Y2HH

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 7, 2012 -> 09:03 AM) I replied to your post because it was the latest in a series of posts arguing one position...I tried to make it clear that I was taking the other position and not just disagreeing with you by stating "you guys." Next time I will remember to never reply to your post unless I am addressing it exclusively. Sorry, I missed that, and I wasn't trying to be purposefully abrasive...but when I get someone saying something like, "well I can pick up chix at the bar!", it's kind of like...oh ok...so this is the kind of conversation we're having now. And I wasn't really arguing a "position", I merely started by saying I find these home workouts to be somewhat embarrassing in that I won't do them in front of other people. I didn't say they were bad or people shouldn't do them.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) what up brotha - totally agree with all of this. Y2HH, P90X gets and has gotten me a BETTER workout than any I've ever done at a gym. Seriously? better than nothing? P90X is straight up HARD, and it focuses on absolutely EVERY AREA OF YOUR BODY. If I may, what DO you look for in a workout regimen if not that? I find P90X to be more cardio centric...even in it's targeted workouts such as arms or legs, it's more of a cardio/endurance workout versus a size/strength workout. Which is fine...I'm not telling people not to do it, I absolutely recommend it to people that have goals of weight loss and exercise in mind. But for my current goals, which are muscle size and definition, P90X cannot match the workouts I perform in the gym. P90X *IS* straight up hard, I've done it. It just doesn't coincide with my current goals. I don't see why that's not okay?

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:55 AM) the sad thing is i was about to be super abrasive back, but i cleaned it up... maybe i shouldn't have. Abrasive about what? What did I say to anyone other than the guy who replied directly to my post?

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) Ok, notice I said you "guys." You were not the only one I was addressing; actually most of the things I said were meant for the other poster. Secondly, do you have to be so incredibly abrasive and condescending every time someone disagrees with you? I don't see anything I said as being any more abrasive than you. I was merely expressing an opinion, to which you replied directly to me and said you disagree...but then highlighted how you disagreed with something I never said.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) That's 100% not true. I've had a mole surgically removed on the spot at a dermatologist. Did you actually just compare an invasive abortion procedure to that of a mole removal?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) The Buffet Rule is a token political move to start the ball rolling on tax reforms or, more bluntly, to provide a cudgel to beat Republicans for opposing raising taxes on the rich while advocating for spending cuts for the poor. It's never been presented as a panacea. ...and it failed to do any of that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:37 AM) Not being happy with spending and taxation levels still doesn't excuse not raising the arbitrary debt ceiling to pay for goods and services already delivered, sending the US government into default. And I never said otherwise.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:36 AM) Ok, I could not disagree with you guys more on this one...one would think being able to workout in the privacy of one's own home would be much more comfortable than going to a large stinky sweaty dirty place full of douchebags to do the same. Do you guys ever look around the gyms your at? Sure, about 30% of the people seem to know what they are doing...30% clearly have no clue what they are doing, and 40 % look like they "kinda" have an idea what they think they maybe should be doing. Avoiding that pathetic mess is reason enough for me alone. As for following along with the videos...I don't understand the embarrassment but I live alone and don't have to deal with anyone interrupting or laughing at me...although my dogs do try and join along once in awhile. All in all it's about whatever you're most comfortable with to accomplish your goals. I think it's probably an issue of immaturity in the college setting that makes it a bit embarrassing. And anyone that chooses to make fun of you, you can laugh back at them when you bring back girls from the bars that they don't have a chance with... I never said anything about working out in the privacy of your own home "not being comfortable". So, I'm not exactly sure how you're disagreeing with me on something that I never said. On a related note, I think "comfort" is actually an issue when it comes to working out. The home environment is that of comfort, which is not conducive to a good workout, at least, not in my opinion. Also, I'd actually say a majority of people in gyms don't know what they're doing...but I'm not there for them, and their lack of knowledge has no baring on me. Also, there are a lot of very nice gyms out there that are the exact opposite of what you described. The gym I go too, for example, is cleaner than most peoples houses on their BEST day right after they cleaned it. Last, I'm 36, I don't go to clubs/bars to pick up girls...I don't really even go to clubs/bars anymore...and have no interest in those types of girls anyway. Also of note, girls that can get "picked up" at bars are girls almost anyone has a chance with...and you don't need a good body to do it. Money works even better.