StrangeSox

Time to make some calls, people http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_info...te&Sort=ASC http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Same here, we rarely went to BB. There's still a Family Video in Woodridge that still seems like it does okay, but I haven't been there in years now.

"Asking for permission" sounds creepy; it isn't theirs to give.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 10:08 PM) Am I the only one who thinks that calling Rose (or anyone for that matter) a vagina is really really insulting to women? Using "vagina" and "p****" as emasculating slurs are sexist

I'm too young/not English to have much of an opinion. My thoughts are basically just a protection of Reagan onto her image

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) While I find history of literally needing permission outdated and disgusting, I think going over to parents before a proposal to let them know you are going to marry their daughter to be very worthwhile. It will probably be one of few times you will be alone with their parents and I think is a great start to what will be a crazy time. Pretty Much the same thoughts. Although it led to a funny situation on Christmas morning when my then-fiancée assumed her dad couldn't keep her mouth shut and walked up to her mom saying "well,i guess you know about this."

I told her father a week before when we were over there for dinner on a Saturday or Sunday night.

Not just refused to serve them, but had them throw perfectly good food into the trash because of account balances that are entirely outside of their control. How could this ever cross an adult's mind as a reasonable thing to do?

How does this even happen? Lunch denied to some Attleboro students Telling children to literally throw food away because their meals accounts didn't have enough money. WTF.

TNC has some thoughts as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...l-kelly/274696/

A Stupid Death in a Stupid War: Remembering Michael Kelly

I dunno where exactly to put this, but Margaret Thatcher has died: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2013 -> 06:40 PM) Well yeah, a drop in workforce participation starting in the mid-late 2000's was predicted in what, the 1960's? This is also true of the increased disability claims. We are not to far off of the predictions made in the 90's, about 10% high thanks to this prolonged slump

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 6, 2013 -> 06:32 PM) It is also worth pointing out that just because you lose your job, doesn't move you from the workforce participation number. It just makes you unemployed. Really your government layoffs scenario has no bearing on this number. I think we are talking about different things. I was responding to bmags/cknolls/lostfan and the broader idea of austerity vs. stimulus, not saying that the government job cuts explain the work force participation numbers. To some extent, the drag all of these cuts has had on the economy is related, but i wasn't making that point.

What period are you referring to? I'm referring to the pattern for over more than two years now.

Yup. edit: that doesn't change the fact that we've still been cutting tens of thousands of government jobs over the past few years and that reduced federal spending has been a drag on the economy

Not really, but ok.

Yup. It was probably a really, really dumb idea to scale back government spending and let huge numbers of government employees get laid off, having the government be a huge drag on the economy instead of a booster for it.

we should probably have a clear and efficient way of making sure they don't get guns, then.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Which is crap because we still don't do direct diplomacy and haven't for a long time. It's pretty simple - we talked and they balked, we stopped talking and they balked. At the end of the day they keep providing weapons/training to terrorist groups and continue building their nuclear capabilities and we don't do anything about it but give them MORE money/food/oil whatever. Well, we were in the 90's and it appeared to work very, very well into Bush came in with his terrible "axis of evil" stuff and, of course, the invasion of Iraq. After that sort of rhetoric and action, wouldn't you begin making it as costly as possible for the US to invade if you were the DPRK?

Why bother? They're doing fine right now without initiating a power struggle that could fracture the government, as Obama hoped would happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Which I don't get. Is he not the supreme leader? I mean, I get the military officials have the "guns" but if Kim Jong Un/Il were thought of so highly, why not get rid of those officials? It's like they're trying to appease those guys when there shouldn't be any reason to do so. That would quickly result in a military coup.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Rodman already provided the solution - Obama just needs to make a phone call and start talking basketball. By the way, I'm a HUGE fan of guys like Kerry, and Obama to a lesser extent, now openly talking about doing "anything" to secure our relationship with South Korea and protecting our interests there. Remember when these guys said they would just pick up the phone and schedule a face to face meeting? A little more difficult to say those things when you're a candidate as opposed to the President/Sec of State. thought this was relevant from lostfan's link: edit: the article does make is clear that, while Bush's Korea policy was inexplicably dumb, Obama's policy was bad as well.

Well plus the new kid on the block trying to assert his domestic authority over the long-time officials there.

People have been whining about "Obama doesn't have a budget!" and "the Senate hasn't passed a budget in years!" since 2009, though.