bmags

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.

Do you know how closed captioning works? You know what I find telling? Nobody affected by the tragedy or who was AT the ceremony found the crowd inappropriate. But now that I know it's appropriate, I will go to a wake tomorrow and if I see anyone laughing I will go up and tell them this isn't a comedy show! Stop laughing! I have an idea about how you should behave and this isn't fitting it!

Iphone and Evo are both fantastic phones. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

QUOTE (TomPickle @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 07:01 PM) Broadcast lead singer Trish Keenan passed away this morning after a two week battle with pneumonia. Just terrible news. I was sad to hear this. Tender buttons was such a great album.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 12:29 AM) But that just isnt really true. You have fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, as well as fiscal liberals and social liberals. Many times their ideology should be in absolute opposition, but they stick to the party line. In fact I would say that if anything part of the problem is that there is no ideological view that can be attached to either party. Both parties mean entirely different things depending on the candidate. Yet the candidates stick together, regardless of their ideology. Sorry, but this is nonsense.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:09 PM) What does ambition have to do with partisanship> Most of the time you are seeing the votes align right down party lines. That is partisanship. Iamshack is saying that there used to be times where Democrats and Republicans would vote on things and not just follow party lines. (I think that is where he is going). We may disagree on why this is happening, but I think we both agree that right now each side is more willing to draw the line in the sand on anything. (Look at filibusters by both Democrats and Republicans, not approving judges etc.) I've already said this is due to the two parties being much more ideologically aligned than in the past. The republicans have decided that it's good political strategy to not participate in congress when they are out of power and obstruct (as you see in parliamentary systems), and they were rewarded politically. You can make our system more able to run like a parliament with rule changes.

I guess I don't agree at all. I think we had a pretty ambitious 110th congress, and have a pretty ambitious 111th as well.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:46 PM) Do you honestly think this is providing any substance to the conversation? I am a history major, and I am aware of events in the past that were just as bad if not worse than they are now. Should we not know better at this point? Given how much more well-educated people are today? I think it is. And if you are a history major I don't get your weird sentimentality toward a previous time. You want to know why parties could work more easily in the past? Because they had more ideological similiarities than those in their own party. Democrats were democrats in the south because republicans had governed them against their will after the civil war and this lasted a long time. Republicans were republicans in the NE for the same reasons. Now that is gone and people are democrats because they are more liberal and republicans because they are more conservative. There were no 2 people that could've disagreed more in the US political debate in 1963 than the two i mentioned, and they were in the same party.

point: strangesox.