Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) No it's not. They are free-market ideology evangelists who believe that less regulations and more corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich are the solutions to the world's problems. I don't think they're evangelists and I don't know that they'd necessarily agree with less regulation (which is broad). They're anti-government intervention and pro free-market.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) The people they elected were more corporate friendly than the ones they replaced! Eh, debatable. But in the end it doesn't matter because they still caved to corporate interests, as well as their own.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) LOL what do you think the FF's were? Only white, land-owning males were allowed to vote, and Madison explicitly stated that the point of the Senate was to protect the "natural aristocracy" from the peons, at least in his view. Yeah, in that sense you're right. I guess I was meaning more that today's politics you have a douche (rich) or a turd sandwich (rich) who create policy for the rich. The belief that average American's can be adequately represented is completely gone. That was my big enthusiasm for the tea party. In such a short time people banded together and got people elected. Shoot, even with Obama I was hoping he would be like that. But then they get to Washington and those dreams die.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) I had hoped we could all agree that a bunch of politicians getting an animal that's a nuisance to their farmer buddies pulled off the endangered species list as part of a budget bill was deplorable. Right, but if we're just arguing economics then why's it so bad?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives? Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter. Glad you've made the decision of "life" for everyone. I think an anti-abortion person would argue you have them backwards. And I see both sides of the argument here. I just don't think it's as easy a decision as you are making it out to be. Couldn't I use the same economic argument on say, supporting the de-listing of the grey wolf? It's saving the country money. Why not let the government decide if the species is really endangered or not?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) No it presupposes that the mother is making an informed decision. Im advocating that if the mother wants an abortion, she gets counseling about abortion vs adoption vs raising the child and then gets to make her decision. Its up to the mother/father to determine the psychological affect. I certainly know that if my girlfriend had an abortion when I was 21 it would have a lot less psychological impact than if she had a baby. Sure you think about what if some times, but a lot of those times you realize those what ifs were horrible results. Everyone should be able to make up their own mind about whether they want to bring another life into this world, Im not going to second guess someone if they want to have every child, or if they want to abort every child. Its your life, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. But whether the decision is an informed one or not doesn't relate to whether the government should be funding it in the first place.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Huh? So, you think people plan to get pregnant so they can have abortions? What? How do you get that out of what I said? I'm saying that based on my understanding of the goal of PP when it was started (to counsel women/couples about pregnancy and to provide means to prevent pregnancy until they are ready) abortion doesn't really fit into that. I'm not discounting that lots of advising goes on before deciding to get an abortion. And no doubt PP's goals probably include that now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) I'd be curious to hear a legal professional's view on my earlier post. Do you not see a danger in the US Congress legislating what should be scientific decisions on status of species under ESA (as related to 5A takings clause)? Oh no, I absolutely agree with you guys here. It's a terrible precedent, but so is most of what the government is doing these days. We've completely bastardized the intentions of the FF's. Some positive things have happened, sure, but I don't think we have the representative government we were supposed to have. In fact most of the FF's had fears of what we have right now - a ruling elite, lack of representation, too much federal power, too much governmental intervention, etc.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) Right because in general Planned Parenthood helps people who are planning to be parents. They also help discuss the pros and cons of parenting with those who arent sure. And in some cases where the people have no interest in children at all, they perform abortions. Thats why its called Planned Parenthood, because they help you develop a plan. Pretty sure abortion is the end of the plan. Not much to plan for at that point. Hence my point about it being ironic.