Y2HH

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) People can die from peanut allergies, dairy allergies just give you a stomach ache. Kids can accidentally put things in their mouths, i've seen it! I don't see a problem with removing peanuts from their lunches. That's not really a grave injustice any more than not allowing kids to bring knives to school. Uh, yea, it is...it's way different than bringing weapons to school. And there are different degrees of allergic reactions, some kids can die from a bee sting, too...should we ban bees from being outdoors? This is absurd to even discuss. If I want my kid to be eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, they should be allowed to do so...but because some other kid has a peanut allergy they cant? f*** that other kid.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) I dont know where the line is drawn. I dont think its right, but I see why they do it. This is a nation of lawyerin up, and people just dont want to deal with the repercussions of one bad decision Absolutely no doubt about it, this country has gone litigation insane.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) I think the schools would rather eliminate the possibilty of a screwup completely rather than get gutted in a lawsuit because a dumb teacher/lunch lady gave the wrong kid a sandwich with pb on it and have the kid die in front of his/her classmates. I know what you are saying, I wish people could all be infallible after being taught things, but people screw up a lot. But where do you draw the line on this? Peanut Butter, Nuts, Honey? While more common, there ARE other allergies out there...such as dairy, etc...should we just ban all food because of such a possibility? We all made it through school eating peanut butter...kids that were allergic to it...well, they just didn't eat it.

I call him...Mini Mit...

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) You all missed half the point. The ACLU was saying that the schools had no business in trying to 'force' these gender stereotypes that all girls want a dance or that all guys want to play sports. So the mere fact that it is daddy-daughter dance, and not parent-kid dance is one of the complaints. No, we get the point. It's just a stupid point.

I was wrong about last night, so I will not say a word...other than these words...on this game.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) i'm not. i just want balta to respond to me, but for some reason he wont. he banned me because he doesn't like me, not because i said anything egregious. that's what i'm trying to point out. Why wouldn't he like you? You're just so likable. If I was O'Reilly, you'd be my Jon Stewart.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) BALTA HE SAID ASS! i'm serious i'm kind of pissed i got banned for the same s*** everyone else is doing. Why are you trying to get other people into trouble all the time? I don't think anyone on this forum has been banned more than I have.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 07:10 PM) You know what would be great for students? A completey disgruntled workforce and Rahm with no checks. Give it a few years, they'll be disgruntled again.

