Y2HH

QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 06:08 PM) I'm meeting with my bosses over the weekend or on Monday to see if I fit in the organization's plan for being extended as a marketing intern. I don't really know if this is an interview or just a discussion so I am not sure how to prepare. What I will say about my internship is that I am not an idea guy, which is something that I perceive sports marketing professionals needing to be. This internship was good exposure in discovering what it is like to work in the sport industry, but I am not sure where I would fit because it seems like every team has more sales positions than marketing positions. And I would rather go work construction than work in sales. So I am a bit concerned about staying with the team since I am not sure what transferable skills I have learned to adapt to different industries, with the exception of research. The question is, do I stay with the team even though I would have to find a place to live (or continue living in the hotel I am in at $32 a night) and be able to have a part-time job to make ends meet in St. Louis? I discovered today that one of the corporate partnerships interns was getting a $750 stipend per month and he had been there since March when I arrived in June, so that is hopefully what I would make. Or do I return to Chicago, get a part-time job and find an unpaid internship that is communications related to see if I like that better? Both have advantages and disadvantages, at least at home I could see my friends and live at home, but I might never get the same entry point to this industry (even if I would gain contacts from this internship with Chicago teams). All an interview is, to the point, is them trying to sell the company to you, and you trying to sell yourself to the company. An interview, most people seem to forget, is a two way street. They need help, and you need a job. If you are still young, as you seem to be, don't be afraid to try different things...there will be plenty of jobs of various types at various companies in your future. While you still can, experiment and figure out what it is you really love to do...the money will come on it's own. Until then, think of this as an adventure...have fun with it...you have a lifetime ahead of you to worry about the small stuff.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) How is it not? Welcome to what MILLIONS of Americans do every single year. My two sisters (5 combined kids) have done EXACTLY what you're going through. A lot of our friends too. And it sucks. That doesn't mean they just decided "well, if i just don't go back to work, we can still support this baby because the government will help us out." That's such a bulls*** mentality that liberalism has cast onto society - "worry not, government is the great provider." It's absolutely wonderful that we live in a society that ASSISTS people that NEED assistance. But this is the case of people that CHOOSE to put themselves in a position to NEED assistance. Why the f*** should I continue working? According to you I should just be able to quit (who wants to work anyway? I'd rather just stay home and play xbox) and the government should provide me SOME assistance and no one should think twice about it. Hell, according to you EVERYONE thinks that's a GREAT idea. And I've never claimed it was a cash cow. But it clearly provides a LOT of things for families. And it's clearly enough in the example we're talking about. It's absolute bulls*** that millions of parents work their jobs and don't get free food or diapers or the like, but because this women decides she'd rather not work we all get to contribute to her kid. That's f***ed up. And just so you don't think i'm some heartless bastard, which i'm sure you already do, i'm 1000000000000000000000000000% in favor of our s***ty working society reanalyzing the importance of family and spending time with kids and working from home and all that. I completely understand our society sucks because kids are f***ing expensive and we all have to work to provide for them. As I said, my wife and I are incredibly depressed that right now despite obtaining two professional degrees we can't afford to have a kid. But I would never in a million years find it acceptable for one of us to stop working simply because we can expect to drop into the income level that qualifies for state aid. While I agree and I would never willingly put myself into such a position, if temporary government assistance to care for the child until it's in school ends up meaning one less street raised kid looking forward to a lifetime of welfare then I'm all for it, and the system worked as it should. Society temporarily helped out a family that otherwise couldn't have existed. It's called assistance for a reason. If it gets a family through a rough spot, and allowed them to have a child that they otherwise wouldn't be able to raise properly, then IMO, society has "arrived" to a pretty damn good place...we call it civilization. Now, the story completely changes if this becomes a way of life, and they keep having more and more kids despite barely being able to afford the one. While I'm all for "assisting" people in need, so they can live a better life, and have that family they otherwise couldn't have, it's also where I draw the line.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) ^ What he said. I love this weather. Same.