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) id bet that Nixon would say "Damn hippies" and shake his fist violently. I guess the problem people will always have with me in any PP debate, is that I dont think there is anything wrong with abortion. I think for most people they are a valuable life lesson, $1 for a condom or $500+ for an abortion procedure. And even if I assume that my tax dollars are paying for abortions, Id rather pay a one time fixed cost of $500, then potentially have to pay for the rest of my life. I'm not anywhere near the far right on this issue. But I think abortions should be an absolute last resort. I can't do a simple cost evaluation on something like that. This view completely ignores the psychological affect it has on the mothers, even if it is in their best economic interest to have it done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) "Republican argument" = "blatant lie" Yeah, not what I was saying. But good try.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) Broad statistical generalization not found in evidence. I was actually referring to the fact that most abortions are "mistakes" instead of planned (i.e., in cases of health of the mother, rape, etc).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Good, exactly where I wanted you to go...the government has every right to decide not to contribute to Planned Parenthood, just as the government has every right to decide not to contribute to the Boy Scouts. The government can also base its decisions for who to contribute to on the behavior or effectiveness of that organization. If the government wants to stop contributing to Planned Parenthood based on what they're doing with private donations, this is entirely reasonable. The government can also tell PP that it will only contribute to PP under certain circumstances. What the government cannot do is tell PP what it can or can't do with privately raised funds as a matter of law. This brings us to the real issue...why does government money flow to PP in the first place? The answer is...because it works. The Nixon administration was the one that started it, and the reason why he started it was that the government was spending a ton of money providing healthcare and child-bearing services to people who were left behind and uninsured. By increasing the funding for PP, the government made it so that more women were getting those services...cancer treatment rates improved, child development was improved, unwanted pregnancies were dropped. The government gave them money because that money was being well spent...it was saving the taxpayers money in other places. If the government wanted to, it could instead of funding PP, set up its own version of PP that did not provide abortion services. However, first, doing that nationwide will cost a hell of a lot more money than just using PP's already existing network, the Feds wouldn't have the already-established PP name to work with, and it's very likely that funding for that organization would be subject to the whims of whoever took office...such that clinics would be opening and closing every few years, a total mess. The government funds PP because it saves the taxpayers money, it makes people healthier, and it works. If the government wants to spend more money and have more premature births or dead mothers, it is the Republicans right to demand that, and it's equally my right to say "You do this and you kill women and babies, and you waste money to do it." because I'm fully accurate in saying so. I always find it funny that we talk about PLANNED Parenthood and funding a program to erase "parenthood" mistakes (in most cases). I think you're right with a lot of what you say, but I wonder what the Nixon era politicians would say when told that PP now performs 330K abortions a year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) I'm pretty sure our government is irreparably broken. I thought government was the answer to everything?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) Don't read a thing into this type of poll this far out. Seriously. The Obama approval rating might be meaningful, but there's still 8+ months before Florida votes and 95% of the candidates haven't announced yet. The low numbers for Palin might also be meaningful since she's been such a national figure. The others? Trump is up at the top because he has name recognition amongst low-information voters. Huckabee campaigned there last time and there's a hangover. At this point in 2007, Rudy 91u1iani was out to a total and insurmountable lead. He wound up spending $50 million per delegate that he won. Yeah that's probably true.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) By this logic, the Cavaliers were a great team the past two seasons. You absolutely have to win in the playoffs to be considered great. No one is going to care that the Bulls had 4 more wins than the Heat and 5 more wins than the Celtics (obviously there are two games left) if one of those latter teams makes the Finals. My initial argument was meant more towards what Steve was talking about - that it's refreshing for a modern day NBA "team" to be a "team" again, and not just a "team" consisting of a superstar playing one on five (like the Cavs). In that respect, they're a "great team." But whatever, good, great, fantastic....they're fun to watch and have had a "great" year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) So the Spurs have a better record in arguably a tougher conference, but they are only "good"? Yeah, I suppose you got me there. I guess I only consider them "good" because they're not at full strength, but they have been impressive.