NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 06:18 PM) No. Saying this particular person deserves what she got or worse makes sense, and I agree. What bothers me is the connotation that, as he stated, defending cop killers and black panthers is of the same ilk that aiding terrorists is. It goes with the thought he put forth in the other thread, about how evil lawyers are. And that all points to a general theme - that lawyers and the legal system are somehow "the problem". Its ridiculous. I am tired, more than anything, of the sweeping generalizations. This defense lawyer does something slimy... and people rip the profession. Foley turns out to be a scumbag (well, beyond just being a Congressman)... it must be a GOP thing. Its all crap, and to me, its just a small step from bigotry. They are rooted in the same problem - intellectual laziness. I don't feel like dealing with the complexities of human nature, so I'll just lump everyone into a category and s*** on it. That is why I called out this post. Its not just Nuke. /rant. Sorry. Lawyers are A problem but the system with its gaping holes that said lawyers can exploit to free obviously guilty criminals and helps social parasites cash in big time because of their own poor choices and dearth of common sense is the problem. Correcting the flaws of our legal system is something that money hungry lawyers have and always will fight because it is those same flaws that enrich them and give them power. There's nothing "noble" about freeing a rapist or a killer because of some petty procedural error and there's nothing "noble" about filing lawsuit after lawsuit and attempting to see what sticks and how much money they can squeeze out of a defendant for some frivolus reason. If all that wasn't enough. Lawyers have created a climate of fear in this nation. Fear of being sued that is. Need proof? In one Mass town they wont even let kids play tag at recess for fear of.....thunderstorms?.....traffic?......bullies prowling for lunch money?........no.......lawsuits. http://cbs4boston.com/local/local_story_290105157.html That story is just the tip of the iceberg. They are a huge factor in the death of personal responsibility in this nation also as they give social parasites an avenue to try to get paid for their own bad choices. Also if you want to change GOP in your point about Foley to Congress then you are spot on. Congressmen are a special breed of vermin all their own but that's another rant for another post. You want to accuse me of intellectual laziness? I suppose if calling a spade a spade and being of the belief that not every question has a complex answer makes me guilty of "intellectual laziness" then so be it. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Lumping in public defenders and other defense attornies with someone convicted of aiding a terrorist is assinine. Please rejoin us in reality. What are you talking about? Who said anything about public defenders and other defense attorneys? I dont need words put in my mouth thanks.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 10:52 PM) John Kerry - a presidential candidate and key Democrat: wishes he could go "to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to kill the real bird with one stone". Are you freaking kidding me? And this asshole gets away with this? Cindy Sheehan, also this weekend: Talking about the Twighlight Zone episode where Hitler was to be killed as a baby, and she suggests that she wishes she could go back in time, like that episode, to kill George Bush as a baby? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY? It SICKENS me how pathetic we are becoming as human beings. This makes these people no different then the terrorists who want to kill us all and our way of life. With crap like this, why do we deserve our so-called American way of life? John Kerry should be arrested and imprisoned for that remark. Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to threatening the President of the United States, I dont give a damn who you are. Sheehan also. Let the bastards be cell mates together.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 06:33 PM) Well the first part I would be interested in seeing your facts. There are ARDC rules out about contacting clients, so I would be interested in what you consider "encouraging to sue." Are you talking about the infomercials that list your rights and says you may be able to get compensation? Are you talking about class action lawsuits that get sent to all members of the perceived class? As for forum shopping, the part about Marion, IL, I dont understand what your beef is. There are rules about forum and jurisdiction. If the court legally has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, then why should the plaintiff not be able to bring the lawsuit where ever they want? The defense can motion the court to move the case to a more convenient forum, but in almost all of the cases where they forum shop, the case can be legally brought in almost every single jurisdiction. Does that mean that the plaintiffs lawyers should pick a forum where they may lose for their client? Or is it their job to do their best to win for their client? Its not like the corporation is going to be playing "fair" or making sure that the plaintiff has a good shot. Not to mention almost every one of those class action lawsuits are appealed and the end money reduced significantly or settled out of court. Lawyers dont make cases, the cases make themselves. If you want to get rid of lawyers, then make sure people follow the law. Make sure that employers pay their employees so that the Wage, Payment, Collection act does not exist. Make it so that people pay their child support. Make it so that people dont break lending laws. But last I checked for every person that follows the law, there seems to be atleast 1 person who is actively trying to break it or make a short cut. Ambulance chasing is common practice, In fact, when my mother got into an accident some years back the family was accosted by a lawyer in the waiting area of the damn hospital offering to "sue the hell out of em". A call to a nearby security officer ended his pitch. Your last sentence also caught my eye as for every one breaking the law or trying to get over on the system there will be a lawyer doing his damdest to ensure that justice is thwarted and the perp gets away with whatever he has done and fatten his own pockets in so doing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html What a shame. Here we have someone who spent her life doing everything in her power to free cop-killers, black panthers, and anarchists caps off her career by aiding terrorists and some soft ass judge gives her a tenth of the sentence she should have recieved. This scum should have been locked in a 4x8 cell for the rest of her natural life with photos of the victims of those she aided embedded in the walls.