StrangeSox

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) Wow that is a huge number. You know what else is a huge number? The $1.1 million per person (an estimated $22,849 per household/average # of people in a household) over a 50 year adult life span (in other words not counting childhood years, when zero taxes are paid, and multiple deductions and credits are taken) that the average low income earner citizen uses in government services, over and above the taxes that they pay into the system. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZ...TAxNTZlOWJkNDk= Now take that $1.1 million per person times 12 million for the low estimate of illegals in the US and that ends up giving you 13.2 TRILLION dollars. Even if you take the law of diminishing marginal returns for some costs, and lower it by half to $6.6 trillion that is still only 1.4% of the cost of having them stay here, even without factoring the 20 childhood years into the equation. Those low-paying jobs exist and need to be filled, regardless of the legal status of the employee.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) So the problem is the perspective of being a flip flopper? I don't have a problem with a politician changing his views on an issue. I understand that the Republican view of the world is we are born with our views and never change them, but I think people are more elastic, and do change opinions either by being exposed to new information or life events. We have allowed a great political strategy, designed to get someone elected, to cloud what should be responsible governing. The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country. If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story.

The "new" Bush plan is just the exact same plan from before the surge. You know, the "stay the course" plan that hadn't worked for 4 years. "What to do with Iraq" is a very difficult question to answer; that doesn't mean we should go with the answer we already know is wrong.

CP would be a fantastic President imo. He'll never, ever run. He's wise enough to stay away from all of the BS that goes along with campaigning. That, and he's said that he really enjoys the time he spends with his family now.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) that doesnt make sense at all, rex grossman had to learn like 3-4 different offenses in as many seasons, and supposedly one of his strong suits is just that being able to learn an offense. Well, there's a reason that Rivera couldn't get a HC job anywhere and had to take the LB coach job.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) They're really lucky the league isn't considering making them forfeit the game. I can guarantee you that there will be tons of b****ing and moaning if the Pats end up winning their division or getting HFA by one game.

I don't know about losing draft picks, but there should be some serious consequences for the blatant cheating.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 07:59 PM) www.songmeanings.net I was just going to recommend that site. The posts below the songs are sometimes clueless, but the lyrics are usually accurate and the site isn't loaded with spyware.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) They're also limited by disease, pestilence and war. Read your Malthus (or Heilbroner). Disease and pestilence are related to fresh water and the sanitation it brings, but I digress... In no particular order, for me: Balanced budget (reduce government, reduce taxes) Environment National Security.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) My solution to increase revenue: get rid of this stupid rate system. People traveling from Evanston to the Loop should not pay the same as someone who goes from Grand or Clark/Division to the Loop. It's asinine. Every other major metro area has different zones with an increased price the farther out you go. Why Chicago still doesn't do this is beyond me. FWIW, Metra works this way. And, taking the trains last summer, Metra was on-time except for two or three delays.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) Oh sorry, should have added... Blago has proposed removing some corporate tax "loopholes" to cover this funding. Sounds great, right? Well, not exactly. Some of those "loopholes" are tax reductions targetted specifically at keeping businesses in Chicago and in Illinois. For example, an exemption on sales tax on leased software (large scale stuff used by businesses) for companies in Illinois, selling to companies in Illinois. You remove those loopholes, you increase costs for businesses all over the state, and some of them might flee for other states with more favorable tax regimens. I do see what Blago is getting at there, but I think those indirect approaches aren't ideal, because you again just shift the cost elsewhere. Better to increase revenue within the world of transit, than outside of it, to fund it. People seem to forget where corporations get the money that they pay their taxes with.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) That's the point of a program like this. You would be able to take people out of their situtions and match them with employment in the US before they ever get here. Think about it, an cotton grower in Texas needs 50 people to tend to his crop. He calls INS, or whoever runs the program, and tells them exactly what he needs. INS looks into the computers and sees that they have refugees in Darfur who used to be sustence farmers before the genocides started happening. INS handles processing the 50 new people, to whatever extend they need to be prepared (IDs, work visas, citizenship, however far you need to go), and then brings them into the country. The farmer in Texas knows he is getting people who want to be here, and people who will be here legally. The workers get to leave a refugee camp, or worse, and get a new life in the US. The US government gets to be hero's to the world. Its a win-win situation. Given the amount of bueracracy that would involve, that Texan farmer would see his workers show up about 3 years after the crops were ready for harvest.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) I hear you. Just seeing that populations have grown exponentially in the last 100 years, forests are being replaced globally for farm land, and seas are 90% depleted of fish makes me wonder how that kind of momentum could ever slow down or be reversed. Populations never grow exponentiall forever. They're limited by the very things you are worried about - food supply and water.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:29 AM) One more thing before I go to bed is that it just blows me away how much the defeatist wing of the Democratic party ( that one that wants us all out of Iraq this very minute ) just plays into the hands of our enemy. The ideal scenario for Bin Laden and his ilk is for the Green Zone to become another Saigon circa 1975. That's exactly what would happen if the U.S. were to withdraw all combat forces as the looney left is proposing. The fact that they aid the enemies of this country with their defeatist rhetoric is downright shameful. ( Gotta love how moveon.org slimed Petreaus in the NYT the other day ) If we do it right, we can still win this thing and within a reasonable amount of time. What defines "win?" What is a reasonable amount of time? Why should we continue to trust the same people that screwed up this situation so much in the first place? The post of yours above this one sounds like a very solid view of the current and prior situation in Iraq. A full, rapid removal of all US troops would be terrible for everyone involved.

