Jenksismyhero

I don't know of any conservative who completely ignores prior deficits and places the blame solely on Obama. I think the issue is raising those deficits to historical levels going forward.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) Never said the US didn't have Debt.. Then explain how Reagan was the first President to turn the US into a debtor.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 10, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) What does that have to do with Reagan's failures? I'm correcting your ridiculous statement that Reagan was the first to make the US a debtor. That's simply not true. Not sure why you have such a hard-on for dismissing Reagan as a good President, but at least make truthful statements to support your argument.

Young for Illinois is gonna be a star in this conference I think. Very impressive moves for a freshman.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:45 PM) You do realize that Reagan was the first US president that turned the country from a creditor to a debtor, after this fail economy polices..? And what I mean is, we use to be able to lend to other countries, like China is now doing to us. Reagan's "Reaganonmics" stopped all of that. Clinton was given a huge mess from the 12 years of Bush and Reagan.. and was able to end up with a surplus when he was finished. And a BJ as well LOL! I will give you Reagan was a cheerleader, when we needed a leader. Carter told the country, look you can't spend your way to happiness, the country went FU and elected a guy who went.. sure you can. Carter told the truth, and the country, don't want to hear that we are in trouble. And you realize our country was started with massive debt right?

In other completely asinine policies at schools: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,1170257.story I guess because 8th graders shouldn't be exposed to the word boobies? This country is so f***ing dumb sometimes.

This reminds me a lot of the NFL lockout.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) Democrats tend to idolize JFK as an optimistic visionary, and both sides generally idolize Lincoln and deify the founders. I think that's fundamentally different from how the modern GOP treats Reagan, though. They don't just use him as a shining exemplar of Republicanism, but actively want to embrace the same policies and ideals he did (or at least they now believe/say he did). You don't really see the same for any other President. You hear a lot lately about Clinton-era tax levels etc. etc. as pushback against the GOP's incessant call for more tax cuts always, but Clinton himself isn't pointed to as a mythical figure who saved America. I think FDR is often used by liberals in the same way people use Reagan. But of course Reagan is going to get the lions share of attention since he's the most recent President to really change the course of the country.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) 100% Agree, look how the GOP portrait Reagan as some "god", and how great he was... When in reality, Carter was better, the problem was.. Carter had a crappy situation that was out of his control, which improved dramatically under Reagan.. And what I am talking about is the Oil issue, of OPEC. This made me spit up my coffee in laughter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) And you guys think "Being able to have an infected tooth treated so you don't die" is a luxury item. When did I say that?

Dude, you're never going to win this argument. They think that having a cell phone is mandatory in today's society. Xbox's and multiple tv's and premium cable aren't luxury items.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) I know this is a tangent, but how surreal was it when the Cory Lidle accident happened? I remember heard that a plane crashed into a New York City building and thinking, "Not this again." Then finding out that it was a small passenger plane, and eventually that it was Lidle at the wheel. I had the same thought when that plane landed in the Hudson. I thought passengers successfully fought off an attack and the pilot was able to land the plane safely.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 06:15 PM) I'm not quite sure what this response is supposed to mean or address, other than being an obvious dodge of the issue. I thought it was pretty clear. I think you're creating this issue because of a bias you have towards anything pro-conservatives or pro-GOP. At the end of the day the edit didn't change anything. You're assuming that people that watch Fox News are too stupid to realize that the call to war didn't actually mean war with guns and violence, but a war against an ideology by way of political action. Until you can present me with someone on Fox News saying "here's the clip of a union thug, stay in your homes. Those union thugs are coming after you with their bats to change your mind" this is just some bulls*** point-the-finger nonsense.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) This really made no sense when taking into account what you bolded and quoted. Oops, sorry. I was going to respond to the bolded but decided not to. Fixed now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) keep making excuses for deliberating editing context out of the middle of statements to make them appear worse than they are to fit the network's standard "union thugs" narrative. Yes, a change from "let's take them out by voting!" to "let's take them out!" is substantial since the latter implies violence that the former does not. This isn't actually a big deal because Fox doesn't really have any journalistic integrity. I posted it in response to someone else pointing out how the left uses such violent rhetoric, since it turns out that in at least this instance the actual, unedited statement is a lot more innocuous than the misleading edit that generated so much OUTRAGE! on rightwing blogs/radio/TV Keep creating irrelevant issues to support your clear and obvious bias towards anything conservative. We're all out to get you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) Uh, they intentionally edited out a key portion of the quote in order to change the apparent message. They didn't cut the quote short or start it late, they removed a single sentence from the middle which gives context to the entire metaphor from something violent to clearly about voting. If that sentence stays in, Fox's standard dumb narrative of "union thugs call for violence!" falls apart. It's not like LGF is some lefty blog here, either. Fox News didn't point out any hypocrisy, they manipulated a video and lied to further a narrative. So the change from "Union leader calls for war against the tea party" to "union leader calls for war against tea party by getting out to vote" is a big change in the narrative? Come on. You're reaching. No sane person believed that Hoffa was truly calling for physical violence to combat the GOP or conservative-minded people. That's asinine. Edit: even by responding i'm making a bigger deal out of it than this "issue" warrants. At the end of the day Hoffa said we need to go to war against the tea party. Obama, we are your army, lets go. Fox News' coverage was basically "oh s***, our audience is tea partiers, we should report on the fact that the union is calling for a war against our audience."

