StrangeSox

Wait...so this is somehow Marxist (l.o.l.) Obama's fault? Apparently she's fighting the good fight against Muslims, too! More good stuff:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Sounds like Google Nexus is coming next week to Verizon. I'm thinking really hard about dropping AT&T and my IPhone 3GS to pick it up. Switched to Verizon from AT&T in September and it's been great so far.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) That defense has been formidable for so long it just seems like it always is going to be. I've always assumed they suffer from the same long-term problem that the Bears do: lose your HOF MLB, lose your defense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) That is what I meant. My firm can tack on some government-imposed fee for legal services (as would others) for the purpose of paying for a lobbyist (marketing) to lobby (advertise) for something the industry in general might want (like tort-reform). At least we both agree it's a stupid idea to get the government involved! no, I already clarified, the correct answer is to bypass corporatocracy by nationalizing industries.

Is there any way to set up a sandbox version of the site to work on and test a version upgrade?

Crazy Idaho guy who thinks the government is out to get him and Obama is the devil who shoots at White House? "Occupy" Shooter lol Fox News

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) So make it industry wide. What's the difference? It's an incredibly stupid idea. It's using the government (public) for a purely private interest. I'm in agreement that this probably isn't a good idea, but your example didn't make much sense. A similar initiative would be the government adding a .15 tax to all legal services and using it to fund an advertising campaign for legal services, not a single law firm doing it. But there's no reason that industry trade groups couldn't get together without government sponsorship.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) You don't think this is a waste of the USGA's money and resources? Also, much like the auto-bailouts weren't going to cost the tax payers money - how's that working out? Didn't they just up the losses from 14 billion to 24 billion? My law firm would love it if we could just tack on .15 cents to each billable hour we work. We'll promise to use the funds SOLELY to fund our lobbyist...er...create marketing campaigns against tort reform. Cool? You can tack on whatever you want. That's different from an industry-wide tax to support industry-wide advertising.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) Now here is where you might have a bit of a logical conundrum, Balta. Which is more environmentally friendly? A plastic tree that you use for 10 years, or 10 individual trees that are farmed and have to be regrown? I'm pretty sure it's been studied in-depth and found that live trees are better than plastic, and that the best route is to buy a tree with roots in-tact and replant it in your yard.

Guys it was a trick question, the correct answer was "no, it should nationalize them"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) I'm not sure that "Subsidize" is the correct word here, since no taxpayer funds are at risk, it's just making use of the already extant system of collecting and distributing taxes to allow funds to be pooled in a certain way. The government definitely does subsidize US based agricultural industry advertising already, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. It'd be a lot nicer if those subsidies were set up like this. There is some variable cost associated with this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) So, the industry is incapable of doing so itself, no taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government has setups that are easily capable of doing this and does so for 18 other industries, doing so through the government would reduce costs all around, the industry asks for it to happen, it provides a benefit to the U.S. economy, but government is always bad and I can't give an exact answer why but it's a slippery slope since government is bad and it shouldn't happen. I feel like you're the 10 year old kid taking away my tricycle for no reason but to see me cry. Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) And leave the rest in place, and if they had their druthers, cut a bunch of other s*** too. By the way, don't mistake me for saying their plan is good. Not at all. I just see the reality that the GOP is more likely to reduce the deficits than the Dems are. How? By cutting spending but reducing revenues in equal or greater amounts, leading to reduced aggregate demand and continued slow growth and high unemployment?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) The same ones who want to cut everything (for better or worse). LOL, no they don't. They're already saying they'll block the defense spending cut trigger. They want to cut the same social programs they always want to cut, they want to cut taxes on the rich and they want to raise them on the poor. That is the backbone of every single GOP candidate's tax plan.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) Plus it is just absurd. You want to tax people to subsidize your own advertising campaign? Here's an idea, if you want an advertising campaign, pay for it yourselves! I'd agree that the merits of this are pretty dumb, but less dumb than characterizing it as a "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) You think the Democrats are more likely to cut down deficits than the GOP, right now, today? Now THAT is absurd. Sure, let the Bush tax cuts expire=take a big chunk out of the deficits. Expand the Bush tax cuts permanently while cutting even more from the top brackets, capital gains and corporate taxes=expand the deficit. That's not to say that the Democrats actually care about reducing the deficit as some sort of central policy goal. It's just disingenuous to claim that the Republicans actually care about the deficit beyond using it as an excuse to cut the same social programs they've always railed against while protecting all of their own spending and refusing to raise revenues, instead actually advocating for deeper reductions in revenue.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) It would be absurd to say that the Republicans can't fix everything? I'm confused. No, it'd be absurd to say that they're more likely to address the debt and deficit since they're largely responsible for it and refuse to do anything but cut social spending and cut taxes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) Health care is not the main cause of our debt, though Medicare is a part of the problem. Not sure where you are getting that. Also, I didn't say they would fix everything, or fix that - but that they, as a whole, are more likely to address debt and deficit issues than Democrats. And its true. Which is not to say that I entirely agree with them, as I do not, at all. Who is "they"? I really hope you don't mean Republicans, because that'd be a pretty absurd claim.

The Bears having a chance to tie it with a 3rd string QB after almost a whole quarter of absolute garbage from Collins=total domination.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) I'm sorry, I didn't realize Lovie took the Bears to two conference championship games in his first 2 years. Oh, and in one of those years, going through the Colts AND Pats on the road. Little different than beating a sub .500 Seattle at home. No one was taking the 2004 Bears to the playoffs.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:32 PM) Christ. Again. They lost by one score when their starting QB missed most of the game. F*ck. Your selective memory makes me want to find where you live, come over there, and punch you in the nose. They also came pretty close to keeping GB out of the playoffs altogether with not much to play for.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) Well Rock asked about ownership, which as someone else pointed out, has been the same family for 90 years. So generally I was referring to ownership over the long term. Re the QB's - I gotta believe that at some point they could have gotten SOMEONE. What was that stat from years ago, the Bears had 23 something qb's while Favre was with GB. And there's no one else out there they could have signed that would have been better? They tried with Cordell Stewart. After that failure maybe that's why they didn't try again. Name successful FA QB's they could have thrown money at.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) How many times does a FA QB actually work? Warner? Yeah I'm trying to think of big-name FA QB signings. Teams don't let good QB's go to FA.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) This. Should the suspect's reputation factor into the investigation and any threshold? Absolutely not. Depends on the nature of the crime, but generally going to strongly lean no. another edit!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) love that macro