Crimson G

Very well. I am satisfied with the data you've shown. The people support the stimulus bill.

Some of them may have been moneymakers, but I was looking at the programming of the network as a whole. An increased amount of sporting events requires shows to be shuffled and shelved for months at a time in some cases, which makes it harder for viewers to get into shows that aren't as regularly broadcast as other networks. The scripted shows have become secondary to reality and sports programming, so basically they're swinging for the fences on every pitch. I think I was criticizing FOX during this time mainly for dropping the ball on so much good programming, while continuing to push crap and let once good/popular shows drag on far longer than necessary.

I read once that there was an actual psychology behind the mist colors. Green was normal, red would somehow burn more and the RARE yellow actually caused temporary paralysis. Of course the red and yellow mists would damage the mister's throat so they could only be done in certain circumstances. And prolonged misting can't be that dangerous, how many times has Chono taken mist? He seems as bad ass as ever. Black mist will blind you. Just ask Nidia. They also force you to wear comically large "blind-person" glasses and possibly carry a white cane.

Cite? Or is this the "silent majority" of Chicago floor traders? I was talking in general about the whole bailout process, not necessarily the housing bill that's been proposed... but, we've heard from Congressmen that the majority of their constituents were against TARP and the Stimulus package. The first thing I looked up using a google search for 2009 polls was this article: Americans say: TARP not working, stop spending which cites (on 1/16/09) that 61% of people polled oppose providing more money for the financial bailouts. The RealClearPolitics polling shows an average of 59.3% of people disapprove of the direction the country is headed. RealClearPolitics Polls

I wouldn't know who exactly to give it to, but it's gotta be somebody at FOX between the years of (roughly) 2000-2005. -increased and utterly mindless reality programming -Joe Millionaire -The Simple Life -Temptation Island -promising, failed programs by the boatload -Andy Richter Controls the Universe -Arrested Development -Family Guy (the first time) -Firefly -Futurama -Keen Eddie -Titus -Undeclared -Wonderfalls -shows ranging terrible-to-good are allowed to stagnate -24 -Ally McBeal -Bernie Mac -Boston Public -Dark Angel -King of the Hill (at times) -Malcolm in the Middle -The Simpsons -The X-Files -terrible ideas capitalizing on fads -Celebrity Boxing -The O.C. -Quintuplets -That 80's Show -too much fucking sports programming -MLB -NASCAR -NFL

Bill Bavasi might not win all-out (Thomas/Layden seem to have him beat), but he's certainly not topped in MLB. Here's a timeline of his atrocities to display his incompetence. 2003 season - 93-69 11.07.2003 - Bill Bavasi becomes GM for the Seattle Mariners 12.07.2003 - re-signs aging Shigetoshi Hasegawa to exhorbitant 2-year contract after fluke year subbing for Kaz Sasaki at closer 12.17.2003 - signs Scott Spiezio to 3-year contract [2004 - .215 BA, 2005 - .064 BA and released in August] 01.08.2004 - signs Rich Aurilia to 1-year contract [.241 BA/4 HR, traded as player to be named later in July] 01.08.2004 - trades Carlos Guillen [All-Star in 2004, 2007, 2008] to Detroit for two nobodies 06.27.2004 - trades Freddy Garcia [2-time All-Star and staff ace] for Miguel Olivo [terrible defensive catcher, .151 BA in '05], Jeremy Reed [.252 lifetime BA, now accumulated 11 hrs. in over 1000 ABs], and Mike Morse [suspended on steroid results in '06] 07.23.2004 - releases John Olerud [who promptly becomes better upon joining the Yankees] 2004 season - 63-99 12.15.2004 - signs Richie Sexson to 4-year contract [WARP1: 2005) 8.7, 2006) 6.3, 2007) 2.1, 2008) 1.3... released in July] 12.17.2004 - signs Adrian Beltre to 5-year contract [moderate success, but nowhere near what he's paid after a career year in 2004 with the Dodgers] 01.04.2005 - signs Pokey Reese to 1-year contract [never played a game for Seattle due to injury] 07.31.2005 - trades Randy Winn to Giants [3.1 WARP1 for us, 5.3 WARP1 for San Fran the rest of the year---his best year ever] for two nobodies 2005 season - 69-93 12.14.2005 - signs Carl Everett to 1-year contract [.227 BA, 11 HR... released in July] 12.20.2005 - signs Jarrod Washburn to a lucrative 4-year contract [06) 8-14...4.67 ERA, 07) 10-15... 4.32 ERA, 08) 5-14... 4.69 ERA] 07.26.2006 - trades Shin-Soo Choo [raw, young talent] to Cleveland for Ben Broussard [backup 1B, .238 BA, 8 HRs in rest of '06] 08.19.2006 - trades Jamie Moyer to Phillies for two nobodies 2006 season - 78-84 12.07.2006 - trades Rafael Soriano [2.91 lifetime ERA, young setup man] to Atlanta for Horacio Ramirez [7.16 ERA in 2007 for only $1.4M more than Soriano] 12.18.2006 - trades Emiliano Fruto & Chris Snelling [two young, promising prospects] to Washington for Jose Vidro [slow, used-up second baseman to play DH] 01.26.2007 - signs Jeff Weaver to 1-year, $8.3M contract [7-13, 6.20 ERA] 2007 season - 88-74 12.27.2007 - signs Carlos Silva to a lucrative 4-year contract [2008) 4-15, 6.46 ERA] 01.31.2008 - signs Brad Wilkerson to 1-year contract [.232 BA, 0 HRs... released in May] 02.08.2008 - trades Adam Jones [raw, young talent], George Sherrill [31 saves in '08] & 3 prospects to Baltimore for rights to Erik Bedard [injured most of '08] 02.15.2008 - signs Erik Bedard to 1-year, $7M contract to avoid arbitration 06.16.2008 - Bill Bavasi is finally fired summer '08 - successor, temporary GM fails to dump Jarrod Washburn's $10M 2009 contract because he doesn't think he's getting enough in return 2008 season - 61-101 As you can see, there's several trademark Bavasi moves: #1 Trade all young talent for either a) unproven, aging and injury-prone pitching or b) other teams' salary dumps of failed prospects and other never-was's #2 Trade all proven talent (preferably when slumping) for career minor leaguers #3 Sign all players for what they would be worth if they reproduce their best major league season (the year before Bavasi signs them if history shows us anything)... if the data sample is too small, make up an amount, but be sure that you pay above market-value #4 Release players only after you have devalued them beyond any trade value, that way you absorb the enormous contracts you've given them #5 Put your faith in the slightest tick in a trend without looking at underlying statistical anomalies; play for now, you can always build for the future later

