Nightwing

NARCOLEPTIC JUMPER IS BACK! BRYAN/PAUL 1908!

A week or so late, but around 5:30 on Hotstove (Oct 18th) there is a little information on the Ovechkin/Malkin rivalry.

Did you miss the "Our economy is now 70% consumer spending" part? Basically that means that people spending money is what has driven the economy for the last 10 years at least. People saving 3% of their disposable income instead of spending it will have a huge effect on the economy and the impact gets worse the more people save, which is inevitable given the state of the economy. No shit. The problem is that they've also lost a great deal of their savings and retirement funds with the problems in the market. It's a no-win situation: No today versus no tomorrow. I was pointing out the fact that people are now saving more because they need to make up the lost ground due to the bottom falling out of the market.

Yes, because that's wrecking our economy. Let's not look at the reason why people are saving money, but just blame it on people saving money.

Yeah, sure. Was the post which debunked your bullshit numbers within a few posts, or was it a few pages afterwards? When I'm looking for it, I want to make sure I don't waste any more time explaining why a Regressive Tax doesn't help the poor. So if they spent every dime they earned, are they just going to keep working until they're 80, or are they allowed to save at some time in the future? I don't think with all the "MASSIVE SAVINGS~!" that there's going to be much in the budget for a Social Security, so spending every dime you have doesn't exactly sound... feasible.

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases. But he said that the average American homeless person was relatively rich on an international level in the context of saying "we need to define what rich is." Taking this idea further, marvin would probably suggest that all Americans are relatively rich and that therefore, contra Teddy Roosevelt, we don't need progressive income taxation. We already know he supports the crackpot "Fairtax" national sales tax plan. My point would be Americans don't gauge their wealth by comparing themselves to African slum dwellers, and any economic plan that tried to do this would be asinine. So while you're technically correct, pbonester, the point that our fair-skinned friend was making was very different. edit: Nightwing beat me to the punch. I dont see how using the Fair Tax over the Income Tax is crackpot. The Economy is 70% consumer spending, why not at least use that to some sort of advantage by putting a tax on spending and not income? Because it's a Regressive Tax, and would greatly raise cost of living for the vast majority of the population? Even without paying taxes, putting a sizable sales tax would be more harmful to lower and middle class people than anyone, because they have to spend a much larger percentage of their income on consumer goods in comparison to the rich. Are you seriously that retarded to not see the problem with that? Doubtful. Taxes are hardly the problem with the US, since there are a variety of ways of avoiding them. The problem is the labor market, and near-slave labor in developing countries. At worst, the middle class is losing the same amount of money they were before, anyone lower than them is paying much more, and there are less tax dollars to fund the government because we're no longer taxing anyone anything. US goods wouldn't be priced notably better; there's no indication that they would do so, and the problem exports mostly deal with unfair tariffs and such, not the taxing of US companies (Which, again, have plenty of loopholes to avoid taxes already). You have no understanding of the economics other than "TAXES BAD", not realizing that most of our woes come from unfair labor practices stemming from countries like China, as well as allowing companies to receive massive tax breaks without any incentive to actually stay in the US.

I always thought "Trickle Down" was the improper way to look at it. I look at it like this: If you want to fill up a bucket, you put water in it. You don't get another, smaller bucket, and fill that up until it starts leaking over the sides, and wait for that to fill up the first bucket. It seems like a waste of time. Perhaps "Two Buckets" would be a better reference. Or, when combating the idea of "Trickle Down", simply say "I'm in favor of 'Fill Up' policies. You pour stuff into the bottom and eventually it reaches the top."

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases. But it's a comparison that proves nothing. What Marvin is saying is essentially this: "Sure, there are some 400 pound people out there, but they aren't as bad compared to the 600 pound fatties!" That's true... to an extent. The fact of the matter is, they're both far below the safe standard for living. I believe we go by the American standard of living here, not the Zimbabwe standard.

