bmags

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 09:56 PM) There are various ways you could approach that. Anyway, there is no real support in any Congress for such a thing, so its moot. These guys want to spend-spend-spend (both parties) and not raise taxes. The last thing they want is to be held responsible (with some exceptions of course - talking broadly here). To a point I agree, however, after George H.W. Bush signed BEA of 1990 into law, it really did give punishments and set the tone for the better fiscal spending by Congress and President Clinton through out that decade. After that, we seem to have inherited a tone of "deficits don't matter" by the current administration, and with 2 wars and a slow economy, spending went up while revenues were down. Now the great call is to start cutting earmarks, but that accounts for such a small portion of the budget, allbeit a portion of it. Now, clearly medicare and SS are the problems that need to be tackled for us to balance the budget consistently. Congress will eventually take a bipartisan commission that will come up with at least a 25 year solution to solving these problems. After that, I think balancing the budget is a reality for us for a number of years. But I hesitate to make it a consitutional amendment that the budget HAS to be balanced unless times of war, as there have been times in this country that weren't wars that I think it was necessary to run deficits.

I know, it was slightly hypothetical. But the definition of war has changed so much, who knows if we will ever again be "not" at war.

Is this dude also part of the great cassel family going now?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 09:06 PM) I 200% agree with that. but what is war in the 21st century?

Obama's proposing a gasoline tax hike?

I think Tampa Bay is the best team.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 06:33 PM) http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...n-pulls-ah.html lol what a dumb quote.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 06:17 PM) Well, this part I don't really have a problem with, I really don't know if I want the press questioning people about that family beyond a certain level unless there's something really wierd in there (I'd tolerate, for example, questions about the Alaska independence party and her husband's participation in it). Well, I disagree, when McCain aides were giving varying answers about when he was told about this, and then you have an interview with him, you ask. It has nothing to do with her. It had to do with the questioning over how much time McCain took before handing over the potential #2 position of the most powerful country in the world to her.

Better said on TPM: Well, now I've read them. And it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ... Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter. Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be. ------------------- And there was more, about how Gibson got the interview because he did not question McCain about Palin's family. He thought it was innappropriate. Well, that's all in the framing Charlie boy, because the important part about those questions was everyone wanting to know IF HE KNEW about them when vetting, when and why. So he's going to do a kid gloves interview with Sarah Palin. WE ARE TRULY THANKFUL GIBSON! THIS WILL DEFINITELY MAKE US MORE INFORMED VOTERS!!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 05:48 PM) Actually, she's finally going to sit down for an interview this week. With ABC's Charlie Gibson...the Flag Pin debate moderator. the stipulations in that interview are embarrassing.

KEEP. THE. MEDIA. AWAY. FROM. HER. they are sooooo MEAN

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 04:03 PM) If we can't win one in Minny, we probably have no right winning the division. I do think 1-2 in Minny isn't so terrible a statement, and 2-1 shouts we won it. I'd rather not "back into a division title, but hey, anyway is ultimately fine. This weekend was solid. Adding to a lead while we're playing a divisional winner and they are playing a out of it loser, is pretty damn sweet. I mostly agree with this, except that I'm fine backing into a divisional winner.

QUOTE (ChiSox35 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 06:35 AM) Yeah but Anaheim isn't exactly playing with urgency. I recall hearing that they've been awful as of late. The thing that kills me watching the replay right now is we were up 2-0 into the 6th. Hold on just a little bit longer and you're 3.5 up on the Twins going into a tough set with Toronto. not playing with urgency is a poor trait going into the playoffs.

I love blowouts, but our blow out wasn't even that fun. It was just way too easy. 42-0 half time. Chase patton and Gabbert got some good PT. Gabbert looked alright but reaffirmed that nothing can happen to Chase this year.

making him look like a coward, huh. Because during a hugely important election season, he totally should be putting off seeing actual voters to go a conservative talk show that few would vote for him anyways.

SO proud of my White Sox right now!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,7855333.story

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 6, 2008 -> 01:38 AM) Ill take your word for it. Being an Obama fanboy you know all about people that can only speak well when they have a prepared speech in front of them. Yeah! Great Point!!!

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 10:38 PM) The democratic party has a LOT more african-american voters because they've somehow convinced a lot of voters from that group that even despite how the republican party was started in the first place, the GOP hates black people. Besides african-americans, both parties have a pretty equal amount of diversity, it's just that one group that the democrats have put into a trance to almost exclusively vote for them. I mean there are certainly african-americans that vote for the democrats due to the issue, but I think some just do it because "everybody else does". That's just the view of the white guy though. Well, the dems were the ones that were the main pushers for civil rights legislation: truman, kennedy, especially LBJ. Then you had Nixon specifically back some pro-segregationist policies to attract the dixiecrats over to being republicans. The dems are the ones mostly behind affirmative action policies and eliminating prejudice in housing and other purchases. THey didn't convince the black population that the GOP hates them, they are just in more populated areas where people are also more democrat in mindset.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) The "we were elected to change Washington and we let Washington change us" line blew me away. For somebody to admit that at all about his own party was just refreshing to see in my opinion. Even if it's obvious to us, nobody ever admits something like that. "And what are we going to do about it? Promote the exact same policies!" CHEERS!!!! APPLAUSE!!!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 08:42 PM) Supposedly he has cancelled everything through the general election. Yeah that's what I read too. I'd be happy if I was U of I

btw, I just read that Edwards canceled his U of I speech. I think that was posted in here?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) McCain is up by 37.5% in Wyoming polls, I agree with what you're saying but thats a bad example. You're correct, I meant to say Montana.

Just out of curiosity...with the amount of Congress and senate races that the RNC is possibly losing this election, do you think they are gonna put all their eggs in McCain victory so they can negate whatever losses they endure, thinking that after 4 years it would likely even back out?

This team can do two things: 1. Deflate, press too much and fall into the abyss 2. Use this as a rallying cry and crush these freaking teams. I just don't see us deflating. Let's fight this, White Sox.