kapkomet

QUOTE (fathom @ May 6, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) Are you kidding, I wish we could put money on which player is called out in a specific thread after tonight's game! It was Pods on Monday, Broadway on Tuesday...maybe it will be the National Anthem singer or Southpaw. Dude, you're one to complain. But at least you don't start entire threads about it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 6, 2009 -> 07:25 AM) Sure it is, like I said, its a political vendetta that is an unfortunate part of his way of doing things. Still doesn't change the fact that the hedge funds haven't been "targetted" in any real action (which I hope stays that way), nor the fact that the Chrysler bond holders have no basis at all to blame Obama. Obama's administration is full of political vendettas. In fact, it's his standard operating procedure. Your second point, they are not "blaming Obama" for their losses, they are blaming him for crucifying them in public opinion because they are trying to hold out for their investors, which they are legally entitled to do.

I would ban all negative talk for those who dare oppose me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 6, 2009 -> 07:14 AM) OK, I'm confused. Did Obama say that hedge funds want a bailout? I assume this is about the Chrysler bonds issue, which hedge funds are complaining about maybe. if Obama characterizes their being upset as asking for a bailout (by changing the bankruptcy terms), then he's exagerrating for politcal effect. Kind of annoying. But frankly, these hedge fund folks have only themselves and Chrysler to blame for the bad result on those bonds. They are upset at Obama's crucification of hedge funds... which he had no business doing. It's the typical straw man Obama argument on everything when his administration doesn't get their complete way.

A-freaking-men. Link

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 6, 2009 -> 06:30 AM) I think the GOP regains this seat with a Tom Ridge/Arlen Specter match-up. Ridge/Sestak? That's another story IMHO. That's a pretty fair observation.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 6, 2009 -> 06:21 AM) You reap what you sow. If you intended to be an independent, become an independent. Last I checked, there were two of those in the Senate today. Neither party is going to forbid someone from their caucus. If Feingold suddenly decided to caucus with the GOP, you'd see him welcomed with open arms as well, even if he didn't tow the party line on a single issue. But don't talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and expect to be treated like nothing happens. He flipped on EFCA which he supported before this year, when he feared a primary challenge from the right - so when he switched parties, you'd think he'd come back to the position he'd consistently represented before, or at the very least say he'd vote against it but wouldn't support a filibuster against it (a much less cravenly political way to be seen), but he decided to say that he supports it. Don't say you're proud to be a Democrat and then say that the Democrat lost an election he won and that the results should be overturned. Don't promise as part of your deal that you'll be a loyal party member and then completely disavow that statement four days later. The guy has been a Dem for about a week and he's managed to isolate himself from the party completely. Party politics means that you have to tow some of the line some of the time, if not you get relegated to the back bench. And don't get it wrong, it was never about principles, it was about electoral viability on his end. Everyone knows this.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 5, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html "We'll take care of you, Arlen, come on over!" "Ok! Now maybe I have a snowball's chance in hell at retaining my seat!" "Hey Arlen, welcome! Now get on board with us on health care, card check, and everything else we want to ram rod through or f*** you." "Oh s***, what did I do?"

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 5, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) I guess PA is a little more centrist than the far right, and Michael Steele, would hope it to be: Poll: Ridge Leads Toomey In 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Primary -- By A Landslide That has nothing to do with "far right" or "centrist", it totally has to do with Tom Ridge being a very popular political figure in PA politics.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 5, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) It is clearly different. Is it the opposite? No. But you paint a black and white picture, when it is shades of grey. And right now, there is clearly a difference between the Congressional GOP, and the democratic Presidential administration, when it comes to comprimise. I didn't say a word about Congressional GOP. Everyone knows where they stand, but the self-proclaimed so-called party of inclusion for the last 60 years is no different then the other side, but yet, it's not seen that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) Thankfully of course, the Republican party is a significant upgrade No, but you all want to talk about how much better the Democrat party is all the time, and in reality, it's no different. That was his point. You smear and smear and smear the Republicans but when the Democrats do it, it's somehow different in a good way to you all.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) We are shutting down all of our programs and closing our camps. We are kind of forced to follow the lead of the schools. I just love emotional over-reaction, followed immediately by "nothing to see here, move along". You talk about having it both ways.

You all have said it very well. I used to be all against cell phone bans while driving, but that was before texting. STOP THE f***ING CAR if you are going to text. My daughter and I almost got ran over the other day in the parking lot because some dickhead was texting driving through the parking lot at a shopping center. I couldn't cuss him out because my daughter was standing there but I did scream "watch where you're going and get off the phone".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) I actually locked in my 401k recovery today... I am now officially waiting for the Stress Tests to clear. Me too. Cashed the check into the IRA today.