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) Nuke, So I assume you work at a job that does not make any sort of profit. You assume correctly. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 07:47 AM) Let's make sure we differentiate between lawyers who are part of the criminal legal system, and those on the civil suit and litigation side. Big difference. And as Nuke said, the problem is the fact that our society is filled with "asshats" who are consistently unwilling to take personal responsibility (in this case, the city government is the asshat). The lawyers are just enablers. I blame the asshats a lot more than I do the lawyers. Since the societal trend away from taking responsibility will take a long time to reverse, there are two other things that can be done - tort reform and the removal of juries from civil trials. I realize the latter is an unpopular idea, but I personally don't believe the jury trial system works. In the case of this specific issue, the federal government could intervene in some fashion. Probably would be a good PR move too, for whatever branch goes after it first. I take issue with the bolded portion of your statement. Often time, Lawyers go out there and seek out people and encourage them to sue in order to fatten their own pockets, then they go shopping for a sympathetic jury that will see their things their way ( think of Marion county, IL. ).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 15, 2006 -> 10:50 PM) If we didn't have some many rights and freedoms, we would not need so many lawyers. I disagree. If we weren't a nation of petty, spiteful, asshats with no sense of personal responsibility and every desire to make a fast buck at someone else's expense then we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 15, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) I'm glad the government is spending millions of dollars to make sure that sick first responders don't get those millions. Just so we're all clear.......that's the NYC government that has this set up not the feds.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006/news/...san_edelman.htm Here we have a bunch of lawyers cashing in on efforts to deny health benefits to 9/11 1st responders. In other words......a big pile of money going to people who would deny the heros of that day the very least they deserve. Sad, sickening, really messed up.......cant come up with enough words like that to describe this story. Reason 9273456298746512987561298376129871623 why lawyers are douchebags.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 15, 2006 -> 02:37 PM) So clever. How do you do it, Nuke? Just so freakin' intelligent. An oldie but a goodie. So fitting for someone who vanishes whenever the chips are down like he does.

Now that the Big Skirt has done his disappearing act and removed himself from playoff contention, the only thing left for me to care about is the Mets losing to the Cardinals. Once that happens the WS will be anti-climactic for me.

And so the Big Skirt up and vanished again in a playoff series...........he didn't even have the sun in his eyes this time but he'll have some golf clubs in his hand come next week. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) I think it's time we start discussing Thome v. Ordonez. What does Thome have to do with any of this? He doesn't play for Oakland or Detroit does he? Based on the events of last night Id say its pretty clear who won this one between skirt and Magg$.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) Also what are these numbers as they relate to an overall % of GDP? If I remember right I think the FY '06 deficit counts as 1.9% of GDP. That is immaterial to me though. We REALLY REALLY need to stop spending so much money. My way of doing that would be a spending freeze to allow revenues to catch up to expenditures. A Line Item veto would be nice also and disallowing spending riders ( forcing a vote on each spending bill on its own merits ) would do much as well.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) See I think a Nation's economic success causes higher tax revenues. It makes sense that when people and companies make more money, the federal government gets more money too. I think taxes help the economy. I just don't think it helps much. I do think that tax cuts cause deficits. Here's a chart of federal deficits by administration. Keep in mind that we saw tax cuts under Reagan and Bush Jr. Under Bush Sr. and Clinton, we saw tax raises: To me, that seems to show that when taxes get cut, we see deficits. Obviously, if Congress could control spending, then deficits wouldn't occur. But its unreasonable to think that Congress will ever be able to control itself... so you have to build that into the equation. I do believe the CBO... My understanding of their role is simply to inform congress without any partisanship. Generally, i think lefties and righties tend to view the CBO as unbiased. NorthsideSox is right though... I think their stats just show correllation... Not causation. Again. With revenues rising during periods of high deficits it stands to reason that spending and not taxes is to blame. Indeed, spending has exploded under Bush and the Republican Congress, as it did under Reagan and the Democratic Congress, and that is a major concern of mine. Your graph is innacurate also as it shows estimates for 2003 and 2004. The deficits were 396 billion in 2003, 