Y2HH

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) I think a distinction needs to be made where "living with the consequences of your actions" means you have to fear for your life because a bunch of uninformed race-baters (sp?) have called for your head over something that you might have had every right to do, and in fact felt obligated (based on fear of your life) to do. There's a line there where he shouldn't be expected to "deal with it." This is well said, and exactly what I meant.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 12:55 PM) This bill represented doing something. There is no way comprehensive tax reform is going to happen in an election year in normal circumstances. There is no way comprehensive tax reform is going to happen when one side refuses to allow any increase in revenues. Piketty and Saez are two pretty influential economists in the area of income and wealth distribution and tax policy and they support it. http://link.tapatalk.com/api/click?key=a7e...8f372351b321dd8 At this point a lot of economists don't care if something is short sighted, so long as it gets something positive done, even if it's so miniscule in scope it's almost non existent. The additional money this rule would raise, short term, is a drop in the bucket at best, and long term, these investors will simply move on to gazillion other tax havens left untouched by this rule. And let me fix your second line while I'm at it... You said, "There is no way comprehensive tax reform is going to happen in an election year in normal circumstances." You should have said, "There is no way comprehensive tax reform is going to happen, period." It has nothing to do with it being election year, or otherwise. It also has nothing to do with "one side" refusing the allow any increases in revenue, either. It has everything to do with rich people in the senate and congress knowing the system is rigged...and knowing nothing will change, while knowing they can get all the "regular folks" to argue about it while they secretly laugh about it. NONE of them have a true vested interest in raising taxes on themselves, or their friends, or the corporations that get them elected. And that includes Democrats. Oh, add the word "comprehensive" to my list of pet peeve 'political' words that has lost all meaning. "Welcome to the most important point you never get taught about economics: there are no such things as solutions. All we've got, all we can ever have, is a series of trade-offs."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 12:24 PM) The buffet rule is political and meant to show that republicans are against any taxes on the wealthy while voting against payroll tax cuts as well. it is not presented as comprehensive tax reform but a starting point. Anyway I just like highlighting bills with 50+ votes failing. I understand it's political...but so are most things today. After a while, the message gets lost...and nothing gets done because they're too busy trying to get that message across...over...and over...and over...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) The Buffet rule failed in the Senate yesterday, 51 YES 45 NO. It's as stupid "rule" anyway. They need to fully reform the tax code instead of attempting to nickle and dime like this would do. The buffet rule is nothing but a placate the have not's with the knowledge that a select few of the very rich, like Buffet are now paying higher taxes, IF, and only IF they continue investing exactly as they are now. They need to reform things like this: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20...sa_vegas_junket If you want to live in California, but work in DC, you should have to pay for that on your own. Hell, if I didn't live in Chicago, I couldn't work where I work...why is it we let these people get away with this sort of thing? Don't want to live in DC? Don't work for the government. Nope, instead of common sense like that, we foot the bill so they can live whenever they want.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) y2hh, Well that is your opinion, and Im entitled to my opinion. Doing something wrong, is a subjective statement. I can think there is nothing wrong with eating meat during lent or that there is nothing wrong with breaking kosher, it doesnt mean a hill of beans if you think that there is something wrong with that. Whether or not he did something "wrong" is in fact subjective opinion. So you are entitled to your opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion. I never said that anyone should hurt Zimmerman, the court is the one who determines punishment. If Zimmerman was found not guilty and I met him, I would not want to hurt him or attack him or do anything, I may disagree with his actions, but that would be the end of it. I am absolutely entitled to have that opinion. Being found not guilty or acquitted, does not mean that everyone has to change their mind. Look at OJ, found not guilty at criminal trial, liable at civil trial. Shouldnt the Goldman's have stopped because OJ was found not guilty? Dont they have to change their opinion just because the trial court said so? Yeah didnt think so. Why? People deal with the ramifications of legal conduct every day. Lets say Im legally driving and a girl runs in the street and I hit and kill her. It is determined that it was entirely unavoidable, yet I cant sleep at night and I feel guilty. The parents of the girl still think that I wasnt paying attention and the community thinks negatively off me. Right or wrong, those people are entitled to have their opinions, and I am forced to deal with the consequences. What are you talking about? I havent said Zimmerman is guilty, I just said that it doesnt matter if he is innocent or guilty, that regardless he is going to have to live