Soxbadger

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) What do ya mean the South won't change socially? What do they do down there that is so bad? Just curious. Well youre not going to like my answer. So let me preface this, I dont mind people who like religion and think its important. I do mind people who think religious beliefs should be reflected in our govt. For whatever reason there are seemingly more really religious people in the South than North. Because of this you get resistance to social platforms due to religious beliefs (gay marriage is a sin, abortion is a sin). The fact should be, that it doesnt matter its a sin, that it is up to god to judge them. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons that are very irrelevant, many people believe it is their job to make sure that the rest of us dont sin. It just makes no sense. Imagine for a second, that instead of being a predominantly Christian nation, it was predominantly Jewish. Would we want kosher to be law? Of course not, if I want a bacon cheeseburger, friend shrimp and a milkshake, I as an American should be able to buy that. If God is going to send me to hell for that, heaven must suck anyway because my heaven includes bacon cheeseburgers. It also includes a lot of other things which either means 1) heaven doesnt exist or 2) Im not going there. But well find that out later, for today Im running my life how I want to. Not how some thousand year old book tells me to.

Im not saying this will happen, I am saying based on the evidence there is a chance it happens. As for the cartel v hank, um of course Id make a distinction. Just like if I was Hank Id hope the DEA would make a distinction between a DEA agent taking bribes from his drug dealer brother in law who he conveniently couldnt catch and a DEA agent who took money from his drug dealing brother in law accidentally because he was to stupid too figure out he was the guy he was chasing. There really is very little way this ends well for Hank. No one in the world is going to believe that Hank wasnt working with Walt. And what incentive does Walt have to not lie about Hank? Hank just doesnt have great options.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) A multi-season arc that results in nothing happening would be awful. You have an interesting definition of nothing happening. A million things have happened, the only thing that wouldnt happen is that Hank, someone whose character has been portrayed as extremely loyal and family oriented, would remain loyal/family oriented and wouldnt break his character, just to get 1 more arrest. Wont that truly be the shocking ending. That after all of that Hank doesnt go after Walt/Sklyar, because he doesnt want his family destroyed?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) Hank wussing out would ruin his whole story arc and make it pointless. No it wouldnt. It would show that Hank is no different than Walt. You protect your family. It would be perfectly in line with his character, he would be flawed, just like everyone else.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) Vigilante! http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120...|text|FRONTPAGE I can answer this post in 2 words: castle doctrine.

I dont watch stewart or colbert that much, but my dad always comments that they make similar arguments/jokes to me. Which makes sense because probably half of their writers could be interchanged with me and no one would notice (except for the fact I cant write, but I bet they look like me).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) Not to mention THEY TRIED TO KILL HIM! When did Walt try and kill Hank? Im pretty sure Walt has stopped people from going after Hank. Hank just seems like he does care about his family, also its going to make Hank look like a fool. He was chasing this big time dealer and it was his brother in law. It may ruin his career.

How are we defining liberal? Because certain definitions I am absolutely one, other definitions I probably fall into "other" category, as I am a utilitarian (I am close a libertarian on certain things, but I dont want to be associated with them on others.)

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) Thanks Badger, I enjoy your takes. But don't you agree it will be a media lovefest at the upcoming convention? That's mainly what was bothering me and led to my rant. I dont watch the conventions or the news. Why would I want my information filtered? Most of us are born post World War II, we really have no excuse for getting our information from the media. 1984, Brave New World, etc were all written before I was born. I have beliefs and rules. The candidate who (in my opinion) is closest to my beliefs and follows my rules gets my vote. Romney can not get my vote. He is probably close to me on some views, but he does not follow my rules (must not be anti-social change.) Social trumps economic, so I have to vote for Obama.

And greg when I refer to being on the wrong side of history, its this what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg Now compare to the map at http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Over 150 years later, the first map still rules. The only state that would have voted for Lincoln and not Obama, Indiana. The only state that would have voted against Lincoln and for Obama, Virginia. Some days I wish that the North would have just let the South go. Im tired of supporting them with my tax dollars, while they refuse to change socially. And that is something your beloved liberal media never talks about, donor states. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do-some-...ding-not-others http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundati...ftsbs-large.jpg Irony that 8 of the top 10 at spending federal money will vote Republican. Meanwhile its likely that at least 8 of 10 donor states will vote Democrat. (Maybe 10 of 10.) http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-t...enditures-state I always wonder why no one hammers on that. You dont want federal money, why am I sending it to you? The hypocrisy is unnerving.

What do you want the media to say? We are anti-gay rights, even though a bunch of our friends are gay. We are anti-forcing life, even though most of us our pro-choice. If you want unbiased coverage the social platform needs to move into the 21st century, because the 19th was a long time ago.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) It won't, even if you tax them at 100% You still need more. But yet with the class warfare practiced by the liberals, they make it seem as if taxing the rich will cure all, if they just pay 'their fair share'. And everone elses share as well. I dont think that is the case at all. I think what most liberals are correctly saying is that GWB cut taxes too much and before we start taking away defense or social services, lets just put taxes back to where they were when the country was doing well. It cant be fixed overnight, it has to be steps. And the first step is to re-establish at least a 39.6% rate on the highest tax bracket. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-f...dividual-1.html When you look at that chart its interesting to note that pre-1980 the highest tax rate was 70%. In 1982 it was lowered to 50% while at the same time lowering the top tier down to $100k. The reality is that the US thrived with tax rates in excess of 70% at the highest level. Raising them back to around 40% is not too problematic. Furthermore they should definitely consider creating a higher top tier (in 1980 there were over 15 levels of taxes, today there are 5), that is taxed at 50%. Once tax revenues are corrected, the next step is going to be cuts and thats when both sides are going to have to give in.