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ May 7, 2012 -> 07:12 AM) But dude, wasn't the Buffet Rule supposed to fix all this by reducing the deficit by like, what, three percent? Taxation will totally save us! It's not even 3%. The Buffet Rule would have raised an additional 8-16 billion dollars per year (based on conflicting estimates). That's less than a drop in the bucket. It was more political theater and another waste of American taxpayer resources for the TV cameras. They need to fix the ENTIRE tax system instead of arguing over the crumbs. Of course, they won't do this...but they'll convince their sheep followers on both sides of the isle that their way WILL fix everything...when their ways have repeatedly failed to actually do anything. Democrats will say Republicans will just block everything -- and Republicans will say Democrats will just mess everything up. And they're probably both right. As Lewis black says, "We have one party of no ideas...and another party of bad ideas." And with that said, I have to say as a married homeowner with one child, who is also the sole "bread winner" in the family, that I pay enough in taxes. From federal, to state, to county, to city, to the various fees on top of other various fees, to sales tax, to soda tax, to water tax...to ever inflating property tax, to city stickers, to plate stickers... If you really think about it, they're not just taxing your income once...but about 5-10 times over. And now you want to convince me I should give them even more? f*** off.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ May 6, 2012 -> 11:49 PM) It's absolutely a "me" problem, I'm not saying how I feel about them is representative of how the rest of the world does. Though if you're saying I have self-confidence issues or something, that's a totally different story, and you obviously know nothing about that. I'd rather not get grief from my friends for doing imaginary jump roping in my living room. Anywho, that's just my perspective. I can't say I agree with the time consuming part. I can get a great workout in in half the time it takes me to get through a P90X video. It's not like I hate the videos. I mix them into my workout routine on occasion for cardio and lower body stuff. And I do the Ab Ripper X routine almost daily. The whole "follow this program and watch these videos everyday" thing just isn't my thing. I know they have, but that's just my perspective on it. There is no right or wrong. Obviously you're very passionate about it (especially judging by all the arguments you've had recently about "coaching" or whatever), and if it works for you, that's great. But you asked for feedback, I'm giving it to you. And obviously I'm not alone in that regard. I agree with you on how these home video workouts make me feel. I know because I will not do them unless I'm alone. After the first few times you do them, it's easier to just mute, however, for people that aren't quite sure of what they're doing yet, you have to listen to their super cheese ball non-stop chatter all the time...and frankly, it's embarrassing. Today, I just go to an actual gym for weights/other...and I have a treadmill at home I use when it's raining or cold out for cardio. I've done the home workouts, and while definitely hard, they don't really give me what I'm looking for in a workout. As for P90X, or Insanity, or some random 1980's Richard Simmons video, if that's all a person has the time or resources to do, they should do it and not worry about what others think...it's better than the alternative of doing nothing.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 5, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) We really don't have a competitive team this year with Axelrod being placed into the rotation. The sooner you come to realize that, the easier it is to accept. Hope for Beckham and Viciedo to prove they can actually start in the majors...and that's about the only reason to watch anymore. I accepted it before Sale moved into the pen. We are basically giving these guys major league tryouts for other teams...if they ever come around, I'm sure it will happen the year their contracts expire.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 5, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Way, way too early to tell with Viciedo. However, he needs to avoid falling into Josh Fields territory where he can't cover the fastball. It would be too early if he was making the major league minimum, but he's not. I don't see him coming around, either. We have a major league team and we treat it like a farm team waiting for guys to come around.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 5, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) He looks like a pitcher at the plate. The 0-1 swing was comical. He looks so overmatched, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's sent down after the road trip. Morel and Vicedo are both bad. Vicedo was a waste of time and money. And he doesn't deserve a nickname like tank, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) Lobbying is free speech. Of course it is. Like I said...our ENTIRE political system is insane.