StrangeSox

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) Saw Dinner for Schmucks, I remember at least one or two posters here really didn't like that movie....but actually thought it wasn't bad at all, and definitely not a Steve Carell fan (unless it's offbeat like Little Miss Sunshine or Life of Dan). Really like Paul Rudd, Role Models and I Love You, Man are two of my favorite comedies of the last 5 years or so. If I remember correctly, he was also in Knocked Up, too. I know Katherine Heigl has a lot of haters these days (because of her movies and her "attitude" in interviews and a few controversial issues with Grey's Anatomy)....but I liked Knocked Up, and I'm really getting bored with Seth Rogen. The only thing I liked about Green Hornet was Cameron Diaz (horribly underutilized) and his tech-savvy sidekick, the famous Chinese singer Jay Chou. Christopher Waltz from Inglorious Basterds was a barely tolerable villain, seems like the role was way underwritten and he was trying to hard to force it, but not good at all. Definitely not the type of movie you pay $10 to see. I assume you mean "dan in real life." If so, all I can say is that that movie was absolutely terrible. Borderline unwatchable for me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) Across the board, all-department cuts of X% are ineffective and will make things worse, not better. You would be cutting 20% of some programs that actually help the economy and should be left alone... and cutting 20% of some agencies that should be cut 50% or eliminated all together. Its nonsensical, and the only reason its done in either the private sector of government is desperation and/or laziness. Thank you. Y2HH, I don't care if your company's management took the generally lazy, less-effective route instead of using this as an opportunity to cut inefficiencies and redundancies in the best possible way. Sure, when you make atb cuts, department heads are going to look to cut the waste out, so you may do some good. But you can also cut too much from departments, turning them non-functional or reducing their profitability. Or maybe Department X has 50% that can be cut (old methods, old technology, shrinking markets, etc.) while Department Y only really has 10% (newer tech, needs R&D money) they can cut without undermining their capabilities.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Tough titties as they say. Everyone else has suffered, those people can take a hit too. Uh, I think the people relying on government aid for sustenance and housing feel some suffering regardless of the economic situation. Because of the current economic situation, more people are having to rely on these programs just to get by. Cutting them will hurt the people who can afford it least.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) That "control" is a mirage. They only have as much control as you give them. If you want to do something with your Apple stuff, DO IT. It's not that hard. You can jailbreak their software, you can open up their phones, computers, pads and anything else they make and hack that, too. That voids the EULA and any sort of warranties, though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) ugh, if anyone is partaking in the Bill Simmons chat on espn.com, he's claiming (and defending) that the Bears/Packers aren't a "rivalry" I'm beginning to hate that ass hate more and more. It's too bad, he's really good at what he does, he's just an east coast masshole. Hmm, I seem to remember only one against Seattle. And plenty of QB's have dropped interceptions. Simmons seems like he's still riding the Cutler 2009 storyline, just being lazy. His arguments against Bears-Packers rivalry is just him making up a new definition for "rivalry"

Uh, what? I'd love to see the chat logs to see what the hell he's trying to claim as support for that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) I think most of the government programs in that list were programs where all the government has to decide is "do we hand out X or Y?" It's not a "how much money will we lose" analysis. Maybe significant cuts to domestic quality of life programs isn't a great idea during a substantial recession?

In good times, do companies perform "Across the board" investments? That would make no more sense than across the board cuts. It might not make sense to cut every single department by 20%--maybe some can really only afford a 15% without it significantly impacting functionality, but another could absorb 25%. "Dumb" cuts still just pass the responsibility of detailed analysis and may hurt the company more than analytical cuts.

Seems like a way for upper management to pass the buck of making hard decisions without actually examining if some departments are over-performing or under-performing.

There are reasons to use different shapes sometimes (some of the less common designs are stronger, accessibility, etc.), but in 99% of consumer products, there's no reason.

QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) Can we stop with the week 17 vanilla crap? Whatever happened in week 17, or week 3 means nothing to this game. The Patriots beat the Jets 45-3, then lost to them last week. The Bears lost to the Seahawks then beat them last week, the Packers lost Atlanta then beat them last week, and on and on and on......... I'm just so sick of heaing the we didn't try BS. It simply doesn't matter. That is a very good point. I didn't say the Bears didn't try in Week 17, though. Their defense played really well, and it just looked to me like the offense was trying some plays to test them. Not stupid gimmicky plays like the Forte pass, but seeing if they had improved enough to go back to some things they tried earlier in the season. They hadn't, and we didn't see Martz calling those plays again against Seattle.

