MexSoxFan#1

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Sep 9, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) That's what I've been waiting on my whole life. I love having a legit #1 WR. THIS

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) I think democrats need to realize there was a football game on last night. I highly doubt the clinton speech changes the election. I agree, but that's where having a former president with an almost 70% approval ratings will help us. Obama gonna unleash Bubba on the battleground states from here to election day, I'm sure he can deliver enough white working class votes to the Obama column to win a majority of those states... We got this.

QUOTE (Zoogz @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:21 PM) It does but it doesn't at the same time... Harder to sustain: due to the fact that capital can be moved very easily and hidden just as easily (Romney plus practically every other multi-millionaire in the country), it's hard for the IRS to find and tax all of the possible revenue. This is mainly a function of how much political will goes into finding and taxing all of the routes capital takes and also how much political will is spent in making a tax code that is flexible enough to find and close loopholes like the ones that leveraged buyout firms used to deduct bonds used to raise money (vis-a-vis raising capital, which would be taxed). In our post-Citizens United world, where the Supreme Court tells us that the money will not lead to corruption... it's awfully easy to donate a lot of money to certain figures so that audits can be easily forgotten. Easier to sustain: The minority in question actually gets rewards for gaining this minority status... they become rich! There's a very large incentive to be able to pay more money to the government, they have more money in their pocket to begin with. I would argue that people who are rich absolutely use more of the country's (read: the commons') resources by being rich too, so it isn't as if they are not getting any return on taxes. Labor absolutely needs capital or labor can't work. I would argue that capital needs labor just as much, as we've been in a system for quite a while now where we've allowed capital to try to beget capital (hedge funds, leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, etc.) and society as a whole hasn't exactly made out well. It is clear that financiers rather than industrialists control this country. Ask an industrialist who has to remain competitive what would be best for her (or his) company, and you would find that they want: 1. Vibrant markets... capital in many hands makes for more possible buyers. 2. A healthy labor force... makes for better quality, less turnover means less training. 3. A smart labor force... will be able to help your company grow by tapping new markets, designing new products, finding new uses for existing products (think about the Arm & Hammer people) How do we get those? By offering good wages, making sure that good health facilities are available (and cutting pollution), and making sure that schools are well-run and able to teach children. Financiers (the "too big to fail" sort) on the other hand want: 1. Limited markets... makes them easier to manipulate (think LIBOR scandal) 2. An unhealthy labor force... paying doctors with credit cards means that banks get to keep extracting money from you, and retirement is the way that you get to keep your wealth... if you die in your prime earning years, you may have built a nest egg but you aren't getting it. 3. Dumb people... how many of the people here know how CDOs or derivatives work? Heck, who here even knows ALL of the causes of the 2008 meltdown? (No, Fannie/Freddie do not get 100% of the blame). Vibrant markets, healthy/smart citizenry, health care, etc... none of it comes from the government. On the other hand, none of it comes from business either... it's a partnership. The USA proved that prosperity could be grown with a partnership of both actors for many decades in the last century. I am no communist, as you cannot get a (full) vibrant market from government involvement alone. Dictatorships only work if the dictator is benevolent and literally cares about others over themselves... and I challenge you to find even a king (much less a 19th-20th century dictator) that fits that description. On the other hand, we have had school systems for a very long time that have worked except for the fact that money is being extracted from districts at a frightening pace. At this time, I truly feel that we have a financial sector that is the first one at the government trough and is pushing everyone else out of the way. On top of that, they keep all the rewards and give us the bill for all risks. There's a reason that our government was set up with checks and balances, it guaranteed that one branch would never have primacy over another. We need that in our private sector right now. In the meantime, yes, it would be great to increase taxes on the rich... they are absolutely using more of this country's services and most (not all) have proven that they are happy to collect rents rather than to grow our economy. The rich are also happy to move their wealth where it can't get taxed and to try to use strategies that lawyers and accountants create to avoid taxes that are not necessarily legal (example: the "Son of Boss" Marriott tax strategy). When >90% of the wealth creation goes to the upper 20%, then they should have to give the rest of the country some sort of compensation for that awesome privilege. (...pant, pant, pant.... ) FTW

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 08:09 AM) Awesome rebuttal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 08:26 AM) There's a whole page in the platform devoted to a discussion of "Faith" and the Republicans whipped up their usual media firestorm because it didn't use the word they chose, and then the convention had to pause to re-edit the platform to shut down a stupid Republican media firestorm. I'd have booed too. This So sick of rightwing Christians trying to impose their version of God on everyone. Their version of God loves waging wars, doesn't care about the poor and the sick (every man for themselves!), and hates gay people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) Which prisoners are ok to rape and hitch aren't? We need to know the rules here, and you've decided that you're a good person to judge, so please let us know when it's ok. Those scumbags who rape women or children is a great start...

