southsider2k5

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) I've seen "The Mexican" a few times and enjoyed it, how many movies have you ever seen tackle the issue of firing guns into the air? Ganolfino stole that movie.

For $400k and no prospects, there is no downside to this deal.

QUOTE (SEALgep @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) Winning cures all - even in this case Winning the World Series didn't bring Frank back, and there was way more bad blood in this case. Maggs called everyone in the organization a liar and bascially a cheat. I don't think that has been forgotten by the people who pull the strings.

QUOTE (mreye @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 08:32 AM) Sounds like craziness to me. But then again so does any kids birthday party. Why did I have to have so many? Please don't make me explain how that happens again...

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) Bingo. So the question becomes to be either drop all government sanctioned incentives, or open them up to everyone? IMHO opening them up to everyone is the right thing to do. My philosophy is to drop the incentives.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now. Exactly. There is an incentive to marriage. That is the problem.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:17 AM) Allow me then to rephrase. That church tradition provides the same legal rights and benefits of the legal tradition. What our country has done, in effect, is to "deputize" clergy to perform the same exact role that a judge performs in securing the existing "contracts". Unless you are suggesting that there be different legal benefits and rights between a marriage and a civil union, the end result is the same. All we would be doing is slapping a different label on it based on who presides. In the end a judge will perform a civil union and some clergy will perform a marriage and both couples/groups walk away with the same rights and benefits of each other. That is why I say they are the same. The debate isn't about who gets the Church ceremony and who gets to appear before a judge, its about the rights and benefits and those should be the same. All we are doing to preserving a label for a religious ceremony and trying an end around some of the objections. But the objections are to the rights and benefits IMO, not about the label. It provides those things because the government again is trying to legislate good behavior. This mess is the result of that type of thinking.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:22 PM) Anyone else used to watch "Unsolved Mysteries" when it was on NBC back in the day with Robert Stack, and be so freaked out by some stories? I loved that show.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 07:28 AM) I also believe this debate gets bogged down too much in semantically sleight of hand. Marriage - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits. Civil Union - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits. I disagree 100%. One is a result of church traditions, the other is a legal binding contract. Big difference IMO.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 07:28 AM) Why just two? Three or more people can own a business together and enter into other legal contracts. I used two here because, as I understand it, the Proposition eight proposal is dealing the marriage of two people. I thought it would be prudent to stay on subject.

I can believe the big snap back, what I can't believe is that we aren't selling off right now. My prediction is a quiet day until 1:15 with the Fed rate cut coming, and then a big (4-5%) selloff at the end of the day.

QUOTE (sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) and me too, but look at the alternatives: 1) John Kerry 2) We'd be looking for a new VP, because John Edwards would have been out because of the affair scandal 3) The Economic Crisis has little to do with Bush 4) John Kerry oh and... 5) I can't wait to buy my first house next year for a 30-50% discount If Clinton didn't get taken down by lying under oath of his affair, there is zero chance Edwards would have been gone.

This is exactly what happens when the government gets in the business of legislating morals of any kind. My point of view is that marriage should not be left up to government. They have offered all of these economic incentives to do things right (sound familiar in any other areas?) when it comes to family and marriage. Marriages should be a church institution, period. The government needs to worry about contract law. If two people want to enter into a partnership, the government has no business in stopping them. If two gay people want to spend their lives together, let them. If two straight people want to spend their lives together, let them. The thing that bothers me about the modern practice of Christianity, is that one of the big things in there is that we are not to judge. Even if I believe gay marriage is wrong, it is not up to me to pass judgement on those who practice it. The bible teaches that with as much wrong as I do, I have no room to talk, lest those same people pass judgement on my sins. If we were actually looking at true separation of church and state, marriage would not be a government sanctioned institution. Again these are the unintended consequeces of government interference in our lives.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) Pretty ballsy to assume that his campaign is actually sending those out. If theyre even real, they might just be some idiot. I love the assumptions though, Im sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would condemn Obama immediately like you are McCain, stay classy. Which by that logic, the Dems who are associating those to McCain should have no problems with guys like Wright and Ayers being associated with Obama, because at least he actually knows them, right? I didn't think so.