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) There are a number of reasons why this post is inappropriate. But primarily, its because the resigning congressman had an affair with a woman, which would mean he did not suck any cocks. It's a joke, from Deadwood. I probably shouldn't have just assumed people would get it. I've added links. In short, I wasn't giving some anti-gay rant, Rex...and I apologize for being so vague. The back entrance reference is because, in the show, Swearengan wouldn't allow Wu to enter his tavern through the front door...in the literal sense, he had to go around and use the rear entrance so the other patrons wouldn't see him. This was an awesome show. Neither of these are SFW, and neither are for those that are against swearing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) That sort of attitude makes me so f***ing angry. My wife and I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have a kid. Hell, multiple kids. But you know what? They're f***ing expensive. I get it, it sucks and it shouldn't cost what it does. But neither she or I could ever imagine the following thought process: "I want to have a kid. I'm perfectly capable of working, but why work when the government will give me a check to stay at home so I can raise my kids." This country is so f***ing ass backwards it literally makes me sick to my stomach. I'm sorry dude, but your friends suck. Get a f***ing job and make ends meat like the rest of middle America. Why the f*** should other people in similiar situations have to pay for her to stay home while the rest of us bust our asses to prepare ourselves to have kids. I tend to side with you more often than not, but then you're taking a sect of society and telling them screw you because they made a different choice than you would have. For example, what if me and my wife held jobs helping underprivileged children, where the job may be rewarding in knowing we are helping kids that would otherwise get tossed aside and have almost no chance, but it pays us almost nothing? Are you saying f*** us, we shouldn't be able to have kids because we didn't choose to go into a more lucrative career path? I ain't buying that brand. Within one generation you'd have effectively put numerous valuable societal jobs into extinction because anyone that has them can't have kids. Having kids isn't and never will be a privileged for the f***ing rich. Now, I'm not saying this doesn't have a breaking point -- such as having more than 1 or 2 kids when you can hardly make ends meet as it stands...but come on...telling people not to have a single child?! Overboard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) I want to know when Congress forcing itself to default on obligations it made would ever be a good idea. If a foreign country bought up all of your outstanding debt and starting using it to leverage your currency would be one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) I can see if they vote for or against various spending measures without needing to see if they voted to approve paying for the spending measures they already voted for. Congress is replete with votes that double dip on things such as this, this is just the one in focus right now. It gives them an excuse to give themselves pay raises all the time, it shows how hard they work when they have to show up and vote on stuff twice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) This isn't being used for "accountability" and never has been in the past. It seems far too easily exploitable if one party really deludes itself into believing that it won't really be a big deal to run into the debt ceiling. Do other governments have similar arbitrary limits on debt? It's there for accountability purposes whether voters use them for that or not...that's what all congressional votes are there for. So you can see if the incumbent actually did what they promised you they'd do, or if they voted yes or no on things you agree with or not. Just because most American voters don't give a s*** about this sort of thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist for an actual reason.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:20 PM) I get the impression they are doing it to raise the kids. They're a a conservative couple (dad's a pastor) with the "old values" where the wife should stay home with the kids. I don't see a problem with this then, unless it's a permanent move...those systems are designed to help when necessary, and while raising a child may be necessary, after they're in school, etc...or you have other means to make sure they are ok, you need to get off the dole.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) Well, there used to be this thing called the "War Powers Act" that required Congressional approval for wars as well. Of course, we're ignoring that right now too. I've decided I'm going to be like Washington and ignore you, despite the SoxTalk bill of rights saying we must always read and agree with everything you say.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) Not sure where to post this, but: I just found out that friends of mine are on WIC because they want the wife to be a stay at home mom. The wife is perfectly capable of having/finding a job, but she CHOOSES to stay home. I think that kinds pisses me off. My wife could stay home too if we wanted to live off the government, but we choose to provide for ourselves. Are they doing it because they want their wives to be home to raise their kids? Or are they doing it just because they can? If it's the latter, I agree with you...that's the opposite of what the system was designed for.