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) So, I spent some time looking for former-IRS agent commentary and this is about all that I got...a good, legitimate discussion over whether the tax plan should be favoring manufacturing as it does. In terms of "Wording of the tax code", it's darn near impossible to extract that from a Presidential proposal because the President very rarely actually writes specific bills. Congress typically does not react well to legislative text coming from the President. I struggle to see how you could say that from a Presidential Proposal...but I totally believe it's how things would end up, because a few well connected lobbyists would make sure that enough of that language stayed in the final bill to make sure that they had their loophole preserved. Then again, a few well connected lobbyists are why tax reform won't even get considered at all and never would, because a multi-billion dollar loophole for one business is enough to fund decades worth of lobbying. Lobbying needs to be outlawed. Period. And you just highlighted why. This is exactly right...whatever proposal they put forward, lobbyists will have language inserted into the bill that negates it, or creates a legal loophole...and it'll sneak through for one very important and very specific reason... None of them will read it before they vote on it. Our 3 branches of government vote yes and sign bills based on the title of the bill...not on the actual contents...and this is a problem. But...I guess it doesn't matter since they keep getting away with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) BTW you can admit that the modern GOP is insane and dysfunctional without rejecting conservative ideology in toto. I think our ENTIRE political system is insane. The part I disagree with you about is that you feel only the GOP is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) Which holes are you referring to that wouldn't be closed? My main issue with it is that it still holds to the idea of giving some sectors tax code preference over others...in that case, manufacturing continues to maintain its substantial tax subsidy...and if you're subsidizing business through tax exemptions, then lobbyists will continue to write in other exemptions eventually, leading rapidly to the same problem. I can't recall at the moment...there were some articles I read earlier when that was proposed about it, written by former IRS agents that said it would accomplish almost nothing because it left too many easy openings for them to exploit. I'd have to go back and research it all over again, but I don't have the time right now. I believe it came down to corporate wording of the tax code where they could easily gain those tax preferences by changing a few simple things they perform to do business...somewhat like how Jack Abramoff said the rules are so lax and have so many holes in them that although you can't give a congress person 3000$, because it's illegal...it's not illegal if you bring a few people to dinner and call it a fundraiser, and give them the same amount of money.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) Keep your liberal minded excuses coming, though...they make for great comedy. It bothered me that I said this...so I've returned to reply to my own stupid post. It's not a "liberal minded excuse", it's a "party minded excuse", because I see party line voters on both sides make excuses for their failed parties over and over again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) By the way, here's the President's White Paper on corporate tax reform from earlier this year. It's not a perfect plan, but it specifically lists out deductions that the current administration would like to remove in order to pay for reducing the top level from 35% to 28%. Released the same day, Mitt Romney's corporate tax reform plan is to lower the top level corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. There are no offsets for the rate deduction included, and no proposal for amending any loopholes. The only loophole he has cited closing in regards to tax reform is removing the tax deduction for 2nd mortgages. I read up on that plan earlier in the year, and from what I understood, it left huge holes in the code...and accomplished almost nothing when broken down. It's not a fix...it's barely a band aid. And Romney's alike accomplished nothing. Just as stupid. But that's what we get...we're so used to getting half assed "fixes" to everything, that we accept them. I'm beyond annoyed by it and I'm done accepting it. Both parties need to be called to the carpet. But that will never happen so long as people like you continue to defend one party or the other.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:41 PM) Not all points of view are equally valid, of course. How about that article I've linked co-written by someone from AEI, a pro-corporate conservative think tank? How is this "insane" to want to stop oil subsidies, which would be a relatively easy fix? You can advocate for starting somewhere as a starting point for tax reform. Promoting one thing does not mean that you are ignoring everything else. Is this comparably "insane" to the anti-gay bigotry from the GOP? Or the absolutely-no-tax-revenues-increase-EVER pledge that most of them sign? Eliminating oil subsidies is a part of fixing the tax code. Do you think it'd be more pragmatic to address what may possibly stand a chance of passing Congress instead of only proposing huge reform packages that have no hope of passing? Is there anything comparably insane to the GOP candidates