Balta1701

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Whoa. You are just nuts. Rose is 22 and the NBA MVP right now. You have no argument. Chris Paul has one game against the Lakers and all the sudden he's better than the MVP who is also 4 years younger? Drink some more drugs. Steve....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) More tax day fun! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1032853554.html Since I got this one when I suggested that constantly and infinitely growing health care costs were a bad thing, I'll throw it at you: Why do you want to cut back one of the only sectors in the economy that is growing?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) What about the risk of hitting their own or their allies? Exactly the point. You've got choices. A much more expensive program capable of targeting your enemies satellites and preserving yours, or you just send up a few comparatively cheap ICBM's into orbit, detonate them, and shut down communication across the globe. The former takes a lot more planning and money. The latter costs you your own system. The U.S. would never do the latter because it'll cost the U.S. it's systems...but an enemy that is clearly outspent by the U.S. might well be willing to sacrifice its satellite communications and information just to get an even playing field.

Took me a minute but I figured out what the trick is in that plot. The total U.S. GDP and GNP are just over $14 trillion dollars. Take a second and do a Reimann sum (i.e. integrate) that plot. My estimate, with some error, came out that the number totals to $5.5 trillion dollars. Of course you can't balance the budget using taxes when you define 60% of the GDP as untaxable. The reason that peak is where it is, and not shifted strongly to the right, is that most of the income at the upper levels is not counted as income by whatever standard they're using. Furthermore, of course you can't pay for the entire federal budget when you declare that 60% of GDP is untaxable, because when your starting point is

-

I think the response to that action is clear. Cut the top tier tax rate.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Yeah. It's much more expensive to blow up individual satellites than it is to just blow up everyone's.

Quentin

Link

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) Instead they just renovated the old one with the smallest capacity in the entire league. And much like South Africa in District 9, they're stuck with it until someone figures out how to restore its engines and take it back to its home planet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) With the NFL blackout rules, any new team in the NFL would be stupid to have a 100,000 seat stadium. It is one thing for a team like Dallas to do it, but it would be suicide for a team going into an already established market to do it. I meant I think that would work for the Bears.

Everyone quick, go sign up for a Royals/Indians board and start one of these.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 10:55 PM) ...And? Wall has improved alot since high school and his b-ball I.Q. is off the charts. This dude averaged 16-5-8 as a rookie. I would think you'd give him a summer to see if he can improve his weaknesses before he's pegged another player with no drive. Of course, the fact that he probably won't be playing basketball in the fall could really hurt.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 11:58 PM) I'm saying that there's so much demand for tickets with the Bears that the average individual can't see them in person without taking out a second mortgage. A second team would allow for more Chicagoans to experience the NFL in person. The big problem with this theory ni is that a team these days simply can't be competitive without the big money guys. The people who would spend $20 a ticket can't support a team. The skyboxes are the places that make it profitable. What might work is increasing total capacity, by say, a 100,000-ish person stadium, where you can stick the person who wants to pay $20 far, far away from the playing field but still get their money, but any 2nd team that doesn't nearly completely fill a complement of skyboxes is a failed team.

QUOTE (almagest @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 12:34 AM) I miss this guy...

Argh.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 09:57 PM) One of the best fan bases in the league. For now.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 07:54 PM) The Bears abuse their fans; though, compared to the Bulls. Really?

TSA security looks at people who complain about TSA security as elevated terrorist risks.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 07:37 PM) Bring Jacksonville or Buffalo. But only if they win. IMO, the city's football demand would be better served by building a Dallas-style Football palace than by adding in a 2nd team. The fact that the Bears have a century-long head start means that the 2nd team would be the Clippers for decades.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 07:19 PM) I know I should know better than to be ready a game thread after a loss... Be ready a game thread? Did you type this on a cell phone?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 07:17 PM) The Marlins are the ones who said no to that. That's beside the point, it's still Kenny's fault.

Matt Kemp Walks off against Franklin, his 2nd HR against him in a couple days.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 06:34 PM) I want it to go 7 games and have tons of excitement in the series. I'd prefer a 1991 Bulls/Pistons style beating.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) Sox lost. The usual calls for Ozzie's head and trading players took place. A pretty typical day. Nothing over the top. Defense was pretty good, Buehrle was Ok but not great, Haren was just that good until he rann out of gas.