And really I don't see the outrage over Fox News there. Does anyone (including Fox News) really think Hoffa was calling for people to pick up their guns and start a civil war? It was all rhetoric. But since liberals are excused from using that kind of rhetoric whenever it suits their message, Fox News rightly pointed out the hypocrisy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) Leaving the opportunistic over-reaction to violent metaphors aside for a moment, you're ignoring that Fox intentionally edited the clip by removing a sentence from the middle in order to forward their narrative of "union thugs" by completely removing the context for the metaphor. That's a pretty egregious violation of ethical standards for reporting. The Palin thing stuck out because her map specifically called out Giffords with a cross-hair. Having that come to mind and saying "hey, maybe we should be a little more careful with violent metaphors" isn't exactly unreasonable, but the "OMG! Palin's stupidity got giffords shot! End all violent metaphors now!" reaction was dumb. I hold my breath waiting for you to chastise MSNBC or CNN (whoever it was) that called Perry racist by talking about a "black cloud" of debt we're under.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) I feel like that movie has been made a few times already. Looks a lot like Outbreak with Hoffman. Replace a town with the world...same idea.

I was a sophomore in college working my student job at my school's library. I remember someone coming up to my little department and saying there had been a terrible accident and that a plane had hit the one tower. I remember getting on cnn.com and checking out what happened, thinking it was just some terrible, unfortunate accident. Then in what, like 10-15 minutes the second tower was hit and I knew something was up. The head librarian pulled up a tv and turned the news on and everyone stopped working/studying to watch. Probably 20-30 people huddled around the tv. I remember people gasping and being in utter disbelief when the towers actually fell about an hour later. I think my boss at the time basically said, go home, we're not going to finish work today. The rest is sort of a blur since I was basically glued to a tv watching 24/7 news coverage for the next week. I do remember one vigil that was held in the middle of our campus. I went to Illinois Wesleyan, which is pretty small (2k student body), and it seemed like nearly everyone showed up to light a candle and pray or have a moment of silence. It was pretty moving. It's pretty mind boggling to me that it's been 10 years already. Seems like about 3-4 years max. Edit: Oh and I'll remember that my parents were flying back home that morning from California. I don't really remember ever being concerned that something happened since the news was pretty quick about reporting where the flights originated from. But it was a tense few hours before I heard from them. They were diverted to Colorado and were stuck there for a few days. I remember my dad telling me how crazy the air bases were in Colorado Springs. Lots and lots of air force activity going on. They eventually had to take a rental car and drive back to Chicago.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) Big 10 is not going to add Pitt, unless the expansion is to 16 teams and the Big 10 misses on all of its first choices. Right now Id expect the Big 10 to do nothing unless Texas goes to the Pac. If only OU, OSU, KU and MU go to the Pac, I really doubt the Big 10 does anything. If you read the tea leaves from Delany they are looking for "quality not quantity" and could have expanded to 16 last year if they wanted. What that means to me is that teams that the Big 10 could have added last year (MU, KU) do not necessarily interest Delany so much to increase the conference size right now. My guess is that the Big 10's preference is to wait until they go to the 9 game schedule (which should be around the same time that their major network deals expire) before they expand further. Unlike the Pac who can easily break into a East/West and only screw ASU/UofA (and im not sure the Cali schools even care about them), the Big 10 really has no good way to split into 8 team divisions without breaking old rivalries. Even at 9 games youd be looking at the following. 7 in division games, 2 out of division. 1 of those would most likely be "protected rivalry" meaning that some schools wouldnt play for 6-7 years at a time. That may be fine for the SEC/Pac but I think most Big 10 fans want to see Big 10 rivalries keep playing. This. I hate the idea of super conferences. You're going to have a lot of TCU to the Big East type situations, where the geography makes no sense. Why sacrifice 100 years of great tradition just to make more money (that you don't even really need since the Big Ten rakes it in already)?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) Also, what do you guys think about BAC? Is that a stock that will keep going down or is it a decent risk at under $7 a share. I've been debating this for a while now since it's so cheap. The big cash infusion from Buffet seems like a ringing endorsement.

Is Sons of Anarchy worth getting into? My wife and I are looking for a new show and that one has been around long enough that people must like it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Not only that, but how do Gus and Mike connect, along with Saul. That is an odd combo of people. Breaking Bad this weekend was amazing. Interesting how much Gus and his partner starting out mirrors how Walter and Jessie started out (with a bang).

Is there any doubt now that Breaking Bad is the best show on tv, not only for the writing, but also for the acting. Aaron Paul. My God. That scene at the church meeting was epic.