Chisoxfn

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:34 AM) Disagreed. There were tons of times where Cutler still had to throw off the back foot. Not, he did it because he wanted to, but literally had to throw off the back foot. 66 yards and I believe 31 carries is awful. It's not the RB's, it's the O-Line. I will disagree. Jay did throw off his back foot at times, but every QB in the league will have some pressure. Jay was not getting hit yesterday and that is the first time in a while that I could say that. Only time I got frustrated was on the play where we fumbled I felt we were going away from the run a bit, but than right after that we started running again. It will take a few weeks of actually running the ball before you will really see the differences. Teams will blitz less, more passing lanes will open, and the Bears oline should be able to get in a rushing groove. Oline also had quite a few sets where they did a nice job picking up big time blitzes and Jay had enough time to deliver nice strikes. Hell, that was probably the biggest difference of the game, Bears picked up the blitz enough for Jay to make plays instead of Jay to force plays which turned into picks. Cutler played one of his smartest games in a Bears uniform as well, imo.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:00 AM) Did anyone actually get to see the OT in the Iowa State - Nebraska game? The article on ESPN is vague at best as to what happened at the end, and I can't watch video from here. It looks like NEB scored early in OT, then ISU scored with no time left, and faked a PAT to go for 2 but failed? WTF? Ya, ISU faked the extra point and had the holder throw a pass, which was intercepted. I was shaking my head at the play because I just didn't agree with the call. Evidently they didn't feel they confident in there chances of winning regularly in OT so opted to take one shot on a 2 point conversion for the win.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 04:34 AM) It's nice to see the Bears actually run the ball. The problem.... they still sucked at it against the worst run defense in the league. The backs (Cutler not included) ran for an amazing 66 yards. It takes time to run the ball effectively. Bears had some nice carries on the day and things worked out well, imo. Might not have been the best rushing attack ever, but you know what, It kept the opposition honest and Cutler was hit a hell of a lot less this week. If the Bears can consistently work on running the ball things should continue to get better, imo.

Nice offensive game for the Bears, oline, Cutler, Martz, our wide-outs, etc. Really happy with that performance and the Bears could easily have put up quite a few more points. Game was closer than it should have but Buffalo has been playing pretty good of late.

Phew, my Hawkeyes lucked out a bit. Bout time since we outplayed our opposition in every game up until this one. Iowa still is struggling at doing the little things which is unfortunate since the Hawks are one of the best teams in football.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 06:55 PM) You sound kind of like a Democrat here... lol How so?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) Those people would be foolish for not qualifying the statement. But im pretty sure that in every instance of my argument I qualified my stance saying that "If it is true" or "assuming that it is true" and further followed up with "I assume that the govt wont spend lavishly just to spend" and statements like "its hard to tell what is reasonable without the facts." I just sincerely doubt anyone said "An outlandish number is acceptable". I think the crux of the argument was, that whatever the number may be, it is likely an acceptable number, given the fact that there is no incentive for the administration to excessively spend. That if the number was $200mil, there was most likely a legitimate reason for that spending. So we are now trusting the government to spend efficiently? Interesting concept? Regardless of the cost, it still begs the question why are we having so many more people their. And I don't believe for one minute this 4.5 million number either. That is way too small of a number and taking the rupee exchange rate as some of you are doing is actually hypocritical since you were the same people discounting the fact that he could not possible know that information. Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) This story has single-handily restored my cynical view of American politics. Really, when a significant portion of the country falls for this sort of bulls***, and some of the biggest media outlets only reinforce it, what can you do? And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm?

By and large in this country I believe if people make the right choices in life and work hard they can succeed. However, I do fully agree that luck to an extent plays some impact on things as well. I believe sometimes people just have too many unfortunate circumstances put in front of them that prevent that from happening. As a whole though, I truly believe you make with what you have and you work your way up. There are clearly certain major issues, specifically within the inner city where people have so many negative influences tugging and pulling at them.

And by the way, if we were spending that much, after being in Mumbai, I'd rather flat out give the people their a billion dollars and not make an apperance. Hows that for relationship building? And I already know someone will say that isn't very repubilcan of you, but If we the billion is something we are going to spend (again if it is a real number), than to me that is a more productive use of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Because Mumbai was the site of a recent, large-scale terror attack and they were woefully incapable of responding to it? And it's a lot closer to areas of concern (read: Pakistan) than Britain? That means larger security. I have a hard time believing that large number is all security. And I'm well aware of what went on in Mumbai, I got back from there a week ago.

Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences. If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH. Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%? A small paycheck coming out and you will get taxed pretty good when you add in state income tax and your FICA. Not quite 50% but it is still a pretty significant chunk. It was like my first job I had at a grocery store. I got my small paycheck and had it reduced by Union dues. I was so f***ing pissed.

Vladdy collapsed in the second half of the season. 9 million a year is a lot of money for a guy that is breaking down fast.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:19 AM) Excellent. One of the few things that I voted for which ended up working out. That and Prop 19.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 06:45 PM) I can definitely agree on a lot of those points. I think she had a career which most would consider an overall success. Working your way up to CEO and stinking up the place still means you got to that point. Like a MLB ball player that makes it to the All-Star game his first year, and sucks bad the rest of his career. Still was one hell of a player when compared to the vast majority that have picked up the game. But her total failure at HP was just too colossal and public, as it would inevitably become a major liability during a tough Senate race. I will also say she was highly impressive during her debates in my opinion. And I think her experience at HP and business in general made her an intriguing candidate. I also am comparing her to Barbara Boxer who I personally find to be a lousy senator based upon my political viewpoints. And Fiorina was one of the few parties who for the most part (and I just might be ignorant and unaware) didn't do a lot of smear campaigning. Boxer hit her with low blows late and based upon the polls it would appear that those below the belt shots cost her at the very least a shot at the election. Fiorina spent about 5-7 million on the election with 3 to 4 million being her own and the remainder coming from the republican party.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) No, you don't. Jesus Christ, stop crying and realize that speculation isn't evidence. Asking someone to support an assertion is something. I did not say it cannot be true or is not a fact; I have said, repeatedly, that it is simply not a supported claim. Which can lead to a fair discussion, as long as we all agree that speculation isn't evidence and the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person making a claim. Seriously, do you read my posts. Never have I claimed the 200 million figure as fact. I've said it warrants debate and for a plethora of reasons. And outside of about 2 parties, good debate has occurred, but these two parties continue to make post out of post stating it means nothing. We get it, but if you don't have anything else to add get out of the thread. It is like the countless bulls*** about how Walker needs to be fired. Say it once, unless you have new points or facts to debate with it, anymore times and it adds zero value and instead prevents valid discussion and debate.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Sort of like this comment that seems to come from no source: Please let me know when you make a post that has anything to do with actual discussion and debate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do. I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable? Ummm, cause 3000 people, a history of significant spending, and speculation of 200 million in costs. Looks to me like I have support and all you do is post, no, bulls***. Well if that is the case, get out of the thread cause you clearly don't want to discuss things. Just claiming it can't be true or isn't a fact isn't anything. And I don't need to support anything other than it is interesting and I want to hear more about it. You just want to sweep stuff under the rug. Be my guest but enough of this, one rumor, its gone. No, reputable sources are calling this the most expensive presidential visit in US history and it is also the largest entourage ever in US history.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) I don't see why there is even a debate about this. Someone with little to no credibility threw a number out there and we're supposed to all believe it? 3000 people, a history of overspending, the thought of a billiion bucks being spend on this trip. That is all concrete evidence and a very discussion worthy points that you all insist should be swept under the rug. If that is the case just stay the hell out of the thread cause the comments you add bring absolutely zero value to this discussion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Stay classy. You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) It's circumstantial evidence at best. Provide it. No, it doesn't raise that question. Assuming that the claim should be addressed is begging the question that it is worth addressing. The White House does not need to respond to every off-the-wall assertion thrown out, and accusations shouldn't be assumed true otherwise. How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean? f*** off. I don't have to prove anything. You haven't done a damn bit of research on this subject and are taking the easy road.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people. Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant. I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) I don't like the Democrats much. I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media. What poor reasoning? I think it is a worthy thing to know and learn. Something was said by an official. Does he know, I have no idea. Have I ever claimed to know it as true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) Should Michelle not travel? I haven't seen them. Can you provide a link? Which is irrelevant to this $200M figure. Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant. Evidence is out there. Does anyone have enough answers at this point, no, but I don't pretend to bury my hand in the sand and just throw stuff out and act as if nothing is there. At the very least hearing the White House plausibly deny it or state it is true and that it is consistent with historic travel costs at the very least. Either way it begs the question why won't the administration address it and if it is true, how important is it to bring the president and his family, entourage, etc to India for 5 days and visit all these marvelous places.