Continuing the budget cuts talk from the ® thread, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews So, at least in the House, Republicans are again exempting a large portion of the budget from any serious consideration. Cuts will be in domestic programs, probably those that can least afford to be cut.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) The game comes down to turnovers. I guarantee that if Cutler doesn't throw a pick, the Bears are going to win this one. We should have solid field position all game long with our vast superiority on special teams. Protect the ball, kick the field goal, score the points, f***ing WIN. I really don't get why everyone (nationally) is dismissing the Bears. Yeah, they've been a bit of an enigma all season and yeah, the Packers have been playing very well in the playoffs. But the Bears lost to the Packers 10-3 in Week 17 at Lambeau in a game that didn't matter to them and the Packers had to win to get the wild card. And that was with Martz calling a bizarre game for whatever reason (vanilla? try to see if you can get those 7-step drop plays to work in a playoff atmosphere before a game that actually matters?) I wouldn't be surprised if the Bears lose this one, but I think they have a great chance of winning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) I fail to see why it's not sufficient for Congress to submit it's budget with a 20% across the board reduction or whatever to X department. You give the head of that department a heads up that he's going to get X amount total for the year, he/she will make the necessary changes. Congress doesn't need to appropriate a specific amount of staples the Department of Health and Human Services can purchase in order to effectuate a cut in government spending. How do you know if that 20% makes any sense at all, or if it will leave the department of X in shambles and functionally inoperable? I think you'd need to actually describe (at a high level, not detail) a hypothetical system, how checks would be performed, how it'd be enforced and what the penalties would be. The stigma against remotely-potentially-illegal workers depends on exactly what employers have to check and what penalties they face even if they make good-faith efforts (but the government believes and prosecutes otherwise). If hiring someone from Mexico who you believe to be legal exposes you to significant liability, the Mexican is at a severe disadvantage to someone born a US citizen. I think you sort of have that backwards, though. Barring the most recent and current economic situation, there's a supply-demand issue due to immigration laws. The only way to shore up the job situation is to staff those jobs with legal immigrants, migrants or citizens, but that doesn't seem possible given current immigration laws.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) What more do you need than reducing the budget for X department? They don't have to say what they're cutting (and/or not spending in the future), let the department head figure out the details. If you just give an "x dollars" or "x%" cut figure, you don't know what you're cutting. You're not really examining efficiency and necessity of programs. But this brings us back to the whole problem of causing stigma against hiring anyone who is an immigrant or might be an immigrant. How far does a company have to go to do due diligence to verify someone's visa or SSN is legitimate? How much more is that going to cost them than hiring someone with no potential immigrant ambiguity? You're also putting an expensive burden on any small businesses who may want to hire for low-wage jobs (typically what illegal immigrants are getting). Will a general contractor go through the time and effort to verify a bunch of laborers' backgrounds extensively at the risk of expensive litigation/fines, or will they just pass them over and hire the white guy who was born and raised here? This just creates a massive government program with no funding and shifts the burden to business at the risk of severe penalties.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 06:16 AM) The penalties in the first Packers game, it's not like those were ticky-tacky penalties. They were for the most part pretty blatant. They were for the most part caused by the O-line getting embarrassed by Peppers.

Republicans:Tea Party::Democrats:Al Qaeda So comparing any group to the Tea Party is just as bad as comparing them to Al Qaeda. Which says a lot for the tea party.

QUOTE (ChrisLikesBaseball @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Echoes is definitely their best work since Colour, but there's something about that spotless 90's rock production and tone that brings The Colour And The Shape to the top of my list. That record would make my top 5 of all time though, so it's hard to give any of their other work the right frame of mind. I always find myself saying "it's great, but it's not as good as The Colour And The Shape." It's the catch 22 of an album hitting the right spot in the right point in my life and knowing that it'll be nearly impossible for them to do that again. Pretty much my feelings as well. Echoes is a great album, but I still think TCATS is their best one and, like you, one of my favorite albums period. New teaser sounds promising.

Also, massive corn subsidies leading to high fructose corn syrup in most foods on store shelves.

QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) The best is Matt just saying "fine, go ahead and lawyer up" Referring to how Dan will always try to find technicalities to back his arguments....... He does love to rules-lawyer a lot of arguments. QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Going to Vanderbilt makes it kind of self-evident that you're not dumb Yeah, I'm assuming Vanderbuilt doesn't drop their standards, similar to ND or NW.

Vanguard's total market fund has done quite well for me over the last 18 months or so. Decent dividends, too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) So basically if someone else steals your bank information, writes it down on a piece of paper, and gives it to me (with me knowing that it was stolen), that is OK in your opinion? I'm not much of a lawyer, but that sounds like some sort of a crime to me. The NYT knew the Pentagon Papers were stolen and classified. I don't know the laws. The person who stole the information would be prosecuted. But what have you done wrong? Are you required to notify the police?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) How many examples of relevancy do there need to be to tell that it is relevant? More! I demand more! I think I understand where both sides are coming from here, I think you both have legitimate points. edit: I'd probably never vote for a Republican for any national office or probably even any state-wide office based on party stances. But does that trickle all the way down to local government in small to mid-sized cities and counties?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Abortion regulation is probably a more important local issue than a national one. Local areas are where things like parental notification laws, security for providers, etc., are decided. Energy policy is another one...some of the best areas in the country for renewable energy are areas covered by feed-in tariffs which are set locally. Gas blends and ethanol usage are set locally to control air pollution covering metropolitan areas. Ok, replace it with their opinion on Roe v Wade or some other higher-level-than-what-we're-talking-about issue.