I've never eaten there in my life, and never had an hankering to do so, either. That said, I wouldn't avoid it because of this, either.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 02:58 AM) Now, to your post, slow down my friend. Political correctness isn't exactly an evil thing, society is getting ruined by a hundred and one things before political correctness. You have to remember why it's there; not everyone is a white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male. There is a lot of discrimination out there still and political correctness is all that stops some people from trying to offend everyone. Too bad political correctness, by and large, only applies to white people, and society, by and large, accepts it being that way. If you'd like some references, see stand up comedians Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, or a plethora of other non-white comedians...they say things a white comedians could NEVER say, and only because they're not white. They've actually have said as much in their routines. This same attitude extends beyond the comedy realm, too...into sports, politics, etc. So long as you aren't white, you can get away with pseudo racial references, and that's ok...because you aren't white. So I tend to disagree...I find political correctness an evil thing because the same rules aren't applied to everyone...so from the start, it's not politically correct. People just like to pretend it is.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 03:28 AM) I didn't say we should, just thought we did. Kinda like debutante balls. Do those still exist? And dude, the sports scenario is so out of the question. Sports gain schools publicity, money, etc. And cuts exist, hence tryouts. You can't "tryout" for a father-daughter dance. I think his sports scenario is absolutely in the question...you're ok with banning something because the schools don't stand to gain from it? I don't get it. So because other kids don't have fathers, it's ok to ban father/daughter dances, unless they somehow gained publicity or money for the school? Once again, this is absurd rational. I agree with him on this...while it's no fault of the kids they don't have a father, banning this for all other kids that do is f***ing retarded.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 06:04 AM) Agreed, a great country and a great example why. I don't understand what you attempted to say here. Are you saying this is a great country because it bans things like father/daughter dances because some kids out there don't have fathers? That's f***ing absurd.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 05:42 PM) Wow. The school year has been cut in half! No wonder we're falling behind in science and math. The first part of your statement aside, most of this is based on a false notion that the US was ever on top in science and math...and we never were. As a matter of fact, we were never even close. This is a pretty good write up debunking this widely accepted educational myth: http://www.good.is/posts/debunking-educati...er-one-in-math/ We were never on top in neither math or science...not for a second, not ever in history. What America was #1 in, however, was opportunity. And we still are. See Facebook for a recent reference. Or Amazon, etc...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) this post made me literally lol What, do I look like a clown or something?! I'm here to amuse you?!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) People shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid. The banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and these idiots should have lost their homes. We're not talking about people 2 years away from owning their home outright. We're talking about idiots that took on a 30 ARM with a balloon payment a few years down the line that was way more than they could afford. They don't deserve to keep their home. ...and innocent bystanders shouldn't be hurt because of something out of their own control. I did everything right, and because of the crap the banks pulled, my taxes got to triple...how does that help anyone? No, people shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid, but neither should banks...the point of this is to help those that were caught in-between the stupidity of both.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Who's going to determine that? And how many people would use the "oh the predatory lending got me! I was dooped! I knew I only made 1500 a month but that 3200 mortgage payment seemed totally doable in 5 years into the future!" Someone can determine it, just like they determine that you have to put down 20%. I'd say, to even be generous, if you bought a house worth 5x your salary, you're good to go...but above that? Foreclose. Too bad if you were duped. The point of this is to help those that CAN sustain what they have after they're helped...not to help those that would take the help and then fail anyway, and go into foreclosure. You'd do the math, and see if the people you are helping would then be able to continue on from that point...it would stabilize housing. But let's not pretend we couldn't run some numbers and come up with a way of helping some people, versus just handing it to the banks that helped cause it all. You also only help on primary mortgages, not people that own 50 houses.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either. You don't have to do that, though. As with anything, you do this with rules attached. You don't bail out people that bought houses far above and beyond what they could afford. But by that token, you also don't bail out the banks that lent them the f***ing money in the first place. There is, however, a HUGE subset of people that fall in the middle that did deserve the help...and helping them as I suggested would have fixed everything they attempted to fix, only it wouldn't have just benefited the rich.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Exactly. Instead of giving the banks more money by buying mortgage-backed securities, just go out and cover some damn mortgages directly. It's hard for them to want to fix things like that, when it doesn't benefit them...you know, the rich lawmakers that pretend to want to help regular people, but when they have the chance to do so...what do they do? They bail out their rich banker friends, instead...multiple times. If they truly wanted to fix the economy, they should have just used QE to prop the ENTIRE housing market...quite simply...instead of giving money to the banks that they mostly refused to lend out, they should have just given it to the banks in the form of principal only mortgage payments to every home owner that made less than 200k (as a family), and owned a house worth less than -- oh, I don't know, let's say 500k as an example. That would have eased the burden on the people as their mortgage payments would be far lower, eased the burden on banks as the houses would no longer be in foreclosure, and flooded the market with money, both in the form of the banks getting huge principal payments that they could now lend out AGAIN, and the people would now have more money to spend, not to mention not losing their houses. But of course, neither side would have agreed to do that...even if either side claims they would have. Because it doesn't benefit them or their friends in the short term.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Dont know but Verizon is very good. Tmobile was excellent in the past. In crowded areas the Verizon signal actually blocks the ATT one , which is why down here and in places like the United Center ATT sucks. It's also because AT&T just sucks. Verizon and AT&T use different spectrum, so Verizon shouldn't be "blocking" AT&T. AT&T's issue are is has very few towers, and they get overloaded when too many people are in one area at the same time...their network is laid out horribly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) I'm all for ending QE3 and sending checks directly from the Fed to citizens. Too bad that money goes to the banks, not the citizens.

I have a feeling we are going to shell Chen tonight.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) no problemo, I will admit that Obama has let me down a bit because I'm a liberal and he hasn't been very liberal at all (Gitmo, drone attacks etc.), but Romney really scares me because I fear the NeoCons will come back in full force under Romney and an Iran war would be imminent. I think Romney scares anyone that isn't a complete GOP kool aid drinking nutbar. But it doesn't make me like Obama any more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) The amazing reality winds up being...so few people actually are in the "Moocher" group that everyone complains about...that the best way to make the money run out is to keep kicking people out into the streets, because then they wind up arrested and put in hospitals or prisons. People don't want to live in public housing. People don't want to have to worry about whether they/their children can eat. Some people will take advantage of anything you do, yes. But the person you knew, or Governor Romney, or Craig T. Nelson (Link)...that's the reality. People get in trouble and sometimes even take years to get themselves out...but when they do, it's a benefit to everyone. That not only helps that person, but it helps society, the economy as a whole, and future generations as well. (And government spending has stayed flat/decreased over the last several years, once again worth pointing out just to beat that dead horse). I agree with much of that, just not the bolded part: Bold: All based on counting a one time TARP payment at the end of Bush's presidency.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) Incorrect. There was a substantial additional tax credit included in the stimulus package known as "Making work Pay". That was then followed up a year later by a 1 year payroll tax cut. Those were done on top of the only extension done of the Bush Tax cuts so far, which happened in 2010 during the Lame Duck session, at which point they were extended for 2 years (hence, they expire at the end of 2012). I forgot about that, I stand corrected.