How about F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard for some better credentials? Might as well throw in Milton Friedman, as well. Basically anyone who doesn't fall into the Keynes camp, and the majority of the US population for what it's worth, thinks this is a bad idea. Certainly. I'm in agreement that the Laffer Curve is impossible to apply to any situation because it's unpredictable where the drop off in taxes and where the peak taxing points are. It's all a guessing game. However, the Laffer Curve does make sense and should be a part of any discussion of taxation. Actually, taxation was far higher on the "wealthy" during the Great Depression and World War II than it was after the war, but that's a very minor point to debate. I disagree with your argument that someone is less likely to start a business if he's taxed at a 30% take as compared to a 40% take. If he's taking business capital into consideration, and he might be an entrepeneur who needs venture capitalists to back him, then his business model might be viable under one tax rate and not under another. It all depends on the costs associated with running the business and the business's projected income. The whole idea of recklessly reducing rates to encourage the flow of capital and then raising them is the Federal Reserve's bread and butter. Though that's applied to interest rates on loans rather than rate of taxation, the same principle applies. To encourage business one needs to find the appropriate rate of taxation that will allow them to flourish. Free market capitalists say those rates are determined by the market, whereas Keynesian economists, or other middle-of-the-road to socialist economists, believe the government ought to manipulate the economy to set the best rates. Deflation is actually a decrease in the money supply, not a flat-lining of inflation. This flat-lining allows demand to catch up to the supply that has been artificially bolstered through the actions of the Federal Reserve and, lately, the Treasury department as well as Congress. I realize that and it's hard lesson to learn, but that's the way things work in the real world. Either some people get punished (the people who made the mistakes) or everyone gets punished when the economy tanks even more than it already has through devaluing the currency. But, they agreed to the interest rates in the terms on their house. They ought to have known better. Decreasing the interest rate means that someone will have to take the hit from the lost capital (current or future): the bank. So, you can either support the bank/lender or the borrower in this case. The government has decided to take a third route and steal money from people not involved with this contractual agreement in order to ensure that the terms are changed so that both parties benefit from the change. The third party is, meanwhile, raped in the process. People will buy when products reach a level they're comfortable buying them at. Products that are invaluable (gas, food, etc.) will still be purchased, but many companies selling only extravagances will go out of business. That's simply because their business model cannot work during a recession. If their products aren't necessary, then they won't be bought until people feel they have extra money to blow on useless things (i.e. when the recession's over.) You cannot, try as you may, force people to spend on products that do not want and do not believe they can afford. You're asking them to act against common sense and sound judgment.

