bmags

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 06:03 AM) In all fairness, how many times have movies with an "Indian theme" or cast (I'm thinking Monsoon Wedding or Bend It Like Beckham) ever even come close? And it wasn't directed by an Indian, either. Gay characters, the Holocaust, you can make some arguments, and musicals like Chicago, Moulin Rouge...but it's not like 1958-1968 when musicals just dominated that era in terms of the Academy. For real. People are mad that an actor who played a character nothing like him beat out an actor who played a character with many similarities. With Rourke as that character you say "oh that's the perfect match", with Penn you say "ooh I can't wait to see what he did with it". In terms of the history of the oscars, I thought Benjamin Button was the classic academy pick. Numerous locations and documents different era's and costumes, it's the 'epic' movie they love rewarding so much.

If you were like me you were drunk

btw, I was drunk last night and couldn't tell the difference between Burris resigning and his spokesperson.

Thank God! Now for a real senator from Illinois.

holy s*** northside is jack london

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) That's the liberal calling card.....and there have been no mag. articles on it....Weird. Perhaps because what you said doesn't make sense.

Well, yeah. The problem is the issues of race that affect people are subtle, and, ala wizard of oz, we keep our eyes on the big green floating heads, argue about the stuff that is only real for a very small number of extreme cases, and become embarrassed to talk about how who we are affects us in America. In Columbia, a number of bars have dress codes clearly targeting blacks, and while there has been a few mag. articles on it, it just kind of gets swept up as a disturbing anecdote. You can be black, as long as you are our kind of black

Not surprising. Well, I guess I kind of thought they might just let these guys take the fall, but alas, no one will be charged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7899472.stm Famous russian journalist killed contract style, government feigns shock, convicts no one.

are we really sure it's only 2%

Tex- Oscar *Wilde

It's not avant-garde, but it's BEYOND cutting edge... democrats. are. f***ed.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) Will I be allowed the same freedom to post a poll that's derogatory and intended to piss off African Americans? By far the funniest post in the thread. "This pisses me off! Ipso Facto, I should be able to piss off blacks!"

You're RNC Chairman Steele ladies and gentleman: "We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles," Steele told the Washington Times. "But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings." "It will be avant garde, technically," he said of the new public relations team he's signing on. "It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook." He also added: "I don't do 'cutting-edge.' That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge."

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 08:58 PM) Well I think that Blago could compel White to sign -- as Sec of State he can't just refuse (i think). And your right about the Senate, they couldn't just expel Burris if he met the qualifications clause under Art I Sec 3. He could have held an impeachment trial and ousted him quickly... the senate holds the sole power to hear those proceedings. It would have been a pain in the ass. Well, it seemed that they could've seated him without a signature from all the reporting. At first, everyone was excited because the heads said they wouldn't seat him and White said he wouldn't sign the papers, then it turned out that the signing of the papers were merely symbolic, then it turned out the Senate had little power to prevent him being seated. Then they used White's signature acknowledging he had received Blago's appointment as proof he was to be seated. The only person I blame is Blago and Burris. They are scum.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 09:22 PM) i'm all in favor of reforming Illinois, and getting some political balance (how about a libertarian senator?) but since that wont happen, i was actually not in favor of the special election -- why? because it would cost too much f***ing money, aka the last thing we need right now. Now what should have happened is Harry Reid should have stuck to his guns and kept this moron out of the senate. Jesse White should have refused to sign. However, I'm sure that the Obama admin didnt want any unecessary distractions (logically) and they let him through. It was a risk, and now this s*** comes up. What do you do now? Beat the impeachment drum? I hate most Illinois Dems -- but as a country... do we really have time to deal with this? the problem as was documented, that signature by White was just window dressing, technically, and the US Senate had really no power in preventing a state gov. from electing it's senator.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 09:03 PM) Sarah Palin will now have to pay back taxes on her home-use per diems. Is she being vetted for an Obama post or something?

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad. That's fine, but at least he didn't appear stupid, and I think the idea to manipulate the economy through the fed was better strategy than just "TAX CUTS!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 06:17 PM) The other thing to remember is that borrowing money for the federal government is a different beast from the state or local governments doing so. IIRC 98% of the states are required to submit some version of a balanced budget every year. There are shenanigoats that get you around those requirements, like borrowing against lottery profits or selling off highways, whatever, but in an economic downturn, the state and local governments are going to feel their budgets dramatically pinched, because it's much harder for them to borrow thanks to those requirements. Then, throw in a massive credit crisis thanks to the scorched-earth policies of the Banks, and really, there's only 1 borrower right now that anyone has any confidence in, who actually has legal authority to do the borrowing, and that's the federal government. Edit: I will agree with one thing though. I'd rather take a lot of the money being spent on road upgrades and spend it on rail transit and electricity production. well thank people like Kit Bond for that.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 05:55 PM) Ok, so let's just rely on Daddy the Federal Government to fix everything for us then. If you are against the stimulus bill, that's fine, but this is the exact things that it set out to do, find underfunded projects, fund them, create jobs, improve infrastructure. It set out to infuse money in the demand market while trying to do things that improve things for the future. But, lets see, resort to childish cliches within a few posts, yep, this is going to be fun. I can do it to: Oh no, in a massive stimulus package don't infuse money into public projects that create jobs, big brother oh no

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) They are hardly in need of "fixes" so badly that they had to be included in that bill. It is a local issue that should be fixed locally, not something that the rest of the country should be paying for. In case you haven't noticed, local/state governments aren't doing so well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) Do those roads fix themselves or are people hired to do so? Seriously. So these roads you claim needed to be fixed are going to be fixed. What does urgently mean.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_po...ris-resign.html Roland Burris, Resign

John Kerry didn't win, but nonetheless is a pretty smart guy - just had no idea how to run a campaign especially against Rove, or in the new century. He would have been a bad president - probably. But the correlation didn't have to do candidates anyways. My point is, there really hasn't been a brilliant Republican president, or one that really knew the economic theory that well besides Reagan and before that Nixon-but he was his own downfall and his strategies destroyed this country.

Can't say how pleased I am with Jose, that is some dedication.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 03:58 PM) I don't think there is any meaningful correlation there. I do, and here's why. The culture wars that the Republicans have made meaningful gains on have been based on being especially down to earth, encapsulating everything down to a catch phrase. Basically, many of them have been stupid. And now, the party of ideas is now the party of guhhh. I'm not saying there are no dumb democrats, boy howdy, there are, but when it comes to picking a Pres. candidates, they pick people with pretty sane minds and good practical decision making.