Soxbadger

I really like my galaxy 3, I have had it for a year no complaints.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) So with the the Pouncey twins now being looked at in more than just a witness against Aaron Hernandez, I wonder when Yahoo or CNNSI(Miami,Ohio St, OK State,etc) will be coming out with an article about how dirty the Florida program was when it came to covering up things. Pfft ESPN will be re-running an article on OSU and why trading collectibles for tattoos is the worst thing that ever happened in college football. It will then follow that up with a report on why the Big10 is the worst conference ever and has never produced a single NFL player.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) Has there been an undefeated team from a conference as bad as the Big Ten is this year? And with Cal ending up as the worst team in the Pac 12, OSU gets no help from their non-conference schedule As bad as the Big10? OSU and Wisconsin would challenge for any conference. I guess the PAC 10 benefits from jobbing Wisconsin? Not sure why you are so down on OSU.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) The SEC wouldn't have the pull to jump over FSU or Oregon but there might be enough pull to jump OSU. I would suspect that OSU would get in but I could see people pushing for Alabama. Not going to happen. The 2 conferences with the most BCS games are Big10 and SEC. The 2 conferences with the most money are the big10 and sec. In no world does an undefeated Big10 or SEC team ever jumped. If it does, Id guess that the NCAA days are numbered.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are? No I wouldnt and I generally win the "who has the most degrees/who got the most quickest" battle.

No one has ever said there are not other choices. My preferred choice is just raising taxes on the highest income levels. The point was to create "other" ways to increase revenue. You wrote a lot of words, but they dont really make sense. There is no "fundamental loss of liberty". The fundamental loss of liberty occurred when people voted to take away other peoples rights to do those things in the first place. Why should you get to tell me I cant kill myself? The answer is, you shouldnt. I should have the right to do what I want with my life/body provided that I dont hurt others in the process. Furthermore, the origin of the social contract is generally considered Leviathan. Leviathan was about how the govt is supposed to protect the people from evildoers. But in Leviathan the way that was accomplished was by ceding your individual rights for the betterment of society (I give up my right to steal from you, if you give up your right to steal from me.) My suggestion would fall perfectly into that social contract and actually fits into Locke, Rousseau. Maybe it would fail under John Rawls, but I never was a huge fan of his. The problem is that you keep suggesting that my idea will undermine the rule of law. In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Right now what I proposed exists. If you have enough money, you can basically pay your way out of most non-violent crimes. The problem is, most people dont know this, because they dont have access to the right people to make it happen. That is more unfair than telling people "if you pay X, you can violate this law", it is upfront and honest. You talk about shaming and being abhorred, but how are you upset when you dont know? Do you know every rich person who has been charged with a felony and pleaded down to a citation because they paid a huge fine (a fine that was larger than the law allowed), of course not. Even better, you likely have no way of finding it out, because you can get the court records sealed in most states if you know what you are doing. Now you make think "well its unfair poor people cant afford it". But our society isnt built on "fairness" it is built on "fair opportunity." And in my scenario, everyone would have "fair opportunity." And to answer your question "Why have laws?" The answer is, we should have as few laws as possible. The only laws we should have should be based on utilitarian principles that you cant do X, because it would interfere with my right to do Y. So any law that I would allow people to buy their way out of, I would never have considered a legitimate law in the first place. I believe that we all have the right to kill ourselves with our own vices. If you really want to talk about a fair society, why is it fair that alcohol is legal and marijuana isnt? Why is it fair that I can smoke a cigarette but I cant snort cocaine? I dont even know how you get to coercion. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Once again this idea is only because we are starting with "X people refuse to agree to taxes on the wealthy" with the variable X being large enough to stop any legislation from passing. Perhaps I should ask you, what do you think is a fairer solution? Given a world where we cant raise taxes on the people who are most capable of paying them, how would you raise more revenue to ensure that all Americans get equal access to healthcare, education and govt services?