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) I also agree with Balta. The word great gets thrown around so much...great NBA teams to me are the Bird Celtics, Magic Lakers, Olajuwon Rockets, Thomas Pistons, Duncan Spurs and these Lakers, you gotta win more than one title or at least make it to a few finals to be great IMO...the 2006 Heat were the best team that year but great?Naw. I'm not saying that they're an all-time great team, but they can be "great" in comparison to other "good" teams like the Heat or Spurs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) Two pieces of good news in there... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...n-florida-poll/ My "republican" party is so f***ed when Huckabee and Trump score better than Newt and Pawlenty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Stop calling the Bulls great until they earn it. Please. They're the best in the East and are a game away from having the best record in the league. IIRC their record against contenders is better than anyone else. They've earned that. They don't have to win out for them to be considered great this year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) The 3rd best record in the league? They aren't gonna win 70 games like they thought, but I wouldn't say it's not working too well. But that's the point, everyone assumed they'd be this juggernaut that would rip threw everyone. They're good, yeah, but not great. Great is here in Chicago, where you've got an actual team that plays like a team.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) This has been the most enjoyable basketball season of my entire life. Derrick Rose is MY player, dammit. I was 8 years old when the Bulls won in 91. I grew up knowing the Bulls as great. Jordan always "was". I stuck with the Bulls, like many and few at the same time, through the thin of the post-Jordan era. If I saw him on the street, there's a chance I'd murder E-Rob. Anyway, I am mystified with how great this team has become. It has restored my faith in the game and the NBA system. A well-coached team of "good guys" who buy into the system, behind and up-and-coming home-grown superstar, CAN have the best record in the Eastern Conference. The playoffs are going to be a different beast entirely, but I feel good about this team against anyone. The roster is even deeper than the Lakers, and they all play hard. I cannot wait for the playoffs. Bring me the Pacers. Agreed, especially when the "stacked" talent model in Miami isn't working too well. Speaking of Rose, this was fun to watch: http://www.nba.com/video/channels/original...rose_top10.nba/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) While the majority of people currently seem to think government spending needs to be cut and that the size of government should shrink, not everyone feels that way. There are plenty of people who either say current budget deficit problems in the middle of a bad recession are overblown and can be fixed by simple GDP growth or that the funding gap should be fixed by changes in the tax code to eliminate subsidies for and raise taxes on the super wealthy. Instead the focus from both sides is a various mix of cutting a bunch of social programs for the poor, cutting environmental funding, cutting science funding, cutting education and maintaining or increasing subsidies for oil companies and enacting deep cuts in the estate tax. But the GOP and the newly elected congressmen in particular are being transparently terrible. Oh, well if we can just flip that switch why don't we? I hate that the GOP is taking this stance without even questioning defense cuts or medicare/medicaid/ss cuts, but at least they're doing SOMETHING. Wtf have the dems proposed? As usual, nothing. Also, as I've said before, tax the piss out of the rich. I'm still not understanding why both sides are so against this issue (except that'd hurt all of the people that put them in office). It's too bad us peons can't be a little more vocal about that.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) There are legitimate arguments against Rose winning the MVP but I'm going to be pissed if Thibodeau doesn't win coach of the year. His defensive philosophies are simply incredible and has been the biggest reason for the Bulls improvement this year (obviously Rose becoming a legit superstar played a large part as well). Problem is that the coaching race is closer. How can you leave out a guy like Popovich considering he's working with 3 geriatric patients and still has the best record in the league? Or a guy like Doug Collins who has a bunch of nobodies in the playoffs? Or even Karl who lost his best player and has been going on a nice run? Thibodeau has been great (best first year for a coach ever right?), but I wouldn't be nearly as pissed if someone else wins than if someone else wins the MVP award. I'm with you, I think Thibs should win it, but IMO that's a closer race than MVP.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) Sadly, I tuned in because, well, my wife likes bad reality television. The inexcusably obese couple with a grocery store's worth of junk food hoarded was hilarious. Getting ready for a "party" with string cheese and antacids. Good times. It's an obsession, and those fat f***s are wasting people's time and resources. If they went straight to donation after that I'd respect them, but they are just stock-piling junk food and getting even fatter. That huge b**** was 24. TWENTY FOUR. She looked 40. Yeah, but how much did they SAVE?! I wanted to check this out because my wife and I use a handful of coupons and save about 10 bucks. I want to know how they're buying all that food for a buck. One of the commercials the chick was paid for her groceries, which made no sense.