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China. Noted economist marvin, ladies & gentleman. He & Stephen Joseph will be signing books after the show. Also, fail. And my point on any increased disposable income for lower class people stands. 99% of what they buy at the Wal Mart is made in China or some other place besides the USA. So they're going to have all this disposable income to spend, but more than likely not on American Goods. How the hell does giving money to the top 1% somehow eliminate the trade and labor advantage that China and other countries have on us? I was just wondering, because why hasn't it been working for the last 7 years?

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China. So is there some sort of "Trickle Sideways" theory, because who in the world benefits in the "Trickle Down"?

So the headline would have been "COLONEL SANDERS IMPERSONATORS ASSASSINATE BLACK PRESIDENT IN SUICIDAL DRIVE-BY!"

I agree on Abortion, but not on Gay Marriage. Abortion applies to all women equally; it's not like we are talking about Black Women versus White Women. But Gay Marriage is denying someone something simply on the basis of sexuality. It goes against the "Due Process" clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendment. If marriage were a strictly religious entity that provided no benefits other than title, you might have a case. But health plans, tax plans, and dozens of other things are affected by this. You can't legally deny someone something without due process of law.

You're on crack The Red Wings are basically the Atlanta Braves here in terms of fan interest. There were scores of empty seats at Joe Louis all season and the Wings were barely a blip on the radar until the Conference Finals. The Lions had a fucking march during a losing season and has sold out every game since 2001 until this week. Any other pro sports team in Detroit would have been playing in front of crickets if they had a decade of losing like the Lions have had. The Red Wings sure did the last time they were a loser. That's the most retarded reasoning I've ever heard. Seriously, you suck at this. 1) The Red Wings had a sell-out streak since 1995 before it ended last year. Trying to argue that the Lions selling out since 2001 to this week does not mean that they are the most followed team out there. The fact of the matter is, Ford Field regularly has large contingents of away fans who are there. The reason they sell out is not because people pay attention to them, but because rival fans invade it every weekend. The Red Wings do not have that problem. And this doesn't even note the fact that it's a lot harder to keep a sellout streak for Hockey Teams than it is for Football teams. Football is the easiest sport today to follow; you only play one game a week, and you only have 16 games in a regular season. 8 home games for a season ticket holder is a lot easier than the 30+ for hockey fans, and the Wings still beat them in that. Even with the massive time commitment, I still know many more Wings fans than Lions fans.' If they were only a "blip" on the charts (Which is absolutely untrue in my opinion), it was because of earlier failures and the fact that this was a distinctly different team than it was before. Last year's Conference Finals really re-cemented them as the most beloved team in Detroit, since they played damn good in the playoffs, even in losing. 2) News coverage always focuses on negatives before going to the positives. The Lions get more coverage because it's easier to focus on the massive flaws that they have, and what they need to do or haven't yet done to fix them, along with amazing amounts of criticism for their owner and organization in general. What do you say about a team that wins and keeps winning? "Uh... Keep it up?" You're interpreting the Lions getting a lot of coverage versus the Wings (Which is, to me, debatable when it comes to the news in Detroit) as them being more popular, but it's more along the lines of why a massive car crash gets more coverage than a successful road construction product: People will tune in to hear about negative things more often than positives. 3) The NFL is bigger than the NHL. It's an outright fact. To think that any NFL team is going to get ignored for losing is beyond stupid, especially with such a ridiculously dysfunctional team such as the Lions. That's the only reason the Lions get any coverage right now; they're in a sport where they can't be ignored.

Because people are not going to play as aggressively because they'll still be rewarded with a tie. Essentially people will play for the tie, rather than risking a loss by going for the win. If you let in a softie in the playoffs, like you said, you still lose. This is a tough sport; we shouldn't be handing out "Oh, at least you tried" points, especially when they can screw up the standings (A team with fewer wins but more OT losses making the playoffs over a team with more wins but fewer OT losses is possible, and I believe it has happened once before). Again, I wouldn't mind win or lose. Doing away with the points system might help attract more casual fans.

