bmags

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:50 PM) You would have to convince an entire culture to shift how they move. This country is 100% about the car. Unless you can change that, you are going to have a really tough time pitching anything that isn't automotive related. People want to be able to jump into their cars and go. gas moves up to $5 again and I'll take my chances convincing them.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) I have an interesting point of comparison here. My wife sells European Rail for a living and she cant begin to tell you how embarrassed she is of America's rail system. It's a total disgrace. Europeans are totally shocked when they come to America. "Plane? Who flys by plane? I have to drive from Chicago to St. Louis?" I have been a big proponent of completely replacing our current system, but it's just WAY too expensive. I cant find it, but I used the LA-Las Vegas rail line proposal and extrapolated those numbers out for a nation wide system. As a rider, it was cheaper than flying.. about half as fast... but expensive as hell to build. but, in what time could a return be made on that investment? I mean nuclear energy is through the roof to install, but many in the country find that worth it, in what time in America could this be made up, especially with a proposed rise in gas the next decade (forever)

so how many news papers are going to use the following pun: Flowers blooms in transition to catcher

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) I dont really have time to read through all the articles, but I'm just gonna say that I would love if we had a large system of high-speed rail travel in this country similar to that of Europe. Me too. Especially being in Columbia, MO and needing to travel back to Chicago, I would much rather take a train where you can move around, write, read then a plane, where you need to be there 4 hours in advance for a 30 minute flight and wait an hour for luggage. I would use the rail all the time.

yes, why can't we create Pinochet's chile??????

man doesnt getz look like morneau?

go missouri!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 06:11 AM) Maybe my memory is wrong, but I thought Obama has expressed interest in keeping the supreme court "balanced". Basically, lean it to the left, but keep it 5-4... no "activist" supreme court. I may be totally wrong or misheard him. Probably are totally wrong. A big reason why people were pissed at hillary's win at all cost campaign was the high number of liberal court justices people felt were holding out for a democratic president. They were selling to her former supporters to remember that. Of course he supports a balanced court, but that would mean not appointing a conservative for a more liberal judge.

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!"