He has been convicted, he should resign and serve his punishment. Period.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 06:06 PM) SS, I was thinking about your points and tell me if this makes sense. Currently there is a 500B deficit. I understand that cutting the spending now to cover that deficit would be bad, and raising taxes would also have a negative effect. So we have to hope the economy recovers before we go bankrupt. So when we do experience better times, we start cutting or holding spending the same to where when we go through the next rough patch, we drop back to a balanced budget. It seems we can actually live within our means. So down the road when revenues are projected at X we can spend X and not X+Y. It seems that the government needs to continue to spend at their levels, not that they need to run a deficit. I think that we are close to the same page now. To be clear I do not like to see deficit spending in times of good economic conditions. I believe we have seen that they contribute to bubbles. Prudently drawing down spending levels to tax revenue levels is what I would like to see. But during times of recession, war, or other national problems, the governments role after the New Deal has been to be the spender of last resort, for lack of a better expression. Taking that role away would lead to larger and more frequent recessions/depressions.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) So how long can we go borrowing money? What happens when no one will lend us any more money? You didn't answer the question. You just asked more questions.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) So we could never size the government to the lowest revenue levels? When times are bad, is it how much the government spends, or does it have to be a deficit? What programs would you cut today to elimitate a $500 billion deficit? That's why we will never have a balaned budget.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) No, we would be balanced then, and a surplus when times are good and we cut back on spending. Except we wouldn't because we would be tax revenue running deficits, and would have to cut spending.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) So borrow money from China and give it to us? Does it matter what they spend it on? Because it would seem when times are bad, spending on social programs would benefit the people hardest hit. And why does it have to be debt? Under your theory, those programs would be getting cut at the time they are needed most, because tax revenues go down during a recession.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Is there a difference in cutting taxes and sending everyone a $300 check? The issue as I see it is we keep talking about cutting taxes without talking about reducing spending. The GOP believes they can keep spending and send out $300 checks and cutting taxes. The Dems have given up on tax and spend, instead they are in line with the GOP in don't tax and still spend. Cut taxes and send checks when we have a surplus, until then stop spending more than we send. That's great in theory, but terrible in reality. That was the type of policies that got us into the great depression and the scares and panics of the past. If we are going to have a government involved in day to day fiscal policy, their role is to spend when no one else will spend. They should not spend when things are going well. That is when they should be cutting spending down to a balanced budget. Its counterintuitive, but in application, it is the one way that cuts recessions short and prevents bubbles.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) Let's be fair about expectations. Given the enormous expenditures that this country will be facing over the next 24-36 months because of a global recession, I would be very surprised to see either candidate actually follow through with any tax cuts, but rather look to see tax hikes - because the government won't be able to do what they perceive it needs to do without it. I fully expect it, and it would be nice if either of them could be honest about it before election day. I'd also like to see them be honest that the vast majority of spending programs they are proposing will never happen either.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) Same obligation I believe every citizen has. Respect the laws, conserve our resources, give back to your community with either your time, talents, or treasure, serve in the military if drafted, serve on a jury if called, vote, etc. So why don't the rich have the same set of obligations? What makes them a subclass below everyone else?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) Well luckily my thought process is reflected in the majority of Americans right now. To be fighting in 2 wars and to have Bush give the wealthy a tax cut is ridiculous. And for McCain to want to extend that is more insane. Yet Obama cutting the taxes for 95% of the country is smart? Flattening out the tax code so more people are more dependant on less people is supposed to somehow smooth things out? The less people that pay taxes, the more recession prone the country becomes. If you want a great example of that, look no further than Chicago. Their budget has a huge hole in, and they have some of the highest taxes and fees in the entire country. They have also increased spending at a ridiculous rate, and what has it gotten them? Looking to raise taxes and fees even more.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) OK so tell me where you were going with that question? My guess was it would be the same rambling conservative diatribe against the lower class and how spoiled they are on food stamps. To answer your original question: in every society somebody has to clean the toilets. You know what they say about assumptions... If the rich have a social obligation to provide all of these different social, economic, and fiscal things to the poor, what is the poors social obligation to the rich? Is it just work? If so why is the rich's work, not enough of a social contribution, considering their work is what creates the very jobs that the poor occupy. Without them, they would have nothing.