with the consequences. How is that what is wrong with the case? If anything that is exactly what the defense attorney is hoping for, jurors who believe that Zimmerman will suffer regardless of going to jail. That way he can argue sending him to jail does nothing, as Zimmerman will already live a crappy existence. His guilt or innocence has nothing to do with that. His guilt rests on the facts, not how people will treat him, not how he feels. I have yet to comment on the facts, Im waiting to hear them. So how is that exactly whats wrong? Is it because you want Zimmerman found not guilty, so you just want to attack anyone who may disagree? Because as of now, I dont know what happened. But you seem extremely confident that Im wrong. (edit) And that is absolutely fine. But that doesnt mean that your family wont be traumatized or that there wont be any other consequence. Every action has a consequence, regardless of how minor. Even stopping to tie your shoe has a consequence. Do you disagree that every action results in a consequence, whether good or bad? No, I don't disagree with the physics that governs the universe in which we live. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean, in the eyes of justice, that there should be. If Zimmerman is acquitted, he should be left alone...but that doesn't mean he will be. What's wrong is you say he should have to live with consequences outside of his own conscience. Dealing with your own trauma, physical or emotional from shooting someone is one thing...having to deal with OTHERS now wanting your head on a pike is another entirely. In THIS regard, we disagree. Where you seem to have no problem with people that may retaliate against Zimmerman if he gets off...I do have a problem with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) Soxbadger you are what is wrong with America. This is absurd, so don't say it, even in jest. He's actually what's right with America. You know, having an opinion of his own and being willing to discuss it with someone that doesn't see things exactly like him. As opposed to say, nothing but snarky/sarcastic comments that add nothing to the conversation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) You are right, I do truly feel terrible that the person who killed a 17 year old, is now dealing with the ramifications of that act. Its called personal responsibility. If you dont want to have to deal with the fall out of shooting someone, dont do it. No one forced Zimmerman to shoot, and whether or not hes justified, acquitted, found to be St. Peter, he still has to live with his own actions. If he is acquitted and other people want to break the law, there is nothing that society can do to stop them. So maybe he has to move to Canada, or maybe he just has to move to a different community. Either way, he has options. There are consequences for shooting someone else, even if it is entirely justified. Just as there are consequences to catching a foul ball. Don't justify stupidity of people, in either regard. We get it, you're against guns, but if Zimmerman actually used it in self-defense, he did nothing wrong, REGARDLESS of your personal opinion. If he didn't use it in self defense, however, then he SHOULD deal with the ramifications of shooting someone...but ONLY if that's the case. Way to let him have a fair trail. Your attitude is EXACTLY what's wrong with this case right now. And as for your last line of insanity there...we disagree. You cant state an opinion as fact, as you just tried to do. I'm sorry (sarcasm), but if you broke into my house, and I shot you dead...I wouldn't care one bit about you being dead. The only "consequence" is you died being a f***face, and my family is alive and well...hopefully.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) That really sucks that a lot of employers do this. I have to turn in my $11 check or whatever it is as proof that I went, but I otherwise receive my normal pay. Same, I also receive normal pay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) It'll be much like the Casey Anthony situation but worse. The "public," or at least a large portion of it, has already determined he's guilty. So God help him if he gets off. He'll have to go into hiding and fear for his life for a long time. Of course, i'm sure the response is "so what, that's why he gets for killing a kid eating skittles." Yea, people like to dismiss things like this, because you know, after the trial is over, people will respect the outcome! Bartman had to go into hiding over a f***ing foul ball...so let's just imagine what this guy will have to go through if he's acquitted. The issue is, whether he's gets acquitted or not...a good portion of this guys life is already over, severely limited, or otherwise compromised.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) True story, I met Drew Peterson at Bar Louie in Bolingbrook after a Sox game shortly after all this s*** started going down. He was a giant creep. I met him at Medieval Times a few years back...and yea...just the vibe around him is that of creepiness. I wish I could put it in better terms or describe it better...but it's like...being around slime that permeates the air and makes you feel like slime, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) If you can suggest a better legal system than the one we currently have, I'd be happy to listen. I feel like my response is going to be that this is the worst system we could have...except for all the others. If the case you cited didn't get a fair trial, then why didn't it fall apart on appeal? He certainly has that right. First, I hate it when people invoke the "if you can suggest a better legal system" line, because it really doesn't mean anything, nor add anything to the conversation. Why do I have