriani : Always with Me, Always with You 2) Def Leppard : Animal 3) Faure : Cantique De Jean Racine (Classical) 4) Tim McGraw : That's Just Me 5) Bon Jovi : Blaze of Glory 6) Rush : Force Ten 7) Dean Martin : Just In Time 8) Puccini : O Mio Babbino Caro (Classical) 9) Boston : Foreplay/Long Time 10) Semisonic : Closing Time

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) another great post from Y2HH, thanks. You are a model for us all. At least my post wasn't filled with downright bad ideas like yours was. And if you can't think up the reasons why it'd be bad to "just trust the voters", then I really have no need to enter any further into such a conversation with you.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:08 PM) Thank you. And, frankly, to bring up the point of Hillary Clinton, she was very popular in New York. No.

The Gaslight Anthem - Red in the Morning Tim McGraw - I didn't Know it at the Time Led Zeppelin - Good Times, Bad Times Alphaville - Forever Young Glenn Danzig - And The Angels Weep Bob Dylan - Gotta Serve Somebody Sammy Davis Jr. - Body & Soul Rush - Cygnux X-1 The Doors - Light My Fire The Beatles - Love Me Do The Killers - Read My Mind Pink Floyd - The Fletcher Memorial Home Helloween - Reptile

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) The thread is about hitting shuffle and seeing which 10 songs come up....Mr Vague. Ohhh, i get it! Let me try that!

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) Jersey Shore to film season 4 in Italy. Besides the fact that they aren't all full Italians, should be an entertaining train wreck. I do not watch Jersey Shore. And since you do, know that your IQ is dropping precipitously by the week.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) True. Punching them would be some good material for "When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong" episodes. Now punching the son of the Green Giant, AKA BigSqwert...that might be worth it.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) Point taken. And judging from you avatar, if that is your child, you have too much to lose, too.

I have a number of playlists depending on my mood.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) Thanks for calling me a neanderthal ...I'm from the South Side, what do you expect? I'm from the south side, too...Bridgeport to be exact. And I didn't call you a neanderthal, I said that's what neanderthals do... You shouldn't waste your time on people like that. While I understand it would feel good to punch a douche that says something rude to your girl, it solves nothing, and can end up being costly, and even life ruining. There just is no point. I have too much to lose to bother with people like that.

More or less.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does? Trust the voters? Hahaha. No.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Right and the statement "No other qualified candidates" was supposed to be hyperbolic to show that it seems some what unjust to knock off a qualified candidate, who no one denies is from Chicago, on a technicality. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I completely missed that as hyperbolic, because I'm immune to such things now...in an era where almost everything is hyperbolic.

Seriously, though, I don't think Rahm isn't qualified. I just don't think he's the ONLY one qualified. And I don't care for him, which is probably obvious.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Great we have different opinions, not sure how you have done anything to attack my credibility. My position is clear, I would vote for Rahm, therefore my bias is in the open, anyone who wants can see that my opinion may be based on bias. You on the other hand wont even say who you are voting for, nor will you say who is a "qualified candidate" you just merely state that Rham is "corrupt", but you havent even said if you believe that makes Rham unqualified. I guess it may matter if I was trying to have any credibility on who should be mayor, if youve noticed in this thread I actually have not made any arguments for or against Rahm or any other candidates. Ive merely stuck to the argument with regard to the law and the residence requirement. If anything my statement about the non-qualified candidates was to show that it seems silly that we are so stringent about a word "reside", and that Chicago voters can lose the right to vote for a candidate just because of an interpretation of the word, not based on other qualifications. To me that seems silly and not in tune with the spirit of the law. I could not care less about who people want to vote for, everyone has the right to chose whoever they want for whatever reason, I just think that the people of Chicago deserve the chance to vote for the candidate they want, not to lose that right due to an unclear interpretation. The troll is full, I'm going back under my bridge...when I'm hungry, I'll return to finish you off.