Assholes. Can't wait until they get charged with a crime for it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 11:51 PM) First, I said that Bush has royally f'ed up this war. But wow, it's amazing, no one wants to give me credit for that one, because it doesn't support all the f***ing sharks in the bloody water right now, now does it? Second, the only damn thing I can find of the transcript is in .pdf (on MSNBC where I read it yesterday), and frankly I am not retyping all that s***. Anyone want to find me a .html transcript? I told you once, I'm too lazy to spend the next three hours typing all this s*** out. But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday. For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I evven have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there). There's many, many more... but that's a start. There's still a big problem, and that is that this entire argument revolves around this: A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false Address the claims and the merits of the claims. Saying "Bin Laden believes it, so it must be bad" is a logical fallacy and, imo, a pretty stupid way to determine things.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) Her parents must be so proud. LOL. That's the exact same comment that followed the pictures in the forum/ thread I got them from.

From her myspace page. And an interview on the Today show. At about 1:30, you can see what probably caused someone to complain. http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1fa9...=00&fg=copy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) Hey if you think pissing $10 million dollars away on a guy who needed shoulder surgery for a year, yet alone getting a couple of arms for him, is a good move, far be it from me to try to change your mind. Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are available this off season, I am guessing I will see them at the top of your "To Do" list? The point was that the Sox ended up breaking even because they spent the money on other injured players.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) When does the 4th season start? September 27th.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:53 AM) you give the best alternative versus the worst SUV, so of course you can make that argument. I abhor Yukons and similar vehicles. As I said, I'd take an X-terra before any of those cars. Clearance, Torque, handling, etc over a subaru. The only thing that's better is the clearance. If you'd rather drive an Xterra, fine. Just don't pretend that its any better in adverse weather.

You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) I'll remember that when my sweet ass X-terra passes your tiny POS subraru when you're stuck in the 3ft snow drift...I mean, you did have 4WD and traction control and GREAT brakes, so why would you need my help? have you ever seasoned a NE winter? NSS has it right. The only benefit they have is clearance if the snow gets REALLY deep. An Audi or Subaru with a set of good winter tires will get by just as well if not better than a big Suburban or other SUV. SUV's have their place, its just that 95% of people that own one have zero reason to.

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not: On July 31st, the Cubs were 56-49 and 1 game back. On August 31st, they're 68-64 and 2.5 games up. They went 12-15 (.444) in August and somehow that built them a 2.5 game lead. My god, the NL central is horrible.