to suggest a better legal system? Why can't we discuss our thoughts on the legal system we have, instead? I'm pointing out some flaws in system we have...but of course that always leads to the good old, "suggest a better system then". How about no...I'm not going to suggest a better system which, even if we came up with the PERFECT system on SoxTalk, they'd NEVER adopt anyway. Something needs to be done to get the people involved to care about the system again, to care about their civic duties and not look at them as an inconvenience...so people like Zimmerman can -- without a doubt -- get the fair trial they deserve. It IS possible for the media to corrupt or sway trials one way or another. IF the system, and the people IN the system do their jobs as they SHOULD, it would be fair...but that's not always the case. I've witnessed this first hand as I'm sure many others have, too. The point remains that just because OJ got a fair trial that Zimmerman will too, is, at best, reaching for the stars.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) "Corrupted the process" should only matter to a certain level though. Even if there is enormous coverage, the guy can and should still get a fair trial. If somehow the media has prevented that from happening then you can be genuinely outraged, but hell, we somehow tried OJ fairly, this state somehow tried Casey Anthony fairly. Change the venue, change the judge because of an indirect connection to CNN's broadcast team, and then it's up to the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doub.t The process is only corrupt if the person can't get a fair trial, and I don't believe that. You're absolutely right, it should only matter to a certain level, but that's not always the case. If the judges/juries appointed to hear the case do their jobs properly, it wouldn't/shouldn't matter. Since you want to invoke Casey Anthony and OJ and how they got fair trails, allow me to invoke Drew Peterson...where the courts are allowing 'hearsay' evidence against him. I think that's wrong on so many levels it's not even funny, and in no way can it be considered "fair". My personal opinion on Peterson is a different matter entirely...he's a creep to the Nth degree...but he's also being railroaded right now and nobody cares because it's him. I think we want to believe the system is fair/working properly, but I think we know that in many cases it's really not. Ive seen it in action when sitting on a jury myself, and not a single person on the jury cared one way or the other...all they wanted to go was go home. That experience soured me on our awesome "peer system". I think the trial of your peers monicker sounds great...but it only works if the people involved care. Sadly, I'd say most do not. And I'd argue the only reason they pretend to care on huge trials like this one is they see $ book deals when all is said and done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 06:32 AM) Yeah, there wouldn't even be a trial if the media hadn't gotten involved. But now it's a big lynch mob because there's going to be an actual trial now? What? It's ok to admit that without the media there probably wouldn't be a trial. It's also ok to admit that a lot of the media has also corrupted the process of innocent until proven guilty along the way of bringing attention to this.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 16, 2012 -> 05:32 PM) in what form? Yea, this is a little odd...taking something intra-workout won't often do much, as the time it takes to begin absorbing things usually takes a while... The only way I know of is direct blood injection or putting something under your tongue? I'm not sure if you took amino acids before, during or after a workout would really matter...then again, I'm not a biologist? heh I know they can help with working out/building mass, but does it matter when you take them?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 16, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) I have chase and they immediately disputed the charge and credited my account. It was for a double bill, but they still immediately reversed the charges. Right, and in your case, it would be Chase's policies...as you probably hold a Chase issued "Visa". For something as simple as a double charge, almost no issuer would deny you. But for more 'iffy' circumstances, their rules can be more vague. In one of my examples, we paid for and stayed at a Holiday Inn after a wedding...and the woman at the front desk immediately had a problem with us, for no apparent reason. Needless to say, she says we were loud, obnoxious, waking up others at the hotel and trashing our rooms. She called the police at 1am to have us escorted out. 1) The rooms were not trashed, even the police noted that. 2) She attempted to "enter my room" without my permission when I answered the door for her, and told the police that I, "Got in her face"...which, right...I answered my hotel room door when she knocked so she claims that was "getting in her face". 3) Neighboring rooms woke up to see why police were out there and said we weren't loud, and never woke them up. 4) Regardless, the police said we had to leave because the manager wanted us out. Note we used the rooms all day/up until 1am...I put a dispute on the charge, Discover credited me...and weeks later corporate Holiday Inn called to apologize and offered us a free nights stay at any Holiday Inn. I never paid for the room, despite the fact that we used it most of the day/night. A few people also put the room on dispute that used Visa/MC...and got denied, and had to pay for their rooms. Any of us that had used Discover/Amex did not end up having to pay. That's my personal experience and why I'll never use a bank issued or private issued card like Visa/MC.

