bmags

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:57 AM) Perry is a career politician and will do whatever the polls tell him. He's a GOP Bill Clinton... think about that one for a minute. I don't think he's anywhere near as moderate as Clinton. That said, Texas certainly has some nice housing regulations perhaps other states could learn from.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 03:19 AM) So in your world, fraud should only be addressed when its rampant and clear. Got it. Seriously, go back to my earlier post. If the best you can come up with is "but there isn't that much voter fraud", then its useless arguing with you, because I could just as easily say "there's not that much improper gun buying through dealers", and it is just as well founded. Its not a non-existent problem, it happens and you damn well know it. If you want to say "there are worse things we should address", then fine, say that, it would actually make sense. But to say it doesnt exist is the same thing as me saying anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them? No one has said that. It already does get prosecuted. But take the diecast example for instance. Imagine if there was a consistent liberal push to close down these voting machines right before an election that happen to coincide in a wealthier, and by and large, republican area. We didn't take away their right to vote, we just shut down the closes voting stations and had them have to drive 1 town over. No one's rights were taken away, they just had to put in extra effort to vote. And if there's one thing we know about rich people as opposed to poor people, they ALWAYS put in more effort. And, surprisingly, voting in that district falls from the times before it. But that's not a problem, because you may have just prevented several fraudulent votes, and people still COULD vote. No problem here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 09:56 PM) I am impressed your general feelings on voter fraud are so accommodating. What is a little fraud between elections afterall. They aren't accommodating. They are prosecuted. And as a result there is a high trust in our elections without voter id. But for some reason it maintains an issue because people say "voter fraud IS bad" without realizing the motivations behind the specific bills, to suppress minority voting. It's nothing new, it's just taken a new form.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) The only problem with that is you have no idea how effective ID is because there is no reporting of people who are legitimately turned away, or otherwise don't even try to vote because they know they can't get away with it. You only hear the very few people who complain, and even in those cases they can take a provisional ballot and vote anyway, and prove that they are indeed legitimate. So the reality is that no one should be "disenfranchised" by these rules. That is entirely propaganda. And no one should be disenfranchised by citizen tests.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) So do I. Which is why I think fraud should be fought with obvious measures, such as ID. And my argument is that there's a cause and effect that is stupid. If you put in a measure that prevents more citizen voters than cases of voter fraud, which in all evidence these do exactly that, then the election is LESS legitimate, not MORE.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:13 PM) We do exactly this for accounting fraud, except for jobs and income. I'm not addressing your red herring thank you. And I consider the policies of how our citizens vote to be considerably more important to the health of our democracy than the regulations in place for accountants. You have a strong enough lobby, use your corporate might.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) It costs zero citizens the right to vote. Zero. You are confusing "right to vote" with "vote". It will, I am sure, cost some votes from people who were unwilling or unable to fully exercise that right, or unaware of the process. Unwilling and unaware, I could care less what happens to you. Unable, if physically so, as I said, I am all in favor of having a system in place to address it. Fine. If you pass a law that correlates to a significant drop in real voters and drop of the small amounts of voter fraud cases, is it a good law. edit: i'm not confusing anything.

If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting.

If you can't back up your claims with anything, then dont' tell me I'm a roadblock to discussion. I personally ahve had to look up and post actual court decisions and article backing up that these voter fraud cases have next to no success on anything other than voter registration fraud. And that voter registration fraud has not been found to contribute to actual voter count fraud. And numerous sources posting who these claims are always targeted at and who is always funding them. I've seen nothing from you other than the sentiment that "voter fraud is bad". So prove it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) This is why these issues never go anywhere. A roadblock is instantly thrown up to prevent any real progress from being made. then prove it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) This is for council, mayor, and clerk. Honestly I put more into the locals than I do the Presidential, because these are the people that affect my life more than anyone. Perfect, I think simplifying it down to what we just did would increase participation.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2...owners-players/ Dear god that would be awful. Just as a reference point, the Bulls payroll for 2011-2012 is $60,726,162 for ONLY 10 players (Boozer, Deng, Rose, Noah, Korver, Brewer, Watson, Asik, Bogans and Gibson). And the Bulls have to re-sign Rose to a max deal. This is gonna be a long long long winter without any basketball. One, that will never happen. But 2, without guaranteed contracts it gets a lot easier to not give a s*** about possible bad contracts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) It never ceases to amaze me how little voting is done in local elections. Our local primaries saw 4500 votes in a town of 30000. I understand it. It is hard for me to keep up what's going on in my neighborhood and I have no family or anyone to take care of. With national politics you can, rightfully or not, sort of pin point all of the things you think are going right or wrong on those personalities, it's an easier way to sort all of these things you notice in your head. Add ot that the absolute onslaught of democratically elected positions locally. There are too many. There is no way anyone could know how a local judge is performing easily. But we have to vote for them. And there is no real study that shows that judges voted in are any better. If we simplified that process people may be able to focus in on one or two positions (state reps and aldermans).