Holy schnieke, people... calm down.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) Kap, Question about Corporations relocating. Business law is not my area of specialization but I was under the impression that in order to do business in most states you need to register or file something with the secretary of state. (Illinois you can register as a Foreign Corp or you can file an Authority to Transact Business). Now here is where my question is, if you are a corporation of Japan and you do business in Illinois, making a profit off that business in Illinois, do you have to pay Illinois/US taxes on the profit made in Illinois? Ive always thought that the Foreign Corp had to pay the Illinois/US taxes, but Im just not sure. It depends on how it's structured, of course. For retail sales, there's nexus tax law that binds things together. For goods or services, most of the time there is a transfer payment back to the parent in it's home country. Foreign profits in each state again depends - there is usually some exclusions that exempt the corps from paying. There you get into passive income rules as well. In short, there's not a simple answer because it really depends on the legal structures of said company.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) On this one, I'll believe it when I see it. So, corporations are evil, right?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) If it is impractical, then someone needs to get together and come up with something new. Until then, it is the law of the land. They are. It's called "living and breathing". And it's wrong.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) I'd find a way to put a tariff on imported goods made by companies that leave the US. Find a way to lock them in. I'm probably in the minority that I believe in "America First". We should be a self sustaining country and not have to rely on goods brought in from over seas. Or at lease as self-sustaining as possible. Really? Do you go to any major retailer? Do you like the prices you're paying? Would you pay 25-50% more for every single thing you buy without a corresponding increase in wages? And, SS alluded to this - this will absolutely result in major companies relocating offshore. I'll go into detail later (and this won't be the M2M detail... )

Yea, I'll chime in on this later because I spent the last two years dealing with it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:41 AM) What is impractical is deciding everything on knowledge from 200+ years ago and NOT taking into account what is in our best interest as a nation. There is no way the men who sat around and wrote the Constitution could foresee everything the Constitution would be called upon to solve. So it takes people, not machines, who can think and use their knowledge, to interpret. What I was trying to say is the decisions are usually about what is *not* obvious in the Constitution. If it was spelled out in black letter law, it would usually never get to the Supreme Court. So to suggest that the Justices should not think, just look at the law and tell us what it says, is impractical. You are confusing the word "think" and "interpret" and "emotion". What I mean by that is, of course, you have to think to interpret. But, someone's feelings about a law should never enter the picture. Like I said, I understand Roe v. Wade, even though I may disagree with it. I respect that ruling more then a lot of other ones - but where I don't like it is it now enters as I already said a place where states should decide. Who cares if I am "against" it, because that's my "emotion" if you will, and my point was (you said it) that I can not agree with a decision but still respect it, and that's false. I think abortion as a MAJOR litmus test is asinine.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2009 -> 08:07 PM) what the hell? Do you think that health care reform will come from the bench? No, I'm just talking about the over-reach of our federal government and using those for examples. Sorry to make that paralell.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:47 AM) Obama proposing business tax changes, specifically regarding international profits and operations. He calls is closing loopholes, businesses call it a tax increase. They are both correct, really. So this means companies are less likely to shelter profits overseas, since that would risk possible tax evasion prosecution. But will some companies just pick up shop and leave entirely? That is unlikely, as these companies are generally owned and managed by Americans who don't want to leave. But will it work as intended, to keep more profits and more operations (read: jobs) here? Boy do I know this well... I see ATH started a separate thread, so I'll go there on it later.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 3, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) And conservatives want to paint every decision that they disagree with as touchy, feely, activism, no matter what. Just as they want to characterize any bad press as liberally biased. Far easier to divert attention than deal with the issue at hand. Do you have the "right" to walk down the street in a pink suit with a green and purple feather in your hair? Where does it guarantee you that exact right in the Constitution? As soon as a Judge thinks that that right is in the Constitution, conservatives would call it activism if they disagree. No we don't. Not even close. That's just blatently wrong. Again, if you don't like the laws that are written, you have a majority, pass the laws you want. But the laws need to be interpreted against a Constitutional standard, not "touchy feely" crap based on someone's definition of "rights". Those rights were pretty clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Health Insurance, Retirement, etc. for "pursuit of happiness" is not a "right". Just like all the decisions of emotional crap aren't a true basis against the Constitution. Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I understand it's intent - I think that it's a stretch but again I understand the decision. I think it should be struck down, but not because abortion is bad, IMO, it's because it's a state issue. Just like "gay marriage".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) I'd be shorting the banks, but mostly because of the run that is going to happen on May 7th when the stress test results are announced. ^^^ And there's been some "selective leaking" already of the results. This will bring back the market back to near the lows.