I have no idea what you're talking about in your first point. It's certainly not Keynesian economics. It sounds like Obama's graduated tax rates for the rich, which can be shown to be either good or bad through the Laffer curve. More taxation is not always the answer as it sometimes brings in less revenue for the state and can encourage people to work less. (see: Communism, for the extreme) You always have to look at the demand side of the economy. However, you cannot artificially stimulate that demand by printing money without suffering through inflation. The demand side of the economy is what's tanking it right now because people are waiting for prices to come down to where they're affordable or else they cannot purchase them. They've been taught this by the severe punishment the market has given people who bought at the peak of prices in both the real estate and stock markets, but the government is trying to convince them that what they're seeing is not reality and these things are still good investments. Keynesians would proclaim this problem a liquidity trap, but it's really just common sense. People are waiting for the appropriate levels to buy and the only thing you can do to change that is pump more money into the system, which doesn't really solve the situation in real dollars (though it might in nominal dollars.) Watch any video on Peter Schiff to see his point on this matter since he generally repeats the same arguments every time he's on TV, most panelists agree with him, and then continue pretending they can fix the situation.

lol Also, Glenn Beck & objectivists! Once again, you've missed my argument about Glenn Beck, etc. entirely. I'm not arguing that they're sound economists, though Objectivists usually are pretty learned on the subject since it was a key point of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Also, Santelli's point is not that anyone who's had a home foreclosure is a loser, but anyone who got themselves into this problem even though they didn't have the amount of income to justify purchasing a home is finally receiving the natural punishment of a bad investment. Certainly the bankers and the politicians are also to blame for creating the atmosphere that led to the sub-prime lending crisis, but blame also falls on the people who believed their distortions as well. The moral hazard point was clearly a joke from 'Wolfman', but the point remains that people are suffering the consequences of their own decisions. No one forced them to get a house, but now we should force people who are able to afford these things or were smart or lucky enough not to get involved in this housing mess to prop up those who did?

A bunch of asshats like Paul Krugman do not practice economics. They give credence to political agendas with the way they scheme up data or manipulate history in order to present what they'd like. Their economic policies do not work in downturns, but only help to inflate bubbles, like the housing one which just burst. They are bubble economists, at best. Keynesian economics are discredited by common sense. Glenn Beck was a single name cherry-picked from my list. If you disagree with his politics, fine. But, his program presents accurate and shocking forecasts for the economy because his show is one of the few which allows people with other opinions than "mainstream economists" to contribute. Larry Kudlow on CNBC Kudlow & Co. is another, but his show tends to put a rosier glow on the economy than I think even he thinks is realistic. Say what you'd like about Faux News, but Beck's handling of the economic concerns has been pretty good, in my opinion. I tend to just watch FBN, for the most part, to get my economic news, but use Beck for more of a talking head perspective on where the news might take us tomorrow. It's not serious journalism. His point is made in some of his first sentences. I'll transcribe his argument for you: "The government promoting is bad behavior... have people vote on the internet... to see if people want to subsidize losers' mortgages or at least buy cars and house in foreclosure and give them to people who might actually prosper down the road and reward people who could carry the water instead of drink the water." Then later: "How many of you want to pay for their neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills." 'Wolfman' chimes in: "How about we all stop paying our mortgage? It's a moral hazard!" Even later: "You can go down to -2% [on the interest rate on the mortgage], they can't afford the house!" It's pretty clear that his argument is that we're throwing good money after bad. We're rewarding poor choices and encouraging more poor choices through the people we're choosing to support in this economic downturn and the decisions coming down from the White House and the Senate. Upholding the housing market that's broken and keeping people in houses who shouldn't have got them in the first place is to the detriment of people who've done the right thing and to the nation as a whole. Ultimately, and he hints at this later on in this particular rant about this, the government's policy of simply printing money to solve a problem cannot work. If it could, then we should just print trillions of dollars every second because we'd be the richer for it. Seriously, the axioms behind the science of economics do not take a break because of the situation that our economy is in, no more than the laws of motion alter for a man who has jumped out of an airplane. The policies of the current and the previous administrations are leading us to hyperinflation of the money supply and extreme poverty for everyone in the country. We've already heard rumors and indications that foreigners are no longer willing to invest in Treasury bonds, so the next plan is to have the Federal Reserve purchase them. The only way they can accomplish this is by printing money or selling gold, with both options devaluing our currency and thus making us all poorer than we were before. Nominally we can maintain the previous housing prices, however it will only be the illusion of the same price in US Dollars. The value of the US Dollar will have to drop dramatically in order to do this, especially considering the amount of poor judgment they're showing in taking the same steps that led to this catastrophe in credit in the first place. There's no reason to pay your debts anymore. There's no reason not to take advantage of every credit card offer or house or car for sale. If you can bilk the bank into letting you buy it, the government will find a way to allow you to keep it, provided that you did not have the capitalization to do so in the first place. That is, if you could not afford it it is now the government's responsibility to see that you keep it.