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) I figured that most of it would be from people with long-term or incurable things like cancer or something like that. This is likely the case. I know we like to stigmatize poor people as being lazy and are at fault for making the wrong choices. But it should be said that it is much more difficult to make the right choice in low income areas with little access to fresh fruits and vegetables. It's no surprise that people with more money tend to eat healthier, with access and means to afford whole foods and the like. Being poor really, really sucks. And when you are constantly doing transaction costs in your head it's exhausting. I'm fine in conceding we shouldn't tax unhealthy foods, if you'll all consider that we shouldn't subsidize unhealthy ones.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 01:39 AM) I don't really consider PER a true efficiency stat. chw42 has gone on about it in this thread before, it's simply a very flawed stat. But sure, even using that, there isn't a significant difference between Smith and Richardson, which was my point in the first place. I'm torn on the two, I feel like attitude wise I'd much, much prefer Richardson, but I like the fact that JR Smith has a lot of confidence. Down the stretch the team had a bunch of guys scared to take the shot. JR Smith would not be. On the other hand, that could be a disaster in itself.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) Tax cuts are bulls***, mostly because the idea behind them doesn't really exist. What I mean is, the idea behind tax cutting is simple...more money into the pockets of the people who buy things/do things, which of course, gets the economy churning. On paper, this idea makes perfect logical sense...and it would work if they actually cut taxes. However, what actually happens is the federal government cuts taxes, but the city/state/town/etc turns around and raises them...so there really is no more money going into the pockets of citizens...they're just shifting the collector around. Be it in soda taxes, water taxes, entertainment taxes, sticker fees, parking rates, property taxes, you name the added tax. In the end, if the fed lowers your tax by 5%, you can be damn sure it will rise 5% elsewhere. I do agree, but this is also an example of why people should put more effort into local government. And it will only get harder with the shift away from newspapers.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 28, 2011 -> 01:33 AM) Like lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, a strong national defense and less government interference in citizens' lives? Those ain't no leftist principles I've ever heard of. Reagan also had raised taxes during his eight year term and signed into law a bill that guaranteed the treatment of anyone coming in the ER. What a leftist. He also gave illegals amnesty, clearly he didn't love America. He even appointed a drug czar!

not me. He seems way too emotionally attached to players, has no idea how to put a team together. As a whole, he seems like a nice guy that isn't prepared for the harsh realities of being a GM.

wow. Did not see that comment coming.

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) So now that the draft is over can we please get a real 2 guard so that Bogans is riding the pine or on another team? I'm in the OJ Mayo camp personally and wouldn't have minded dealing Omer for him. Any chance we use resources from this draft to make a trade in the coming days? I'm interested to see if there is movement or the whole league shuts down now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 06:45 PM) It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense... I see what you are trying to say here, but there is no guarantee the opposite doesn't happen. Just because companies dump people onto the exchanges it doesn't mean it's because its cheaper than private insurance at all...it could just mean that they'd rather you and I foot the bill than them. but that insurance is already subsidized by being tax free. And adding more people onto exchange would make it cheaper, you'd have more buying power the more people are on it.

Toni Kukoc 2.0

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) As I said in the post, I never claimed the odds were good. True, there have been good picks in that range. But some of those definitely took time to develop. I just don't think it was reasonable to thinkt he bulls would use the draft to upgrade SG. They did not make that trade for Fernandez, but I hope that's because they are targeting someone they deem a better fit performance or salary wise.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) Long story short: I really wanted Jujuan Johnson. Didn't think he'd be there when we picked first. He was there when we picked first. We took a guy that might help us in 2015. I got pissed. Didn't break any board rules. The end. I'm not suggesting you get banned, I just still want to talk about last night's draft, terrible a pool of talent as it was.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) In theory, yes. But if suddenly truckloads of doctors say they're not accepting such insurance, it undermines the system as it's designed. It's exactly what they're doing with a lot of HMO's and Medicare...simply not accepting new patients that have it. Then they will have no patients. Simple as that. You think all the doctors in the country will be able to exclude a group that includes the most likely to need insurance? Those doctors are very few in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure every doctor would like to not get medicare rates, but the group is too large to ignore.