Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) The President has repeatedly proposed a tax system overhaul along these lines, including making it a major feature of a state of the union, it will go no where in Congress because it violates the pledge that virtually every Republican has taken that they will never raise taxes, ever, under any circumstance. The President proposes a lot of nonsense, but never does anything with it. A lot of bills "go no where" but they write them up and send them in anyway...funny I see no bill to reform the tax code...just a lot of talk. Oh, and let's conveniently forget that they could have done it when they held their super majority, but did nothing instead. The republicans failed to stop their health care law at that time...just as they would have failed to stop that, too. Fact is, they don't want to reform the tax code...it's just easier to blame the republicans for it right now...exactly like you just did. And finally, "fixing" the tax code isn't raising taxes. It's fixing the tax code.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) Y2hh, I agree that there are silly people on both sides. But some of your statements are incorrect or just hyperbole. There is no way I can be considered a conservative, so I guess I have to be a liberal. I think that spending should be slashed, first up Department of Defense. The real issue in my opinion is that liberals are fine with slashing some spending and that happens to be the spending conservatives want to increase. Where as conservatives want to slash spending on areas liberals would prefer remain (not sure anyone is saying increase spending, I think most are saying that defense spending should be cut and that other programs should remain the same or slightly reduced.) How is taxing corporations more not a liberal policy? I dont know many liberals who believe that the corporations should pay less taxes than people. 1) Just because you aren't a conservative doesn't make you a liberal. And note that there is no "liberal" party. A modern liberal is merely a really far left democrat. See: Liberal | Democrat | Middle | Republican | Neocon. Not all republicans are conservatives, despite the party having hijacked the word as if they are. GW, for example, was a massive spender...so any attempt at calling him a "conservative" is f***ing stupid. 2) Yes, defense spending should be cut...again, this doesn't make you a liberal or a neocon, it makes you fiscally conservative. A word that belongs to NEITHER side. 3) I never said "tax corporations more", I said fix the tax code so they pay a fair amount. We have the first or second highest corporate tax in the world, but none of them pay near that amount because of all the holes in the tax code. Most US companies are paying in the single percentages, and some are paying less than 0% (see GE as an example). That's not about being "liberal"...that's about being fiscally sane. 4) No, none of the comments I made are hyperbole or incorrect...as I note you failed to point out a single "incorrect" statement. The only thing incorrect is that you misconstrued my entire post, or took it all out of context, whether on purpose or not.

Why are you people insane? Did I seriously read someone call for KW to "leave" because Sale has a sore elbow?! Seriously? Would Sale be better on the DL? I sometimes wonder about the lack of logic around here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) They're not all equally insane, and the false equivalency/appeal-to-centrism is as much a part of the problem. There is not an equivalent in the Democratic Party to the anti-gay bigotry, complete opposition to taxation or the denial of entire fields of science. The GOP is not a 'conservative' party right now as much as it is a reactionary party. I'll link to this editorial in the WaPo again, and I'll note that one of the authors works for AEI, not exactly a pro-Democrat think tank. It's merely your opinion that the "entire" GOP is insane, but you're trying to state it as a fact. I'd argue that there are just as many crazy liberals running around out there, but because you believe what they believe, you don't see it as "insane". I think it's totally "insane" to spend like liberals want to spend...openly and freely, debt on top of debt. Most (if not "all") liberals feel Obama isn't spending enough. That, to me...is what's insane. So, as shown, depending on your point of view, the opposing party can easily be seen as "insane". Now...if anyone really bothered to think about it...I'd probably have to say it's not the GOP or the DNC that's insane...it's the voters. It's the sheep followers that keep voting these people into office, only to receive more of the same in return. See a few "insane" democratic talking points, for example: We shouldn't be giving 10 billion in tax subsidies to big oil! Meanwhile, lets ignore the fact that the tax code is so f***ed that a company like GE can file and owe 0$ in taxes, and actually receive a REFUND of 4 billion dollars...but hey...that 10 billion dollars we give big oil...WE NEED TO FIX THAT! That's an insane talking point. Yea...fix the tax subsidies on big oil so the consumer can pick up the tab...all you did was move the burden from the "consumers tax dollars" to the "consumers wallets". It accomplished NOTHING. They need to fix the tax code and shut the f*** up about everything else...the rest will fix it self when they fix that.