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:04 AM) This about sums it up. And why does everyone care so much what the candidates' wives are saying? Is Michelle Obama going to go up there and say, "It's been a rough four years. I love Barrack, but who knows if he should be President again."? I for one cannot wait until the election is over. I'll cast my pointless vote for Obama, and I hope he wins. But I'm getting to the point to where I'm starting to dislike a lot of the people I'm "friends" with on Facebook because all they post is political bulls***. They find a picture on of the candidates with a grumpy look on his face and then post something about how bad the economy is or how X number of companies have gone bankrupt. Here's the thing: The President can only do so much. There's the Senate and the House that have a ton of power. All of these people out there that think that electing Romney is going to change the economy around immediately and make things better for them personally are crazy. Every candidate makes a metric s***-ton of promises, and very few are kept. Why? Because it's not that simple to bring the troops home, lower the debt, increase education spending, deal with immigration, etc. The President can't just bark orders and have a bunch of people running around saying "Yes, Sir." I could go on and on, but I'm just tired of this crap. This thread is another example of the crap we have to deal with. Who cares what Michelle Obama said. It was a great speech to those who like Obama, and it was a terrible speech to those who don't. Truth I'm not making excuses for President Obama but it's pretty tough to work with the oppo when one of their leaders, Mitch McConnell goes around openly admitting that their number 1 political goal is to make Obama a one term president. This do nothing congress should be ashamed of themselves that they make it a priority to stymie the President on every single issue over the good of the nation. If Romney wins (I doubt it), hopefully the Dems act like adults and work with the WH to get the country going again, either that or they act like the GOP and also try to make Romney a one termer and the nation will suffer from it like it has with this idiot congress.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) Colbert on Julian Castro, Joaquin Castro - "Call me racist, but I can't even tell these Hispanics apart" I lol'd

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) Axl is very much alive. Washed up, but alive. Washed up because he wants to be, if that nutjob would get Slash, Izzy and the rest of the gang back together again, I bet they could recapture some of that ol' magic.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 02:14 AM) As expected ... the Democrats in the media slobber over Obama's speech. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The First Lady not hitting a home run, but probably a Grand Slam." NBC's Chuck Todd: "Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the convention in Tampa." CNN analyst David Gergen: "If they have two more nights like this, they can probably break this race open." Fox News's Martha McCallum: "Very positive response here from the floor, and very enthusiastic from people listening to this." Fox News' Brit Hume: "Extremely impressive woman." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Oh my god." MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "Tonight we were reintroduced to a star." CNN analyst Donna Brazille: "Love is in the air." The same Wolf Blitzer who sneered at Romney's wife. What a joke. I concede Obama is going to win. I like Obama enough in that he's a Sox fan. But my god, the man's four years were a joke. How bout at least mentioning that Michelle Obama's speech doesn't mean jack s*** because we already know who Barack is from four years in the office. The media bias amazes me. It was a good speech; it was not earth shattering. My god, Wolf. U mad?

Lennon or Bon Scott.

Romney got a post convention 2 point "bump" (if you can call that a bump), lowest one since they've been keeping track of it since '84. ROFL

Truth be told, they look gutless against the very team they need to bring their A game against. Weak. And we still got 5 more games where the Sox will s*** the bed. sweep tomorrow

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) Did someone else run against Obama? Last I heard, McCain is alive and kicking, never heard anyone refer to McCain (a war hero) as a "corpse"...but you stay classy! You can also call Romney a corpse after the elections.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Even at that your guy ran against a corpse, he SHOULD have won. I don't get what you mean, you talking about McCain?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Like how fun the 2010 election was? "presidential election"

QUOTE (Cali @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 01:47 AM) Gonna be at a music festival all weekend so I'll miss watching these games (probably better for my stress haha) I will be checking my phone insensately however. I wanna see more bunts at Miggy tomorrow. And Liriano needs to stay in command. If they can do that Mr. Weird Eyes can give up some runs. He might strike out 12 but he can give up 3-4 runs too. Frankie just needs to keep everyone else in check and they could tie it up at 1-1. I was telling this to my brother yesterday. Make fat boy move.

Not looking good

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 1, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) might as well just cancel the election. For heaven's sake, no. It'll be fun stomping the GOP in the presidential election again

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) That's why I think Obama knows he has it made. The superficial stuff wins elections. Obama knows he's camera friendly and he may be a blah-do-very-little President, but he knows how to deliver one liners with ease and he's a good looking guy. He will give an AWESOME speech at his convention and stress he just needs more time and bam he wins in a landslide. Add to that that it's very hard to unseat an incumbant, the last two who did it were charismatic candidates with Reagan and Clinton. You need to be likeable and Romney just isn't it. He is the GOP's John Kerry...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 12:04 AM) I watched the replay just now. Thought Romney had a bizarre smirk on his face at times. Do you agree? I think he's kind of creepy. Obama in a landslide. Obama has the best thing going. He can just say in his conversational tone: "Look folks. It takes longer than four years to fix this mess, especially when the other side tries to block my every move. Give me more time; trust me, it'll all be fine." The way Romney blinked was wierding me out, yeah I know it's trivial but he is just unlikeable on screen, might be a nice decent dude one on one but on tv he is really awkward. No wonder his negatives are so high, he has trouble connecting with folks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality Paul Ryan Bets on the Ignorance of America Dispatches From the Republican National Convention Entry 13: Here’s a list of some of the whoppers that Paul Ryan served up Wednesday night. The Most Dishonest Convention Speech ... Ever? Republicans lying??? Is this real life? ^^ sarcasm ^^

thnx knight, but please don't remind me that I'm getting over the hill

effing rain.