362 billion in 2004, 318 in 2005 and now to 247.7 I think the actual number was in 2006 so the trend has definitely changed for the better thanks to the economic expansion that has been underway. Left out of this discussion was the work Gingrich and Clinton did during the 1990's to rein in spending. That was the driving force behind the improving budget numbers during that time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) I've said this in here before... our current curriculum in high schools (private AND public) around the country has a big hole in the middle of it - HOW TO FUNCTION AS AN ADULT. And I don't mean socially, or in the workplace - I mean day to day things like basic finance, basic practical nutrition, etc. High school students should be required to take a course in basic personal finance. Do that, and you give them all the tools to spend and save defensively. Im going back in the thread a little and I completely agree with this. I got such a course ( Applied Economics ) when I was a junior in HS and its lessons are the reason I got interested in money and investing. The result being that Im in infinitely better financial shape than most of my peers.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 03:40 PM) Look, you cannot look to taxes as the only reason an economy succeeds. Its popular politically, but its analytically innacurrate. It does not explain economic growth in the 90's (after we raised taxes twice.) It does not explain why high tax nations succeed economically. Your position implies that only tax cuts can cause higher tax revenues... thats outright untrue. I find your characterization of Bush Sr/Clinton tax raises as "mere" still curious.... By comparison, Bush Jr's tax cuts were also "mere." If mere tax raises didn't hurt the economy, then why did mere tax cuts help it so much? Tax revenues are driven by economic performance. Our nations economy is driven by MILLIONS OF VARIABLES. The most important one is Monetary Policy. When interest rates are low, inflation is in check, and businesses have easy access to investment capital. This leads to bigger profits and bigger tax revenues. Tax cuts, are only a tiny variable in the equation that is economic growth. I've addressed this as throughly as I'm inclined to do in post #95. Here's my economic portrait of the early 2000's - Low interest rates, companies can borrow cheaper, investors want stock cause its return is better than the interest rate, home prices soar, people have more equity in their homes, profits on the sale of homes increase because they are worth more and buyers can borrow more (bc of low i rates), homeowners can afford to take equity out of their homes cause interest rates are cheap... All of these things have pumped HUGE volumes of money into the economy. Thats why tax revenues are rising. *** I don't place a lot of value in the National review. Its got a political agenda and this influences its economic outlook (as well as everything else).*** First of all, I wasn't talking about the nations economic success, simply federal revenues. I also never said anything about tax cuts ALONE causing the increase in revenues. You said federal revenues would be hurt by tax cuts and the facts dont support that. Also, I don't disagree that there are a lot of other factors contributing to economic growth ( especially interest rates and I have made that case before ) but to discount the effect of tax cuts ( which are another injection of capital into the economy ) is foolish. Also, about not placing value in the NR article, do you also believe that the CBO ( whose official statistics were quoted in that article ) also has an agenda?

Now lets focus our attention on Capital Gains tax. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/...00601270946.asp The salient points here: Tax cut takes effect during 2003. New estimates based on Abe's "logic" that lower tax rates will cost us revenue. Now to what actually happened. Less money indeed.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) There is one reason why I really believe NK would never invade the south, and that is they saw how their southern brothers lived, it would cause a revolution in the north. The more I read, the more I agree 100%. I think NK is on the verge of collapse and Il was trying to use this as a ruse to get some concessionss to inject directly into his economy. The biggest mistake we can make right now is letting them have something for this. LMAO! Even better the blow ups of satalite pics from the site show the Nuke techs playing volleyball. I don't know about you, but I think a great place to play volleyball is on top of a place where you just detonated a nuke... This "test" is officially a complete joke right now. http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm LOL!!!! Thats pure comedy gold right there. Nothing to see here kiddies......move on.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) Sometimes I feel bad about the way i respond to some of your posts. That said, your previous post makes me want to scream. Its a real easy equation. Tax Revenue - Spending = Deficit/Surplus. When you cut taxes, the government gets less money. The government gets less money? Explain to me then why the government has taken in more money in every year since the initial Bush tax cuts of 2001 took hold? Or every year after Reagan's tax cuts took hold in the 1980's. You completely ignore the facts when you make the case that tax cuts cause the government to take in less money. The federal government has taken in an all time high 2.153 trillion dollars in the last fiscal year. In fact.....revenues have increased from 1.8 trillion in 2003 coming out of the recession to the current figure ( thats 350 billion dollars ). I'll even draw you a picture. Oh by the way.........Here's the CBO's rollup of revenues for this year. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7627&sequence=0 2.406 trillion dollars taken in in FY '06 Less money indeed. Next time you try to insult my intelligence and take a condescending tone with me you better be prepared to back up what you say. I would like to thank you for the great siggy material though.