Over my time, I've found people are usually b****es to their companies for a few reasons: * They underestimate their own value * They are afraid of uncertainty of moving to a new company/new territory * They convince themselves that they love what they do so much they don't care what they're paid You have to be willing to take risks if you want to get ahead in the corporate/business world, and that includes the risk of moving elsewhere to advance. The best way to view the job market is to view yourself as your own product. You represent , Inc. You're job is to make sure , Inc., is doing as well as it could be doing. Never undersell yourself...and that includes allowing a company to underpay you because "it's business". Damn right it's business...and in that case, it's bad business for , Inc.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 4, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) It depends on the situation and how close you are there. Didn't say you'd have to accept it, but I think the approach is the right approach. I don't think you go in there looking for it. And obviously companies try to pay employees as little as possible. That's how it works. Same thing in sports. I get your logic, but that's the case whether there is a possible counter offer in play or not. Companies aren't trying to be fair and just pay people what they are worth. Not all companies act like this. And, if a company chose to act that way, that's a risk they're assuming when a better offer eventually rolls along...now they get to lose a good employee because they were happy underpaying you. I'm not saying companies are in the business of overpaying you, but they also shouldn't be in the business of underpaying you for the reason I just stated...if you're truly valuable to them, they should be in the business of paying you fairly and keeping you happy. Otherwise, it's all bulls***...and they just don't care.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 4, 2012 -> 12:45 PM) This exactly. Ehhh, no. I absolutely disagree. Never accept counter offers...ever. Never ever. What a counter offer of this sort truly is, when you break it down, is that you've always been worth Y, but they were fine paying you X so long as you had no where else to go. In my opinion, this is a b**** move. You should pay your employees what they are worth, and if they start at less than that, you should move them up too it at your first opportunity to do so. What this really means is that they were underpaying you and didn't care UNTIL you had a better offer elsewhere. If you were worth Y to them the entire time, they should have been paying you Y...not wait until someone else offers you Y, and then jump in and say, "oh...we don't want to lose you, you're too valuable!" They should have thought about that before...and mostly likely did, but didn't care. The other company, meanwhile, was happy to give you what you were worth from the get go. Counter offers also come with other implications: * They will remember this, and so should you...at a future date it may lead them to say you have "no loyalty to anything other than money" and if bad times approach, you will find yourself high on the list of possible layoffs. I never recommend anyone accept counter offers, unless they are "blow away" offers and/or offers that come with downside guarantees. I.E., they want to keep you so badly, they'll guarantee your salary even if you were to get laid off for a specified period of time.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 4, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) Yes, the official unemployment rate has been calculated in the same way for a long time. Sorry, I had to edit my post and add the word NOT in there...made my sentence make more sense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 11:35 AM) as I was saying.... Many can be insane on both ends, as I was saying... It's just damning on the people that a person like that can somehow get elected. I've long said I could never win an election because I'm too sane...and have views that reside on both sides of the fence, so I'd be accepted by neither side to represent me... ...so in that regard, maybe your right...the only problem is you need to stop saying the GOP is insane, because they're all insane.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 4, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) Kinda bad jobs numbers out today http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405..._LEFTTopStories and http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-l...ate-lowest-1981 That's okay, they will revise them in a month when the fuzzy math kicks in and suddenly they'll be better. Personally, I don't believe the way they measure "official" unemployment is valid in any regard, and it actually surprises me that people accept it. And when I say "they", I'm NOT talking about the Obama administration, but all administrations...as I believe they all calculate it in the same way.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 4, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) So if I can't afford medical bills for my 2 year-old, I can just have her killed also? Since that's the litmus test here and not whether or not she is a human being with a right to live? I'm not sure that's the point he was trying to make...at all.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 4, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) Wow Yea, you can say that again. Just...dumb. And I'm not talking about the segment...which was funny.

For a staff "ace", Danks is, by far, the worst pitcher we have. Period.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) I'd say that was mostly in reply to your point 1, which I read as minimizing the importance of the next Supreme Court appointee in terms of how completely it could overhaul perhaps the most divisive social issue in the country. I wasn't really talking about that, but if I was talking about it, I'd agree.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) Anthony Kennedy was the Swing vote in the early 90's that upheld Roe v. Wade, and will turn 76 this summer. Although he comes up as one of the most pro-big-business votes in the Court's history...if a modern Republican nominee replaces him, there's every reason to believe that Roe v. Wade and probably Griswold v. Connecticut (which established the legal basis for a right to privacy) would be overturned. While I understand this...what does it have to do with my post where I simply pointed out the fallacy that is the SCOTUS is full of young republicans...when it isn't? Edit: And if anything, IMO, Kennedy is the only "balanced" justice on the supreme court...and it will be sad to lose him when the time comes. The other 8 are party voters.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) Nah I openly criticize the Democrats at the national level and won't be voting for Obama. But the modern GOP is insane. The "fringe section" is a majority--just look at all the nutty ideas that candidates proposed during the primaries. Or, look at all of the anti-abortion bills state GOP legislatures are passing. Or look at an adviser being shoved out or a soldier being booed simply for being gay. And that's why none of them won the primary. But regardless, they're still not "ALL insane". I understand you don't agree with them...so don't vote for them. But they're not insane because they do things differently than you. I disagree with people like Pelosi...but is she "insane"? No.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) Other countries have two-party systems where one party isn't completely insane like the GOP. When people make completely generalized statements like this, it tends to tell me they need to be ignored. The "entire GOP" isn't "insane". Is there a fringe section of it that is? Sure. But the same can be said of the Democratic party, too. However, saying all of them are "insane" is the only thing that's "insane". Oh, and I realize that in your opinion the entire Democratic party is "sane" and they're "right about everything", too...which is also insane.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) There's plenty of legitimate gay-hate in this country. This isn't political theater but their honest convictions. I'm not denying this...but I am saying we got the exact government we asked for...which is a 2 party no choice government.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) Romney may not focus on the social issues himself, 1) but he won't do anything to stand in the way of a GOP-controlled House and Senate. Plus potential SCOTUS appointments, 2) and the court already has a bunch of young, hard-right conservatives. 1) I don't see the GOP gaining control of both houses anyway, so unless they did, not to mention the required vast majorities, it wouldn't matter anyway...and the odds of that happening are next to zero. 2) And no, the court doesn't. The youngest member of that court was born in 1960, and it's Kegan. The next youngest is Roberts (1955), and then Sotomayer (1954). The rest were born between 1933 and 1950. The court is pretty even weighted in terms of age.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) This is one of the two major parties in our country. WTF is wrong with us. Nothing...that's exactly how the rich wanted it, so it's exactly what we have. They're all connected, rich, and that's regardless of their "fake party affiliation".

