StrangeSox

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 04:37 PM) I agree in concept. But in reality that would get absolutely nothing done. I'm from a rural area here in Illinois. Believe me I want all views represented. Illinois politics is ruled by Chicago because of this. However, too many people trying to make one decision will lead to more indecision and no action. That is generally how Congress functions, not with super committees. Edit: there are always sub-committees, but these "super committees" are distinctly different and empower only a handful of non-democratically selected members over everyone else.

I'm not terribly convinced by her argument there

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) In other words, they don't have the votes to pass ANY tax increase. It's pretty amazing that even the RINO's are holding out - Boner only needs 20 votes to cover his Nancy Pelosi stance, right? A tax increase already happened at midnight. It's done. Now they're talking about tax cuts.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) I understand the sentiment that everyone should be represented however, nothing would ever get done. It's hard to get anything done with 10 people in one meeting let alone 100. But that is our form of representative government. I don't feel that i should lose my representation in Congress and be left only with someone to vote "yes/no" on major bills.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) Stick the President (not his advisors), and a few leaders of each party from each chamber (not THEIR advisors), in a room, with food, water, computers, pens and papers (and maybe a port-a-potty), and don't let them the f*** out until they have come to a solution on ALL the things in the cliff list I mentioned above. And not something for a year - I mean non-time-limited changes for all of it. That's what I'd love to see. Yes, I know that won't happen. I'm just pissed. Meantime, Joe Biden can keep the ship running, which should be motivation enough for all involved to get it done as quickly as humanly possible. why should the process of governing be less democratic and less represenative? Why shouldn't everyone's Senators and Representatives have input into the process instead of just a select handful?

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 11:32 PM) Django was indeed awesome. I have never been in a 3 hour movie and hoped it wouldn't end so soon before. Django owned. Funniest scene was the scene with the bags.

if those 40,000 people had all been armed, this never would have happened.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) i wanna know what the hell she THOUGHT was gonna happen... opening up the plastic wrap like that... also i dream of booking a job like that some day. the pinnacle of every actor's career. I'm sure it's from some infomercial for a "better" product

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) Jumping from one crisis to another because Congress votes for laws that create crises is literally insane. this can't be said enough. The original "debt ceiling" bulls***, the "fiscal cliff," the upcoming second round of debt ceiling bulls***--all of these are problems invented entirely by Congress. There is no reason for them to exist. At all.

that gif cracks me up

we were going to have a party, but there were too many conflicting schedules and sick kids so we called it off. Instead, we're going to see Django Unchained and drink a bottle of champagne.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 08:06 PM) Hillary Clinton admitted to NY hospital with a blood clot. another part of the diabolical benghazi coverup!

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) It's pretty much a lock that the rule will change in the offseason. They will keep the penalty, but the "unable to review" portion will be gone. They need to modify it to accommodate this specific challenge flag issue, but the rule is in place for good reason. I posted it back after the lions game. Essentially, they want to stop a team from committing a penalty to delay the game to have more time to challenge (preventing a quick snap). It's a broad rule that applies to any penalty, not just disallowed challenges.

Tim Jennings turned into one hell of a CB this year

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) Just a horrible decision. Horrible coaching. tice is really just not good at his job(s)

bears will lose on a late field goal

It took them a few decades to get around to that, and even with 1/3 of the most pro-slavery members leaving they had a hell of a time abolishing slavery.

oh so you're in a typical "early 20's white dude" libertarian phase, cool

Taxes on the importing of tea: Throw the tea into the harbor! Water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants! Slavery: Now lets all calm down and discuss this like reasonable men.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 03:30 AM) Wanna make a quick buck? Buy a spent AT4. Its an anti-tank launcher, you can pick up used ones for like $50 from crazy surplus dudes. After its first (and only) use its completely harmless. Go to a gun buyback and sell it, you'll get $200. Rise, wash, repeat. If Chicago ever has a gun buyback I'm going to do this. The idiocy of liberals and their failed ideas sometimes work out. hey remember when you started a thread saying how you'd vote for rahm? good times.

DDR trains you to be a killer....on the dance floor

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) Blaming a guy who posts somewhere around once a month? Now that is pretty funny. he had his own catch phrased coined!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. I'll paid attention to some supposed decorum about hyperbole once kap stops posting here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:08 PM) Yep. Same as the "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid" line you had the other day. It's pointless having a debate with you when you come from that kind of position. you mean the one where I had been talking about wayne lapierre's dumb arguments and never said "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid?" That one?