Jenksismyhero

Then the legislators should change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court's decision for that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does? Why require citizenship? Why require a certain age limit? The voters will figure it out, right?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Why doesn't there seem to be any Tea Party candidates running? racist, redneck, hillybilly, uneducated haters of gays/blacks/browns/women make it tough to win.

I fail to see how this situation is one that the drafters of that legislation meant to exclude. He left town intending to work in DC for who knows how long. He might have intended to move back SOMEDAY, but clearly he moved back as soon as he heard Daley was leaving. Despite his connections and despite history, unless he was totally ignoring his responsibilities as chief of staff under Obama he missed out on a LOT of local issues that the people of the city were going through. Sorry, but this isn't some technicality, I think that's meaningful. The guy didn't step foot back in Illinois (save an Obama appearance here or there) during that time. I still maintain that such a ruling opens the door for unconnected rich folk to basically gamble at future political office depending on what district they think might open up (didn't Hillary do this in NY? Basically claiming that she "resided" there because they owned an apt and office?). They buy a house in X state, live in it temporarily (months), leave some "personal items" in the home, leave to work elsewhere, and then state that you had always intended to return.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) Since flying is not a right, I fail to see how he can win this. No one has ever said they would - outside the secure area, which is where this happened. So? Is driving a car a right?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) Chico becomes the favorite if Rahm is out. I actually agree with the Appelate court on at least one point - that the voter exemption is not the same, and cannot be the same, as the candidate exemption. I truly think Rahm would be the most effective person to hold that office, among the field. Chico just won't be as good. I don't see why not. Is he as connected? Probably not. But he's been a Daley appointee and has served on various boards and committees for the city and other big agencies. I was thinking that to be an effective mayor you need to be connected with everyone, but maybe an "outsider" is what the city needs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) What we saw in Moscow today proves to me that these body scanners are a waste of money. Stick to the metal detectors and x-ray machines and call it a day. Can't tell if you're being facetious, but it doesn't look like any kind of security was used. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110125/D9KVDG701.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) I ain't got time to pat down. I hope he wins.

I think Chico is your only other alternative. If Braun wins (and she's currently polling second behind Rahm)....ugh, God help us all. Every time that woman talks I feel dumber.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) According to Rahm's definition, my parents "resided" in my townhouse for a year until I bought it off of them. They never once slept a night in it, but they owned it. Right. If you took Rahm's argument, you could establish residence with the purchase of property. A rich person could buy a house in any district he might possibly want to run in, rent it out, keep some personal items in the home, and then occasionally tell people that he always plans to return one day to establish intent.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) The sticking point, in my opinion, is the national service clause. I think it applies to those who serve int he military or are ELECTED to higher office (Senator, Rep, President). But personally, i do not believe it applies to those who take jobs that happen to be for the government. The opinion is a good read, for those interested. As to this point, the exception doesn't and hasn't applied to candidates for office, only voters. They also went to pretty great lengths to review what "resides in" means (statutorily), and ruled that it actually means "to live in," not just keep some sort of tie to the location. I think it's a good ruling. We'll see what the SC says.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Guys, guys, the real kicker is Lol, that was great

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) We disagree on Inception, and that you don't understand how his sub-conscious can "infect", shows you missed a key understanding of the idea behind the movie. I don't mean it was good in some "it delivers a powerful message" sort of way...but it was great/spectaular to me because it was a new idea brought to the big screen which is nearly VOID of new ideas these days. Just because the run of the mill remark garbage seems to work for most people, doesn't make Inception overrated at all. I'm glad they made the movie on the scale it was made on, it was a huge risk, and I enjoyed it...and I welcome more like it. Better than 99% of the already been done remake garbage out there. Care to explain the subconsious bit then when they are in someone elses dream? And I agree 100% with your originality point. But I still think it was overrated by many.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) Phineas Gage.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) Gottleib spent a while on his show Wednesday trying to claim that it wasn't. It was a pretty bad argument. He also asserted that this will help all Big 12 schools because a "rising tide lifts all boats," but he never explained how the massive funding advantage for Texas really will benefit others. This guy brings up concerns I didn't even think of (the coverage of high school sports/recruits) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writ...s.tv/index.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) If you guys get to pretend fantasy cuts are possible, why can't I? Because one is a PROPOSAL and the other is supposedly something that's already happened. Are you seriously arguing this? Why?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) No more than there is to verify that a 20% across the board budget cut actually happened. How is this related at all? The % across the board cut is a proposal, not an actual line by line cut that Obama clearly did not do, despite what you provided.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) Yeah, they cut about $17 billion in year over year savings by doing so. Here's the press release version. Yeah I see a couple hundred million in "line by line" savings and the rest just government BS. 40 billion reduction in contract bids? Any way to actually verify that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) thanks. pretty fascinating that someone can live through that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) I REALLY loved Inception. LOVED. LOVED. LOVED. That is all. Meh, overrated IMO. Good, but not outstanding. Poor character development. I watched it a second time last week and really grew to hate all of the Mal/Cobb parts. Still don't understand how his sub-conscious can infect other peoples dreams. I enjoyed the South Park spin on it - just because you have a complex/confusing idea masked by really cool visuals (and music - ba ba ba ba ba baaaaaaa) doesn't make the movie great. Also, finally got to see The Town. I'd give it a B. Kept me entertained, but just a story without much impact. The Boston accents were fawkin brutal brah. Affleck's were weak in some scenes and fawkin ovah that tawp in othahs. Same with Blake Lively's character. Hamm had the best line when he was in the interrogation room and he mimicked Affleck's accent. Also did not care for the ending. Not much of a payoff for a jagbag character with little to no redeeming qualities.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) Very little has ever been done that way, in my voting lifetime. The one President who actually did do a little bit though? Obama, the "socialist". What is needed is a holistic review of all government agencies and programs, handled by private consulting practices that do NOT have business stake in those agencies, to determine where to find the efficiencies or cut departments as needed... and then do what they recommend. He did? And the review by a private company would never happen. Neither party would give up that control/opportunity to ridicule the other side.

That's an....interesting picture there. Not to be morbid or anything, but does anyone know exactly where/how she was shot through the head?

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. I dunno how cutting money from the budget in this fashion isn't a positive on some level. Is it the best way to do it? No. But we're dealing with the government here. Every dollar is necessary will always be the argument. I'd agree with a plan that can look department by department and put a percentage based on that. Wanna talk about a campaign promise that has NEVER been done - "i'll go through the budget, line by line, and make cuts." It's probably too impractical to do that. One side will find X line important, but the other won't. We all know this is just posturing. But it'll (hopefully) start a national discussion. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) 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" It's a pretty dumb argument. They've obviously not had the post-season rivalry that others teams have had. But that's due to the fact that for 60 years they could only play each other in the regular season, and the casual sports fan doesn't remember regular season games from year to year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Maybe significant cuts to domestic quality of life programs isn't a great idea during a substantial recession? Tough titties as they say. Everyone else has suffered, those people can take a hit too.