I have a few times, and "won" every time. That said, it works different ways... Amex and Discover are actual credit companies...they issue all of their own cards, and back up all of them, etc... MasterCard and Visa are merely "brand names", which any credit institution can use (they pay royalties), etc... When it comes to Amex and Discover, they do the work for you, and walk a pretty hard line of backing up the card holder, not the merchant. When it comes to MC/Visa, it all depends on who is the actual issuer...for example, if you have a Visa card from Fifth Third Bank, it's up to Fifth Third Bank whether they will back you or the merchant, or what their policies are regarding holds/disputes. So...I tend to never use Visa/MC anywhere, as I know (from personal experience) that if I have a problem, Amex and Discover have my back (as they both have a few times). Again, I'm not saying your specific Visa/MC issuer won't have your back, but the policies regarding those "brands" widely differ.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Apparently in this case the government actually is going to try to establish that they were meeting at various manhattan restaurants to discuss fixing the prices on e-books, so that's why they can bring that case. It's still petty, I've read the case, and it's iffy at best...especially since they keep naming Apple first and foremost, when they're their actually the minor party involved in this. I understand the book publishers wanted out from Amazon's monopoly of pricing, where they'd often lose money on sales, and may have colluded to "fix" the problem they had with Amazon's pricing model...but there are more important fish to fry... Like the telcos. That said...they need to crack down on the cellular providers now. All of them charge just about the same for every service, from minutes to text messages to data...to um...upgrade fees. Competition SHOULD put downward pressure on pricing...but with telcos, it continues to put upward pressure...which makes no sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,5990658.story But let's sue a bunch of book publishers and Apple for "price fixing" e-books. Meanwhile, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon freely price fix everything cellular related and nobody bats an eye.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) Haha yes. but Tizzle's completely right. If you were eating 3000 and were still hungry, it's because you were burning up to 1000 friggin calories doing the P90X workouts so your net was only 2000. Not enough to bulk up/gain weight/whatever you wanted. You should eat until you're full, but as long as you're eating healthy foods - you're completely right - you'll get good results without hating your life. I will say, though, that eating a decent ratio is still important. if you're eating 4000 calories of carbs you're gonna get fat. if you're eating 4,000 calories of protein you're gonna die. It's not hard to eyeball the ratios though if you're eating a lean protein with every meal and going lighter on the carbs towards the end of the day. No, he's absolutely right. Moderation is key. But a lot of people say that without actually living it. I actually live it. I eat whatever I want, in moderation. I have no dietary restrictions, no "avoid X or Y or Z at all costs" while substituting a possibly dangerous chemical in it's place, (see: refusing to eat sugar, but totally ok with eating splenda), etc. If you're going to drink soda...drink the real thing. No diet garbage. Fat, out of shape, obese people drink diet soda. All of them. Buck the trend...drink the corn syrup/sugar if you're going to do it...don't be a p****. Just don't drink 5 cans a day. Like I said: Moderation.

Moderation. Something people love to say they believe in, without actually believing in it. Like saying life is short, or some other overused saying that sounds great to say.

I still remember when Gordon Helmet Head Bacon Slayer was good.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 6, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Viciedo XBH here. Book it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 10:24 PM) Obama is a solid orator...but he isn't great off the cuff, and despite a lot of preparation...debates are all about off the cuff. He can go into policy details and he takes his time formulating a statement because of that...and honestly, debates aren't about that, they're about reinforcing your talking points and repeating them as many times as you can. Pausing, taking time, and illustrating detailed policy proposals is terrible TV. We don't elect guys like that, we want them to say what they have to say then get down to drinkin' beer with us. No one has made headway in any debate this year with policy. Policy has only sabotaged people (Rick Perry trying to defend actual humane actions towards immigrants, for example). But IMO, that's what makes Obama is a good modern debater...they don't actually "debate" much anymore. Obama does tend to stutter his point when put on the spot, but he has a good speaking voice, so he's not annoying to listen too. In modern debates, they can ask a question, and they often ignore whatever question it was and just reinforce an unrelated talking point or respond to an opponents previous point, despite the debate having moved onto a new subject. I guess you could say Obama isn't very good at old school debates, or debates where the moderators keep things on track, but they don't really exist anymore...more often than not the moderators have little to no control. It's more or less come down to being able to articulate/sound intelligent. And Obama is very good at that. In actual debate presence, coupled with the ability to speak off the cuff, I've not seen anyone come close to Reagan in my lifetime, but of modern candidates, Obama is better than anyone that's tried. ** It's also possible that I only view Obama as a good debater because of the modern competition he's gone up against are that much worse. Just thinking of some debaters in recent years...Bush Jr. (not against Obama, but still), McCain, "Not Bill" Clinton,...the hodgepodge of republican candidates today. This is also probably why people believe Biden is a good debater...he was up against Palin...so of course he looked godly in comparison.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) This topic got me thinking. Do you know anyone that has ever voted for a candidate based on his VP choice? I've never voted for someone based on their VP choice...however, I HAVE voted against someone based on their VP choice.