f***ing San Francisco cocksucker Wu...use the back f***ing entrance next time you come into my establishment.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) At this point though, it's no longer a nuisance. It's a legitimate, direct threat to the country. It'd be that you decided to remove the firewall if you didn't get a raise. In that case, the right move is to get rid of the power to remove the firewall...(here meaning, to fire you). The basic point is that the control needs to be there for many reasons, the main one being so the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable for it. Without the control, there is really nobody to blame...it's there for a reason and needs to remain there for a reason. What if, in 20 years, the republicans gain majorities in the house/senate and presidency and decide to wage war with Russia on credit and just pump the debt to 100 trillion...because there's nothing in place that says they at least have to vote? All of these controls are there for a reason, mostly accountability.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) I am genuinely confused, $317 makes an impact but rising taxes don't? Wouldn't those taxes most likely cost him much more than $300? It shows he doesn't understand the underlying problem, and yes...what you said is right. That said, it doesn't matter...nobody should be getting bills for 300+$ for 2 minutes of work in which no solution was found. Ever. I don't care if it was the government paying it...no, no...and no.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) link While I understand what he's trying to say, and I agree with the attempted point, it shows he doesn't quite understand the system in the first place. It's simply this: Whether the government supplied you with insurance or money to pay the bill in full, or an insurance company pays it in full or helps you pay it in part, or whether it comes out of your own pocket, it's *still* an astronomical and totally unjustified amount. Breaking this down, a 2 minute visit charged at 371$ = $267,120 a day. This -- once again -- goes back to my argument from the very beginning of this entire debate. It's not insurance companies. It's not government subsidies. It's the doctors/hospitals and all the waste in between, it always was, and it always will be. For two minutes of "work", in which very little service and no actual solution was rendered, any bill of this amount is totally absurd. Whether it's the government paying that, or an insurance company, or a person...it's out of control.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) I understand the point behind it, there used to be a real defense. It's actually not a bad thing to have Congress have a mechanism by which it can force a default if it so chooses, defaults have happened before and nations have recovered, and there's nothing a priori wrong with having Congress have protest votes now and then; they're going to anyway. But at this point, defaulting with no good reason other than not liking the President suggests that we've entered a different phase, where the existence of this vote does way too much harm to exist any more. This I agree with. Removing a control put in place for a very specific purpose isn't wise. That said, defaulting for political reasons isn't what the control is meant for. I feel the same at my job, as the network firewall guy...people see me as a nuisance that prevents easy access...but that's exactly my purpose. That control is in place for numerous reasons, one specifically being that the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable, like many other "votes" in congress. It's there for many a reason and needs to stay for many a reason, whether you find it to be a nuisance or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) Or eliminated, since it's pretty dumb anyway. No, it's not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Thank you. Now I still have to ask if you seriously believe that the Democrats haven't really offered to give up all that much. I offer 1$.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) None of the networks have "REAL" 4G. The only reason Verizon has "4G" is because they got they got the organization that manages the naming system to capitulate and lower their standards for what 4G really is. Yes, Verizon uses parts of real 4G, but the speeds are NOT 4G. Right, but at least it's LTE and does have SOME semblance of what 4G is, AT&T also has an LTE network going live. That said, you are right, only LTE "Advanced" is 100% 4G by the ITU standards...to that point, however, T-Mobile is nowhere near 4G.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) Increasing the likelihood of having this exact same brinksmanship bulls*** in a few months is bad for America, regardless of who benefits politically. It is, and we the people lose. But at the same time, the Democrats had no problem granting small debt ceiling raises throughout their reign in the Gee-Dub era. Now it's a problem and we need to extend it for years so we don't have to redo this process a few months down the road. It's typical of both parties...and I'm sick of it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) You might enjoy reading this. Ignore the site it's on. I don't mind the source, all I care about is the substance of a writers article. I'll decide if it's fair or not on my own, regardless of where it's written/posted. It's a pretty good article...and this says it all. "The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It's more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks. That has been the case since the modern Democratic Party was re-created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin."

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) When was the last non-muslim hijacking of an airline? Or attempted anything of an airline? And the shoe guy was a Muslim. Extremist religion is stupid. All of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) Harry Reid's current offer/plan which the President has endorsed includes no revenue/tax increases, larger cuts than the last plan that Boehner has on the table, but also includes enough of an increase to push past the 2012 election. Boehner's current offer is for smaller cuts but a small enough increase to make sure this fight gets refought in 2012. They're willing to accept higher spending in order to refight this fight next year. In other words, both parties are -- surprise, surprise -- playing politics. The Dems want the increase large enough to carry through the next election cycle. The Reps want the increase small enough so they can re-fight the fight before the next election cycle. And meanwhile...f*** America. While I'm on a f*** saying kick, f*** both parties, Boehner, Reid, Obama and the rest of them.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Well technically its their 4th generation network, so they arent "really" lying. They're not saying it's their 4th generation network, they're saying it's a 4G network, as defined by the ITU/IEEE. TMobile has a HSDPA network, which is 3G. They're purposefully distorting the truth, so f*** them for helping muddy the waters and further confusing consumers.

T Mobile annoys me with their fake ass borderline illegal advertising campaigns about their nations "biggest 4G network". f***ing posers.