Depends on the site? I feel like $19.99 per month is something Ive seen.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) There's no fairness in that unless distribution of money is fair. The original distribution of currency was so unfair that the current distribution, even if more fair than it once was (not to say that is fairer than it ever has been, because that is not the case) is still unfair. Judging our desires by our willingness to pay only makes sense if we all have had equal opportunities to earn money. That isn't the case. Associating money with freedom means our freedom is measured by how much money we have. It is an injustice that it is already the case, why make that more true? You're not "free" to buy things if you're not as "free" to earn money as everyone else. Given the long history of asymmetrical distributions of wealth, it is clear that not everyone is free to pursue money and thus not free to buy things. If the things you buy can now include freedom, you just take freedom away from people with less money. Everyone still has the ability to vote to change the law right? So if all of these people want to do these things, why not just vote to change the law? Youre entire paragraph can be summed up into a simply into: Life isnt fair. But the question we have to ask is, so what? We have to acknowledge life isnt fair and then we have to try and create a baseline of "fairness". To me its more important that people get access to free public education, free public healthcare, roads and other stuff. What isnt so important is whether or not everyone can pay to break the law. Because if that means regular people get all the other stuff (education, healthcare) so what. Sometimes the ends justifies the means.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) SB's argument is akin to saying that not having gay marriage is fair because a gay man can still marry a woman. He likes men? Tough s***, life's not fair. Something tells me you wouldn't agree with that position. That was the exact argument I was parroting. But youre missing the conclusion. Throwing the word "fair" around is meaningless. You can argue something is fair/unfair right/wrong at the same time. Which is why when I argue for gay marriage, it isnt based on whether its fair or not fair to marry someone. I base it on the fact that its unfair for the govt to give benefits to people who are married and not give them to people who are unmarried. And thus if they want to strip away all marital rights, it would be completely fair to not allow X person to marry Y for any reason. But if you are going to give X/Y a benefit because they said stupid words and promised to be together, then you have to give X/X the same benefit if they say the same stupid words and make the same stupid promise. In my situation the govt is giving no inherent benefit to rich or poor people. If a poor person wants to spend all their money on an exemption, that is their right. The govt cant stop them. Compare that to a gay person who wants to get married and the govt saying no... Or even a better comparison. If you cant afford a marriage license fee, you cant get married. If that is fair, then its fair to charge for an exemption. Its the same idea. (Edit) Manic rant? My personal opinion is to have higher graduated tax rates. I just was offering other ideas because people seem so beholden "not to raise taxes on the ultra rich." If we arent going to do that, then we need to come up with exotic ways to make money. Thats just reality. You arent going to fix trillions of dollars of debt by nickel and dime taxes on cigarettes.

If we are starting over lets just go to an American Idol system where people can vote directly. I can make uninformed knee jerk decisions just as well as someone in Washington!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) That is a very peculiar definition of fairness. Not really, the first definition: in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. The rules would be: pay X, get exemption from crime Y. Thus fair. The current rules are unfair. Commit Y crime, get Z sentence. Unless you know the right people, then cut a deal where you pay X which is far more than the law allows but drop the charge to something negligible. As you can see the first is fair, because the rules are clearly articulated and everyone can play the game. The second is not fair, because only a few people even know the option exists, and even fewer people actually have access/wealth to make that option happen. But lets just be honest. Nothing is ever fair. Even games are not fair, because participants in games have different skills and abilities.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."" Add "buy literal get-of-jail cards" to that list. There's nothing fair about a legal system where the wealthy can openly and legally buy themselves exemptions from the law. Its fair, everyone can buy the exception. It may be easier for some, but its still fair. Unfair would be if only people who make X can buy it. But in reality nothing is ever "fair". The world isnt fair, life isnt fair, nothing ever is. The best we can do is give everyone equal opportunities. And everyone has the opportunity to buy an exemption, so it is ultimately fair.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) That would completely undermine the legitimacy of the legal system. Why should I have any respect for a system that openly allows the wealthy to buy indulgences? Where is the sense of justice when I'm punished for a crime and you're not simply because I'm poor?* *not that this doesn't apply to our current system, but it's at least de jure equal. The new system is equal. Anyone can buy an exemption. If you want to indulge, make more money. If you dont buy an exemption, you are punished (rich or poor) equally. The reason you are being punished is you broke the law without an exemption. The same would apply to a rich person. But unlike our current system, you cant buy the exemption after you break the law. So in reality its more fair.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) When you say "break the law" do you mean 'sin' taxes for certain goods or allowing people who are wealthy enough to legally and legitimately buy their way around the law? If you really want to make money, it would have to be allowing them to buy their way around the law. Obviously murder/intentional torts would be off the table. Im talking about fun things. IE Its illegal to buy MDMA. But if you spend $10k you can get an exemption from that law. Its illegal to hire prostitutes. But if you spend X you can get an exemption. The difference wtih a sin tax is that those actions are "legal" just deemed "undesirable". In my situation they would still remain illegal, youd just be buying an exemption.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) It absolutely is theft, born of of greed, envy or whatever you want to call it. So if you go out to eat with a group of friends, and you make the most of all of them, do you pay the most of all of them? And I don't mean picking up the tab once in a while, every time you go out, do you pay more in a group setting, or do you force whoever has the largest paycheck to pay more? What am I envious of? Other peoples money? I dont care, I grew up in a society where everyone had all the money that they could reasonably spend. You quickly realize that money isnt what makes people happy. That no amount of million dollar homes, $100k cars, will make them happy. And your example is my point: If I go out with my friends, order 10x as much food, 10x as much drink, I pay 10x as much. I dont say "Well we all came together so we should split it". And when Im in a group where I have a lot more money, I pay for it. I pay for their tickets, I pay for the cab, I pay for whatever. Because they are my friends and my money is worthless if I dont have people to share it with. And my other friend who makes considerably more than me, he almost always pays the entire bill, because he can, because he knows that its not fair/right to have people go to fancy dinners/shows/etc that they cant afford. Just like our country. Some rich people understand that its just right to pay more. That when you have everything in the world an extra hundred thousand a year doesnt hurt you. But that much money is more than a years wage to someone else.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) His point is the average person is not utilizing the services of the US Government to enforce IP Patent Law that allows Mr. Cuban to make his money. Normal people dont get as much services as rich people. And really really poor people, dont need things like "police protecting their money in a bank" or "federal insurance on deposits up to X amount". But remember, 99% of the people who fight the most vehemently for rich people, arent actually rich themselves. I theorize its the idea that they themselves will one day become rich, so they are trying to prevent the laws from impacting their future selfs. Id say that you should just worry about yourself today (thats what rich people do) and you cross the "Im making 7 figures and worried about the top tax rate" when you get there.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) Sin taxes just hammer poor people, usually. Someone addicted to cigarettes and is just scraping by isn't going to add to their stress by not smoking. They're just going to have give even more of their income to the habit. The same with taxing Cadillacs, etc. Middle class people want that s*** and they reach to get certain status items. You tax the money when it is earned and/or take all that is left when they die Stop smoking, stop buying cadillacs. Its simple. Back in college Id smoke randomly, now I cant even imagine buying a pack of cigarettes. $10 for that junk? If Im going to kill myself its going to be with fun drugs. And that is really where sin tax needs to go if you want it to be successful. Allow rich people to pay to break the law. Id pay for that. Id actually want to make more money if my money could be spent doing what I want to do. Estate tax really shouldnt be that important if we have a high enough income tax. You paid when you made it, you get to keep it. And to be fair, if you are really rich you have a trust or some other instrument to avoid this anyways. Its really not hard. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) If you are telling someone that because they made X amount of money you are going to take more than half of it, for the same services that everyone else is paying less for, you are punishing them for being successful. While I might want all of Mark Cuban's money, he made something, had an idea or sold something to get the money, it is his money. Not yours. Should he pay double every time he orders a cheeseburger because he is rich? Should you pay more because you make over the poverty line? It is punishment and theft if you want to take more than half. Sometimes I dont know what world you are living in. Its not theft to charge 90% tax rate on any amount of money made over $1bil. It may not be "fair" but guess what, life isnt fair. People like Mark Cuban dont need you protecting them, they already pay people a lot of money to convince people like you that raising their taxes is really bad. It isnt.