saying they'd turn down a budget deal that was 10-1 spending cuts vs. revenue increase? Is there anything comparably insane to the opposition to the Grand Bargain proposals that Boehner and Obama tried to work out over the summer but were stridently opposed by House members? Comparable to being one of if not the only major political party in the developed world the rejects the entire field of climate science outright? It's insane to target oil subsidies because the same people will foot the bill...whether it's through those tax subsidies or at the pump. It comes down to the same outcome, just in two different ways...and as I said, accomplishes nothing. What may possibly stand a chance of passing congress? I have some news for you, neither have a chance...so what exactly was your point? You had none. You keep making it look like I'm defending the GOP. They are insane...but so are all the DNC. And I almost forgot, the anti-gay bigotry and vow to not increase taxes by the GOP is f***ing stupid.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) And I agree with this, but we are a very very small minority, so I quit arguing about what the real definitions were about 7 years ago. And that's 99% of the problem we face as a nation. Edit: And I apologize for not defining how I view liberalism and conservatism...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Then it is a tax increase. I disagree. It's the tax they're supposed to be collecting now...so as far as I'm concerned it's not an increase...it's a fix of a broken system. And if republicans won't fix the tax code, they're stupid, and need to be held accountable accordingly. That doesn't mean the democrats shouldn't try anyway...and when/if they fail...try again...and again. I don't care how many times they try and fail...that's why the people elected them. They need to do their jobs. I think the worst thing we can allow our government to do is "not bother" because "it won't pass for " anyway. For example, not bothering to try to overhaul the broken tax system because the Republican dominated congress will just block it. Both parties need to start being held accountable...but it's impossible to do that when the vast majority of the nation votes with them regardless of what's happening at that current era of time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:12 PM) Actually, no, it took 12+ months to overhaul the entire health code, during which time the Democrats had a Supermajority for ~7, after which point they lost it and it took an additional 3 months before they could finish the bill under reconciliation rules. And if you really want to go for it...yes, the explosion in Medicare costs and 50 million uninsured Americans was a much bigger problem than fixing the Tax code, and it will be again when the Court tosses out the PPACA. Fixing that tax code would result in HUGE returns on their tax revenue...probably enough to cover stuff like that. This idea that our government is incapable of doing multiple things at the same time is f***ing insane. Stop making excuses for them. There is no reason they couldn't have done both at the same time...or even more. These are highly paid individuals with more rest time/vacation time on their hands than anyone I know. They also get less done.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) Everyone in America is technically a liberal as compared to a classic conservative like Michael Oakeshott. I am absolutely a "liberal" = "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as opposed to a "conservative"= "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion." Now if you want to talk about political spectrum we would first need to define the words and then we would need to discuss. There is no correlation between any definition of "liberal" and massive spending. Now maybe you meant "L"iberal and were defining it in a certain way, but it just is impossible to know without actually defining the subset. 2) TRUE fiscal conservative. I may be, although it would depend on what definition of fiscal conservative we are using as there are many different variations of what that term means. 3) Well this just goes back to what did you really mean in your original statement about "liberal". Did you mean "L"iberal or "l"iberal. I was under the assumption that statement was referring to the US definitions. 4) Its not taking out of context, its just using words that have a variety of definitions without actually clarifying what you mean. I assumed you were referring to the US ideas of "liberal=Democrat" and "conservative= Republican", if you meant otherwise I just misunderstood. I don't have the time to get further into it right now, but no, I don't believe the US definitions of those terms are accurate...at all. Anyone that claims the former Republican administration in charge was conservative is crazy. They were quite the liberal spenders.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) Not according to Grover Norquist, and really, that's all that matters. And seriously, 7 months with a 60 vote majority is not going to give enough time to overhaul the tax code. Absolute bulls***. They overhauled the entire health code in less time. Keep your liberal minded excuses coming, though...they make for great comedy. And for the record, screw the republicans for blocking tax increases on corporations if that's what they're into doing. Everyone on both sides needs to stop making insane excuses for their "parties".