southsider2k5

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:43 PM) for starters, the minimum amount of funding to avoid a disaster. bailout funds would not go to bonuses, and all other business related portions of the company go bust if need be. these corporations do not belong in business. they failed. this is reality, this is not socialism where your failures are backed up with my money. The bonuses are a distraction. In reality that amount of money had very little effect on the bottom line, and zero effect on the value of a banks portfolio. The last two sentences would have meant no banking system, period.

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:24 PM) The Olympics would allow for a major public transporation overhaul that's about 25 years overdue. Reason #1 for the Olympics in Chicago.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) There could have been other steps taken, rather than multi-trillion dollar abomination that we are paying for. The bailout was a complete failure when considering the amount of money; it has set us up for bigger more devastating crashes to come. There is this myth that the bailout, the way it was put together, was the only possible action to take. It's just not true. So, let's hear it.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:00 PM) Felix Hernandez Kevin Youkalis Dustin Pedroia Miguel Cabrera Victor Martinez Bobby Abreu Grady Sizemore Carl Crawford Andrew Bailey Manny Ramirez Justin Upton Bj Upton I think if KW were to obtain all of those guys, this team would compete. Nah, Greg Walker would screw it up.

Oh.my.god. Becky look at that butt.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:11 PM) Yeah that's what I'm trying to do and I can't. Wouldn't we basically have to start everything over somehow? I guess. But at the same time, I don't even see that as possible. In reality, the government had to throw all of that money at the problem early on, to prevent the problem from becoming a multiplier of what it was.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:05 PM) So what actually happens if the entire Western banking system collapses, like what it appears would have happened? What would have happened? I don't know that I could even imagine the societial impact of people's entire wealth disappearing in a nanosecond.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) If it was about fulfilling religious destiny, this would have taken place a decade or more ago. This is about power. It's always about power. The people who really run the show in foreign policy in Iran don't show their face at the UN, and the clown that does, doesn't get to have a finger on a shotgun trigger, let alone a single missile. No it wouldn't have. They have never had the ability to do it conventionally, because they know that America would send their military might over to stop it, if Iran could do it. A nuke would solve that problem.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) Blasphemy. Questioning Obamacus gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. Don't forget, he is also a racist now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) I thought Chase was one of the ones in more decent shape? They were probably in the best shape of all, but if this had been allowed to cascade, there wouldn't have been a bank in the country that would have technically survived. The big issue is that banks lend to each other more and more. When the weaker bigger banks would start to go under, that would mean more and more loans on the balance sheets of the "strong" banks would start to become worthless. The more times that happened, the more their debt to capital ratios would start to slip. Once they hit that magic 90% ratio, bang, the bank is insolvent. Every obligation they have to another bank technically becomes worthless, because that legal entity no longer exists in the eyes of the Federal Reserve banking system. Every time a bank would fail, that would also be one less potential bank that would be able to buy up assets, and entire sets of asset classes would also start to become worthless in the eyes of our mark to market accounting system, even if the underlying assets which backed the loans still had worth. The cascade was already starting with Lehman, Bear, and Merrill. That's why the capital rush and the Fed rushing to try to get the big banks to take these failures over at any price.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) My father is conservative. I know what he thinks. Lower taxes so that YOU can have more money. Screw poor people. They're just lazy. In fact, screw everyone. It's all about amassing as much wealth for yourself as possible. Screw the environment if it doesn't help YOU somehow...preferably financially. Seriously that is like me saying liberals want to take from the hardworking people in the country so that they can give to the lazy. In other words it is a load of crap. True conservative dogma basically is allowing individuals to make individual decisions, with as little interferences as possible.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:40 PM) It would mean a hell of a lot of money flowing in for infastructure. But I guess that's "bad"... with that said corruption of the flow money would be rampant. My dream would be for Chicago to win the games, and for somehow Daley to not be Mayor during the years leading up to the games.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) I think any player that would be considered a "surprise" trade would be players currently in big contracts, such as Rios, Peavy, Konerko, Dye. I'd also find it surprising if the Sox traded away a player that was considered part of the future, such as Quentin, Beckham, Floyd, Danks, Hudson, Viciedo, and Mitchell. I would also be surprised if Pierzynski or Alexei were traded. Mitchell can't be traded until the 2010 draft.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) I want to know why a god damn equivalency needs to be drawn for everything and people can't just talk about things like they are. Hence, this thread is trash. Because I am sick of a entire group of people being stereotyped when the same thing just happened for the last eight years. People need to quit acting like idiots are something new and this is simply happening because Barack Obama is the President.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) I don't recall people bringing AK-47s to events where Bush spoke. How about bringing AK-47's to white polling places on election day?