Not to mention that Linda Lingle is a conservative, so she's a secret liberal governor who's trying to cover this all up for Obama. Indeed. A secret liberal stopping a secret democrat from exposing a secret foreigner who has managed to rise all the way to within stepping distance of the Presidency! On a more serious note, I think another big shift in the electorate this year is the concept of "patriotism". I think there has been considerable backlash against the Republicans trying to present themselves as more American than others, with comments from Palin and Michele Bachmann (Of "I think we should investigate Congress to find Un-American Congressmen" fame) have all provoked backlash from everywhere except the base. I think people are tired of the Republicans trying to monopolize the idea of "We are the ones who really care about America!", which is a lot of the classic Rove tactics aren't working.

This is the retarded part of the riot scenario. You've posted illogical shit that no one cares about, and that doesn't mean anything to the campaigns, including multiple posts trying to defend the "Birth Certificate" bullshit as some sort of real issue. Not only are you a liar (Again, calling Martin a Democrat is as far from the truth as possible), but your retarded sense of glee that there might be riots if Obama loses is deplorable. Allow me to also point out that while they are preparing for riots, it's only out of a "worst-case scenario" idea, and they don't believe it to be the likely scenario. You're retarded continuance of this "Let's watch out for riots!" focus on your posts since we've forced you to swallow all your other bullshit is trolling, plain and simple. But I suppose you'll give us another post as to why the damned blackies are going to go looting, eh?

Hey... what was the ruling, by the way? Just asking.

He has already. He's shown it multiple time, and it's on multiple fact-checking websites. There's no reason to doubt his citizenship, considering he only needs one parent to be American (his mother) to be a citizen. I call trolling. Bob, defend how putting up bullshit rumors and nothing anyone cares about qualifies at not trolling. He has never submitted his birth certificate in accordance with the lawsuit that was put against him and now the Hawaiian Supreme Court is hearing the case. None of this is rumor. and the lawsuit was filed by a Democrat, so we can't have any of this "its the Republican smear campaign"..since its coming from his own party. Just because someone brings it to court, doesn't mean it's credible. And it's a lie that he's a Democrat, considering he's run on a Republican ticket since 1990. He's an avowed Anti-Semite, and he's already been labeled a Vexatious litigant in multiple places. It is not a real issue, and it isn't true. And you are a retard and a troll. I want Bob or 909 to explain to me how Marvin's recent string of "Riot Predictions" and such do not qualify as trolling.

omg cumfight

He has already. He's shown it multiple time, and it's on multiple fact-checking websites. There's no reason to doubt his citizenship, considering he only needs one parent to be American (his mother) to be a citizen. I call trolling. Bob, defend how putting up bullshit rumors and nothing anyone cares about qualifies at not trolling.

Go to sarahsarmy.blogspot.com and read the comments to see the people looking at her twitters, 4 of which apparently happened after the alleged incident in which she was mugged and had her face carved up. Reminded me of that South Park episode.

Frank rushing into the room and chowing down on cat food was awesome. D's Glue OD was also classic.