Any router suggestions? I have an old linksys but Im thinking that with several devices using wireless at the same time maybe I should upgrade.

Here are the pictures, they are slightly NSF because the author took the time to use paint to censor lol http://www.barstoolsports.com/m/barstoolu/...of-study-guide/

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) Marcus Mariota Some places are projecting him top 5, so the Eagles may have to pay to get him.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) I'm not concerned about the graduated income tax. I'm fine with it. I was just thinking of a way to get revenue that the rich would find less objectionable. There isnt one. Most people dont get rich by 1) voluntarily giving their money away and/or 2) not fighting for every nickel and penny. Some rich people are willing to. They acknowledge that their parents paid significantly higher taxes and they still were rich and had a great life.

If they stick to the historical time line there is going to be a lot of Chicago action soon. Capone's brother is dead and Torrio just got cheated on the Brewery... Its not really a spoiler, but I wont spell it out.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:04 AM) He's not listed as 6'1 200, he's listed at 6'1 210. Russell Wilson was listed as 5'11 210 on Wisconsin's website. They wouldn't jack up his height by like 3 inches, which is essentially what you're saying. He's probably like 6'1/2" and they rounded up. Manziel shows composure in the pocket, has proven to be incredibly accurate, sees the field well, and shows good enough arm strength. He's also proven to be an incredibly effective runner as well. And, beyond any of that, he's about the only QB who's ever lit up the Alabama defense. That's an NFL-style defense with NFL caliber prospects all over the place. And Brees does have a pretty weak arm. He's just incredibly accurate. Manziel could be good in the NFL. You dont put up those type of stats if you dont have some talent. The problem, like I said earlier, is that many of his stats come from broken plays and some of those throws are pretty dangerous. I could see a team like the Eagles take a chance.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) The luxury tax on boats in 1990 crushed the industry. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1993-08-1...ilding-industry Of course, any time you start messing with price there is going to be a natural impact on the supply/demand curve. Im not sure why people are so concerned about graduated income tax. Adam Smith pretty much outlined that people who make more have to pay more. And who cares if its proportional or not, rich people get a disproportional amount of the govt services. Rich people in this country really could pay more. Ultimately they are the ones with the most to lose if the govt goes sideways. Which is why its tremendously shortsighted what they are doing. Whats funny is that many who are against graduated tax are the first to say "life isnt fair", well that works both ways, although Im pretty sure that if you are paying 90% of your taxes on anything you make over $10mil, you probably arent willing to trade with someone making $40k just because they are only paying 20% taxes. Sometimes we just need to be honest about reality.

Manziel is going to have to become a lot more judicious with his throws if he wants to make it in the NFL.