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) Probably because during the nineties when Clinton was the anti-christ et al the following happened: Oklahoma City Bombing Numerous abortion clinics bombed and doctors murdered (including a web site of their names and addresses where their names were marked off when they were killed) and then as soon as Obama gets elected we have Tiller get killed. What are your examples? And no violent left wing protests took place during the Bush administration? Are you serious?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) To both sides here, my response is to urge caution. There's so little information out there so far, deliberately, that taking any political conclusion is going to lead you down a dangerous path. There are so many examples, even recently. Am I the only one who recalls how Barack Obama's thugs carved that backwards B in to the woman's face last year? And then, yeah... Or, alternatively, how an anti-abortion protestor was killed just a few weeks ago? This could easily be a killing for political motives. Or, it could easily be that someone decided to rob the victim and thought he could throw the authorities off on the wrong path by making it look political. Here's how I think you should look at it...if you think that Beck et al. are doing nothing wrong, that's fine. All I'll ask is what do you do if someone shoots up a building while screaming Beck's name? Or whatever. Do you guys think Beck is not playing with fire? I thing he is. If you think he's not, then tell me why. Alternatively, to those who are already jumping on this as an example of what Beck has unleashed...what happens when it turns out the "B" was backwards for a reason? So where were you during the Bush administration, when the exact same crap was going on in the violent hateful left wing of the Democratic party. I am the only one who remembers God Damn America and our President sitting in the audience for those types of sermons? But it only encites people when the right wing does it? You guys are freaking brain washed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) And BTW you're in the minority. Most Chicagoans don't want the Olympics here. Not according to the IOC http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Su...l-56804857.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Especially when those banks believe they have an implicit government guarantee that if every bet they make goes bad, they won't lose money. What would you do in Vegas if you were guaranteed you would only lose $1000 no matter how much you bet? Become Fannie Mae?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 12:45 PM) I agree. But the thing is, the bailout was actually designed to have banks merge. There was pressure on certain banks to take over some of the failures, and they were paid to do so. See Bank of America taking Merrill Lynch. So the bailout, in it's nature, made this problem worse. No it didn't. Because of the stupid accounting laws in this country, it pretty much saved the entire banking sector.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) BAHAHAHAHAHAHA is that what you actually think you are writing when you write : Your hands typing and what you think you are writing are completely different. Where did I say that Glenn Beck and Bachmann should be on trial? I said the EXACT opposite of this. If you think hate speech can't fuel some nasty violence, check out Rwanda. It was only a matter of time before Godwin's Law hit this thread. In a general sense it is amazing. All of the hate speech that was directed for eight years at the previous administration was held up as patriotic. Now the next administration hears the same sort of stuff, and somehow the right wing is going to go out and commit an ethnic slaughter of a few million people. Yeah, I wonder why political discourse in this country is no where to be found.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) They are doing this, because it helps consolidate power regionally. Supplying the Palestinian insurgency helps gain them influence in both Palestinian territories and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon. Supplying weapons and money in Iraq gives them influence in Iraq. Deploying a nuclear weapon does nothing but end their power, not expand their power. Having a nuclear weapon and not deploying it expands their power virtually forces us to the table, because we suddenly have a vested interest in Iranian stability. Its not about expanding their power. You guys are thinking way too much like Americans. This isn't about money, or power, or any of that other crap. It is about fulfilling religious destiny.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) Really? Is this deliberately over the top or do you really have that little of an understanding of the Sunni/Shi'a split? The guy believes that it is his destiny to destroy Israel and bring forth the return of the prophet. What is there to understand?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Like I said, this sort of nihilistic/apocalyptic worldview only applies to Salafist/Qutb followers (Sunnis), not Shia. Most of the Palestinian issues are political and have been put under the religious umbrella. The President of Iran seems to subscribe to this newsletter.

OK who voted for Colon?