While it's gotten little national coverage, the saga of Kwame Kilpatrick has been pissing off the entire state of Michigan for a little while right now. While the entire saga can be recounted in these pages here, the basics are as follow. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick fired two police officers for investigating the mayor's actions at his own mansion regarding an "alleged" stripper party where his wife walked in and assaulted one of the strippers. This occurred in late 2002. Apparently during this time they had also stumbled across a possible affair between he and his Chief of Staff. Rather than settle out of court for hundreds of thousands of dollars like the City Council tried to do, Kilpatrick calls their bluff and tells them to go to trial. At this trial, he completely denies the affair and firing them for improper reasons. He loses, and the verdict awards $5.6 million to the plaintiffs. Kwame vows to fight on, and even comments that "it isn't his money"; the City of Detroit has to play it because he was an acting official or some such bullshit. In a meeting between the lawyers, the attorney of the former cops reveals that he obtained text messages from the company that gave the City of Detroit their blackberries (I believe via subpoena, but don't quote me on that), and gives proof-positive that he committed perjury when he said he did not have an affair (among things such as obstruction of justice, blatant favoritism towards certain contractors, and more). Kilpatrick's attorneys immediately settle for $8.4 million. In return, there is a secret settlement which hands over the copies of the text messages to the mayor's attorney. This settlement is approved by the City Council (obviously without knowledge of the secret settlement). *As a quick aside, a slander suit involving Kilpatrick, his Chief of Staff Christine Beatty, and Chief of Police Ella Bully-Cummings is settled by the City Council for $25,000. What happened was Beatty got pulled over by some cops for speeding. She immediately said "DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FUCK I AM?!" and the three would later accuse them of setting up the speed trap to harass her. Thankfully, Kwame didn't have any say in this one. ** A second aside: The alleged party is still alleged, mostly because the stripper in question died in Spring 2003. How? She was shot around twenty times in her car via drive-by. The Detroit Police Department concluded officially that they were after her boyfriend, who got away after the vehicle which fired on her went around for a second pass on her. The investigator who was originally working on the case was reassigned and locked out of information after he concluded that it could have been a hit on her, and that the bullets used (.40 Glock) were the same round used by the Detroit Police Department). The son of the woman is still gathering evidence, and multiple people have come forward to confirm there was a party, though it still has no definitive "proof". The Detroit Free Press (A top-rated paper, for those of you who don't know) delves into the settlement and (I believe through freedom of information) manage to obtain the text messages that the cops' attorney had gotten. They break it in January. Kilpatrick apologizes, though he refuses to say for what and accuses the media of hounding his family. The City Council asks him to resign in a 7-1 vote, which he refuses to do, commenting he "won't quit on Detroit". In his "State of the City Address", he ends with a race-baiting comment about he's never been called a "Nigger" so many times in his life. For those of you who don't know, Detroit is a very racially-polarized city and has been in constant conflict between the black city and white suburbs ever since the "Great White Flight". It calmed down quite a bit with Mayor Dennis Archer, but Kilpatrick has played on it to keep himself in office. At this point, multiple people ask him to step down, including State Attorney General Mike Cox. Recently, with accusations of favoritism towards a contractor (Who he went to school with, is close friends, and whose brother is married to his sister), he was at his sisters house when the County Sheriff's Department came to serve a subpoena on the man, believing he was there. Before the officers can be shown away, Kilpatrick apparently came out, yelled at them and shoved a Deputy back into another while shouting racially hateful things (I believe one of them was "A black man shouldn't be riding in a car with a guy named 'White'." was one). The Governor has started her own process to force him to resign. There's even more going on, including an investigation into a charity run by his wife, in which she is the only employee and is receiving thousands of dollars, as well mass nepotism in appointments and pay-raises in the city government. Now, after the Sheriff-pushing incident (Which the State Attorney General is looking into to see if he should press charges or not) and two trips without giving the judge any warning has brought us to this.

That's even dumber than the system in use right now. So winning a game 4-3 in overtime is two-thirds as valued as winning a game 4-3 in regulation? Why? Wins are wins. Losses are losses. This isn't college football. Let's go binary here. Excuse me, but my system doesn't reward losses. That, by any definition, is far stupider. And while I can understand simply wanting to go to W/L, I think there would be some outcry against the idea of a Shootout Win being equal to a regulation win. I think this system accurately reflects that sort of sentiment, and rewards teams who can finish in regulation rather than needing overtime. But that's just me.

I'm in favor of the Win-OT Win-Shootout Win, 3-2-1 system. It rewards teams for winning quicker and makes it so people want to win games quickly.