Im not going to get involved in a race to the bottom, I congratulate teachers on unionizing so that they can get better deals through leverage. That is called good negotiating, even if I cant or dont do it. As for other professions making more, I dont really care about that either. As for taxes and where the money is going, I agree entirely that it needs to be reassessed. I would just say that even I, someone who isnt a very big teacher union supporter, would argue that there are places with a lot more fat that could be cut to start.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) it's all the same point brother. sorry you can't comprehend that. and top tier compared to what? plumbers and firemen and the type of people who flunked out or didn't even go to college? yeah, they SHOULD be making more than those people. They got a degree in something. EDIT: before y'all flame, that was my nuclear hyperbole talking. yes, firefighters and plumbers are very important. and frankly i don't even know. they could make more than teachers... didn't do the research. But if you let that stand in the way of the point i was making you're an idiot. Who cares about the bolded, a degree is a piece of paper, it really doesnt mean jack in a lot of professions. For the most part its nothing more than a barrier of entry. Fireman can die on the job saving someone else. If that isnt deserving of high pay, then I dont even know what the point is anymore. The reason people arent championing more pay for teachers is many people dont necessarily think that 1) teachers are doing a good job or 2) that teachers make a huge impact.

That is why you absolutely need to focus on the long game. Immigration should be 1,2,3,4 and 5 on that list. One of the few things economists can agree on is that restricting immigration generally screws your economy. After the US starts to increase its tax base and also adds more competition to the workforce, you should see immediate gains in all areas. Once these gains occur the US can then see what the new budget will be and begin to 1) increase taxes and 2) cut spending. If you put those 3 things together its feasible to fix the US economy. But until you fix the labor supply issue, youre going to have artificially increased price of products, which leads to US products costing more than they should, ultimately leading to inefficiency. There are other areas, but they are more sacred cows, so Im not going to go after them to start.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/1...-210530948.html I think Ill really like Looper. Also want to see what Rza does with The Man With the Iron Fists. Cloud Atlas sounds interesting but who knows.

Well there is always a chance that Hank lets Walt off the hook... Hank figuring out Walt's role doesnt really jive with the flashforward, as no way is Walt fighting the DEA with a gun. There has to be another intervening invent.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) Herein lies the problem. A candidate for any office isn't going to change your or probably most of America's opinion about social issues. They are beliefs that people are raised with and ultimately will change only on their own, not by a stump speech. But most of America doesn't understand economics, if I cut taxes, X will happen or if I raise taxes, Y will happen. Because of this, arguments today HAVE to be about economics, jobs, housing, taxes, etc. Because the masses minds CAN be changed. Now I'm not saying most of America is dumb. I just think that our current economic system is too complex for most people to have the time to sit down and understand. I have a basic knowledge, but if you asked me what Obama's or Romney's plans would do to the economy, I have no stinkin' idea. But I am smart enough to know this...neither one is going to solve the problem in 4 years. Two points. 1) Maybe I am naive, but I believe most people in the United States think that all people are created equal and deserving of the same rights and protections. 2) Even economists disagree on the best positions to take. There are a few things that most economists agree on (not restricting immigration), but most people dont really want to talk economics on immigration, they want to use a pseudo-social argument of protectionism (they took our jobs). I have no illusions anymore, on the current course the US will fail. The US must remain the freest county in the world, because it simply can not beat other countries who dont play by the same rules (minimum wage, quality controls, etc).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) AKA -- I'm fair to MY side because MY side is right, and YOUR side is not. Issue is, they're the SAME side disguised to look like different sides. Obama has been nothing short of 4 more years of GW. I'm somewhat surprised nobody sees it...but that's probably because they don't want too. In some ways its true. But not on social issues. No way does GWB pass health care reform, no way does GWB publicly support same sex marriage and Im pretty sure GWB is pro-forcing families to have babies. Thats why I dont really care about economic arguments. Both sides are going to spend excessively. Neither side is going to want to compromise on spending cuts. And its ultimately why the Democrats should win because I refuse to be part of a platform that will be viewed as historically backwards.

Are upper class not having to pay those taxes? Because I thought sales tax, property tax and income tax would apply to them as well. Or are you proposing that taxes should only be raised on the upper class? Im kind of confused as to where this is going.

Premiere was great and clever. And I really liked Oswin.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 10:38 PM) That's really strange. Your OC was our OC last year and he ran a ton of play action. It was odd, they ran a bunch of empty sets as well which kind of prevents the other team from even playing the run and opening up the passing game. Just not sure what he was thinking.

Michigan sucks, I hate SEC hive mind mentality. Wisconsin was terrible today, not sure what the new OC was thinking but they ran very few regular play action plays, hilariously the 1 they ran went for a TD. Its early but brutal play calling.

Come on MSU, hold on to the ball.

Iranian hostage crisis and Perot respectively.