bmags

ugh, catwoman sucks.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) K-State and MSU have been major disappointments this year Still fun killing them.

Knox truly is the dumbest receiver. It makes me wonder how dumb aromashadu is.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 12:20 AM) We're (generally) a bunch of lazy asses who eat fast food and then b**** and moan that we're fat and have health problems and don't have the money to pay to see a doctor. I'd say we're not. In general, in terms of hours work, we work our ass off.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 11:02 PM) This irritates me - not your post, but this topic. For any given person on any given election in Chicago, once every two years or so, maybe once a year at most... you have zero to 8 Constitutional offices and maybe zero to 10 local offices to vote for. Why is it so beyond people to spend a f***ing hour once a year to make an intelligent decision about who represents them in government? I mean, I get that with judges and water commissioners, there is little or no info available. Fine, on those, use party or whatever. But your alderman? State rep? State Senator? It is just so frustrating to me that 99% of voters know nothing about these people. You are GIVING away your freedoms and rights by not paying attention. I'd add on something to this, we have too many offices that are voted in. Judges being the dumbest.

i got error messages.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) You don't think the city deals with that issue? Jesus Christ, my point is that unlike state and national politics you can really vote for an individual over voting for a party, and it matters. Do people at the city level do social welfare programs? Yes. But that has nothing to do with my point that the national parties are not informative at the city level. They are much more informative when there is a traditional legislature/executive set up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:29 PM) You can't get economy, such as tax versus budget cuts out of parties? honestly, I just find that really simplistic when dealing with a city. "I'm going to cut taxes and budgets" vs "i'm going to improve social welfare and raise taxes", I really see a lot more over land management which REALLY is obscured in the two national party identities. You can have a few easy identifiers like more green parks vs. more retail space, but i don't often see that. Rent control/parking regulations/ etc. I really haven't seen consistency in the parties at this level. I'm not saying that there aren't ideological differences at the municipal level, but that you could create two new parties, find people that generally fit in either, that really don't fit that well into that national party identity.

Mizzou just killed kstate. Fun game.

jeeze, over 50% in a field that big.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) They imply a basic set of solutions to questions. How does that not inform more than obscure? Not having parties would actually confuse more, because you would miss out on a basic understanding of what a person stands for. I don't think so, I think people have a general idea of how a democratic party would run the country and the GOP, and same with the state. But I really don't find those ideas translate exactly to city management. The only very basic level you can get is union v. non union workers.

You write that a lot. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do with that info.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:02 PM) It is a whole different set of circumstances when you are talking about $10 billion versus something like the $50 million that my hometown of 30,000 people has. There are economies of scale and big social considerations that don't happen at smaller levels. I don't understand why national party labels are helpful to this problem, though. I think they obscure more than they inform.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) Chicago has about as many people as Iowa does. Their budget is big enough you can't just pass it off as a municipality. Their budget including the coporate fund, is almost $10 billion. yeah, that doesn't change my opinion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:45 PM) s*** Chicago doesn't even have a second party... let alone other parties. national parties at municipal levels seems pretty stupid to me anyway.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:44 PM) The Bears are getting plently of respect. I could post links to about 30 articles talking about how good the Bears D has been this year, what Martz has done and so on. Because people are picking the other team to win by 3 points is not a knock. No one is picking either team to win by 4 touchdowns. giving three to the away opponent is pretty significant

i wish we had a rent is too damn high party.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 07:33 AM) I doubt he's really all that important in the grand scheme of things, and he seems to play the role of douchebag pretty well. Explain.

Wow. I can't believe they held the pats to eleven so far

bizarre.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 11:12 PM) I think that statement is the gentle way of saying pro-war. They are much more... interventionist.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 11:23 PM) I would assume they have to see the pics at some point. I don't know man, remember that story of DCFS being called b/c the parents had developed bathtub photos of their kids (a staple of every wedding slide show). I'd rather that not happen more than what you mentioned. Of the warning signs to heed, this was the least likely to set off alarms.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 11:04 PM) Deaf people don't have a right to know what he's saying. [laughter]

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) Julian Assange has an inflated since of self-importance. Um, when the entire world's governments are out to get you, I'm pretty sure you are pretty important. That said, I think the calls to prosecute are nonsense. And I generally support wikileaks. It does more good than evil. It just helped bring down a dictatorship and I am pro democracy.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 01:31 AM) Well I guess if you say so. At least give the courtesy to explain your position (because if you look historically at what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean as well as their ideology combined with the US development of a 2 party system from the Federalists- AntiFederalists through todays Democrat/Republican you will clearly see that the ideology of both Republicans and Democrats has changed drastically to the point where the ideology is so encompassing you can make it fit anything.) That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter that classical liberalism is a very restricted government. Both of the parties are participating in a classically liberal government system. Within that, you have an expectation of either party. The Republicans, fairly universally, are foreign policy focused while domestically focused on lowering taxes, and are socially conservative. Democrats are more domestically focused on expanding the social safety net, environmental protections, and are socially liberal. On the margins, you'll find socially conservative democrats and more fiscally conservative democrats, and vice versa republicans. But as close as Scott Brown is ideologically to many democrats, he is very much aligned to his own parties ideas as well. He will vote much more often with a republican president because he agrees with those views. Just as Ben Nelson would as well. Just because are party ideologies have changed in the last 230 years does not mean they are somehow so muddled no one could possibly tell the difference. That's nonsense. Our parties make more sense now than any time in the last 150 years. On most all economic issues of the day you can tell where each party would stand.