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) I personally dont care either way at all. I dislike everyone, therefore Im an equal opportunity jerk as opposed to a racist. That seems simple enough to me. You're not an equal opportunity jerk, you're an equal opportunity anti-dumb/stupid/ignorant person, quite like myself. I don't care what color you are, where you're from, etc...I just care that you aren't a brain dead twit that says things that make me shake my head and ask myself, "why bother?" I'd love to say I don't care what religion a person is...but I often do as most either tend to take their "religious beliefs" a la carte, or they take the written books quite literally, which to me is just stupid...thus my judgement cast upon them is that they're stupid because of their religion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Hispanic refers to an ethnic background that is not shared by indigenous people in majority-Hispanic countries. Given its wide-spread nature and how it is the result of centuries-long mixing of multiple ethnic blood lines, Hispanic is more akin to Asian than to a nationality like Mexican. Being Hispanic doesn't excuse racism towards Mexicans any more than being Asian would excuse a Chinese person's racist statements about Japanese people. Hell, even being Mexican doesn't really excuse racist statements against Mexicans. Comedy and satire like Chris Rock is distinctly different from an American of Hispanic dissent making broad condemnations of Mexicans. edit: Charles Mann's 1493 has an interesting section that examines how obsessed with categorizing all the different ethnic breeding possibilities. edit2: the wiki on indigenous peoples of Mexico. Yes, this is a pedantic quibble. Here is the problem, and it was in edited into my post: * The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race". * The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." * This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent. The U.S. government pretty much agrees with me that the definition of "Hispanic" isn't what it once was and it's now a very general term...much like you pointed out with the word Asian. Edit: And we agree, it doesn't excuse racism toward others, at least, not in my opinion. But society, in general, tends to let people get away with it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Y2hh, The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman didnt say "Hispanics", he said "Mexicans" a group he would not identify himself with. Its like arguing that Nazi's can say bad things about German Jews because the Jews were Germans so its "cool". The way its "ok" by your standards is if the person identifies himself with the group they are making fun of. IE Jerry Seinfeld can make fun of Jews, but he cant make fun of Dentists because he is a Jew but not a Dentist. I would agree that if Zimmerman had said "hispanics" he likely would be included in that group. But he said "Mexicans" and he is "Peruvian", which are not even close. They dont even come from the same original culture as Peru was Incan and Mexico was Aztec. So while they do share a similar "Spain conquered us story" its like calling some one from Italy the same as someone from France, because at one time Rome controlled both. So I entirely agree that Zimmerman could consider himself Hispanic, it just is irrelevant as he was specifically knocking Mexicans, which is a subset of Hispanic that he is not a part of. I'm not defending Zimmerman with this, I wasn't even speaking of Zimmerman. I was merely pointing out that this "practice" is often accepted by society. I also don't agree with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) Daley did get it for the groundhogs day blizzard, but yeah, the historical reference is Bilandec who ended up losing to Jane Byrne because of it. He's talking about the New Years weekend Blizzard in 99. The Groundhogs Day blizzard was in 2011.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) Things like this remind me of the Blizzard in the 90's (I think it was the 90's) where Daley was buried (pun intended) for not being prepared. So after that, at any threat of a big storm, the salt trucks are out whether it snows 20" or 1/2". Is it better to be overprepared? Not sure the answer, but I do know hindsight is 20/20. PS...I'm a contractor, so I have to be here. Unfortunately, my client can work from home.... That was Bilandic, and it was in the 70's. While there was a big storm in 1999, Daley was prepared and the salt trucks were out, it just happened to fall on New Years weekend, but they still cleaned things up pretty fast. Chicago has sent salt trucks out no matter how much snow falls since the Bilandic incident in the 70's, though.