Markets are in full up party mode right now. There are 2 phrases driving this rally.........goldilocks and soft landing. With those conditions in place, the fed is done ( on the upside anyway ) and earnings will continue to grow solidly.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) The alternative is Seoul on fire and 35,000 US troops stationed in South Korea dead. Yeah, we HAVE to do something. Get us out of South Korea is the other alternative. I dont even think we should be in S. Korea anyway. Their army is over 600,000 strong and is an order of magnitude more well equipped than their northern counterparts. This is not 1950 my friends. Pull the U.S. troops out of there and use massive air strikes to support the South in case of invasion. Also......... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/ Looks like there was no radiation detected from the blast. Methinks they set off a really big conventional bomb. Nevertheless it is time to squeeze these guys with sanctions. They will fold cause they know they have absolutely zero chance of winning a war.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Will you at least get to spend Christmas and New Year's with your family...? They're talking about late winter so yeah. We leave for Ft. Irwin later this month to do our deployment validations and then we'll probably head out sometime in Feb or March.

Budget deficits are a problem caused by government spending too much. To say that the tax cuts are causing the deficit is a discredited argument. One of my biggest issues with the Republican leadership in Congress is that they have made no effort whatsoever to rein in spending. The only reason the deficit is falling is that the increase in tax revenues are outpacing the increases in spending. Despite this you still have backwards idiots like Pelosi and Rangel running off at the mouth at how evil the tax cuts are. The only reason these 2 have any credibility is because their partisan class warfare bulls*** resonates well with their core constituencies ( socialists, poor people and anyone else who produces nothing and has their hand out ). The Bush economy has proven for the 3d time ( Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush ) that tax cuts work, yet the left still clings to their marxist, wealth redistribution rhetoric. When will they ever learn? QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) Abe, I don't have time to respond, but you make some good arguements, and besides, SS probably can answer this better then I. Bush and Clinton did raise taxes, but only incrementally compared to the MUCH higher rates that we had pre-Reagan, and that's why I don't think we saw as much of an effect. Plus, the economy was shifting from a largely manufacturing environment to a services oriented environment (economic engine wise) so there was an influx of cash that probably wouldn't have been there otherwise. Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the top marginal tax rate north of 75% still when Carter was in office? Also, if Im not mistaken, the Clinton tax hikes in 1993 only raised the top rate to something like 35%, if memory serves that was a mere 5% hike.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) I couldn't find a more recent Iraq thread, so... Update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061011/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_2 Total deaths in Iraq pegged at 655,000 since the start of the war. That is 2.3% of the country's entire population. I realize that some of those deaths were probably deserved. Many, however, were not. Let's not forget that it isn't just American soldiers and Islamic extremists/terrorists/insurgents dying over there. And before you say it Nuke... yeah, that is the toll of war. Innocent lives. But that is exactly my point. Was Saddam worth this? Did Saddam kill even a small fraction of that number? And is BushCo's real mission, to set up an anchorhead (military, political and economic) in the Middle East, really worth this much death? Will the American public think so in 5 years, when Iraq still isn't stable? Because rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq is at least a 10 year effort. I hope everyone realizes that, and realizes the continuing cost in lives and money and political capital that we face. Its a shame we were dragged into this nightmare - and sadly, we still need to see it through. We cannot leave now. How bout I say this instead........that number is totally f***ing bogus and insane. This same group put out a similar survey , just before the 2004 election, that said 100,000 Iraqi's had died since the invasion. Now this same group is saying 655,000?!?!? I know it's been rough over there but to say that more than half a million people have been killed over there in 2 years is retarded. Just to add some perspective thats saying that Iraq's death rate is ahead of Darfur. Methinks........no. I also want to point out that one of the authors of this survey was quoted as saying that he wanted this to get out before the election. LOL! CNBC pretty much slam dunked this bunk last night by pointing out that those who took the survey, instead of going off actual confirmed deaths, used statistical sampling. I other words they took the most violent parts of the country and extrapolated it throughout the whole. This is Johns Hopkins playing their bi-annual political games trying to get Democrats elected. Another institution of "higher learning" has discredited itself. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) So are we going to send more over to help out? Nuke, would you be in line to go back? Writing's on the wall. Looks like sometime early next year for me.

QUOTE(Brian @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) "I'm gonna punch her in the ovary! Right in the babymaker!" Id say that about 50% of the people on this planet are not worthy of breeding.