But, Santelli's spot-on in his analysis here. What do you disagree with in the clip, other than the fact that the man manages stocks? BTW, Rick Santelli is one of the people who has been consistently correct with his coverage of this financial meltdown. He's rather pragmatic in his answers to the problems we've got right now, but there are plenty of other people in the media who are ideologically and philosophically opposed to the way the government has been "fixing" the economy: Peter Schiff, Glenn Beck, pretty much an Austrian economist, many libertarians and pretty much all Objectivists, along with a slew of other people.

You guys are looking at the Invasion angle all wrong. It's not about booking with what you could have had (Goldberg, Hall, Nash, Hogan), but with what you actually had. WCW clearly needed to be booked as the underdogs faces in this angle, and I'm convinced that Paul Heyman did his damnedest to put them over that way, albeit as the heels the were booked as. See evidence here for how the angle should have been framed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vswZ73WETpc Later, the angle was run properly in the lead up to the first One Night Stand PPV, with ECW taking the place of WCW. Paul Heyman knew what he was doing. Vince McMahon simply buried the WCW because he could, then he brought in their "biggest" talent (The NWO, Bischoff, Goldberg, Rey Jr.) after burying their most promising (Booker T, The Natural Born Thrillers, etc.)

Wow. This movie was wonderful. The guy who played Captain Mike needs to get some recognition in the best supporting actor category. And certainly the original poster was right with his recognition of the actress who played Queenie, and Jason Flemyng's character, but I don't think Pitt or Blanchett did a particularly great job to deserve winning the award, though they'll probably be nominated simply because they're big names in an Oscar-worthy picture. Blanchett was far better in her performance of Bob Dylan in I'm Not There and Brad Pitt shined most, in my opinion, as Mickey in Snatch. I went into the movie thinking it would be a Forrest Gump-type movie where it upholds the virtue of the one man striving to live a normal life, but it seemed like it took that concept for granted. Benjamin Button dealt more often with the other characters problems than his own. He simply tried to live the best human life he could. I especially loved the nods to the silent film era in one character's recurring flashbacks.

Just because they haven't been overturned by the Supreme Court doesn't make them any more valid. I don't know why you're making 1952 out to be some landmark year for Executive Orders. That's simply one of the few examples of the Supreme Court getting something right.

I disagree. Executive Orders have been in use since 1789 and are only supposed to be used to direct action within the executive branch, and limits on their use have been enacted by the Supreme Court. There have been some examples of executive orders that exceded the authority of the president, but since the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer presidents have cited what laws (passed using the process you referred to) they are acting under when giving them. The use of executive orders by the future Obama Administration has been cited in the press as a counter-action to outgoing Bush Administration executive orders. There have been plenty of executive orders signed without legislative precedent (i.e. without "laws" to cite, as you put it) and/or ones that have been unconstitutional, including EO10340 which you mentioned with the 1952 case. How about EO6102, which made privately holding gold a crime? But, it might be too easy to simply pick on FDR's numerous unconstitutional executive orders. JFK issued EO10924 establishing the Peace Corps., which has been subsidized by the government. Richard Nixon's authorization of price controls in EO11615. Abraham Lincoln's April 19, 1861 Executive Order to blockade Southern ports who had seceded from the Union, whose secession he did not recognize. Abraham Lincoln's July 30, 1863 Executive "Order of Retaliation", which authorized an execution of a rebel soldier for every Union soldier executed. Many, many presidents use of the executive order to establish Indian reservations so they could forcibly relocate entire people groups. (I really don't like Lincoln, BTW. So I'll just stop here. Suffice to say, he issued quite a few really terrible executive orders, as well.) So there's plenty of examples of the executive branch creating law or otherwise bypassing procedure without any established reasoning, but through force. And, the alarming thing is that there has been a rapid rise of the use of these executive orders since Teddy Roosevelt started getting EO-happy. There are 10 things wrong with this post: 1. You switched from talking about legislative precendent to constitutionality. 2. After 5 seconds of research, I discovered that EO 11615 was based on Economic Stabilization Act of 1970...a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president. 3. After 3 seconds, I discovered EO10924 cited the Mutual Security Act of 1954....a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president. 4. April 19, 1861 happened before 1952. 5. July 30, 1863 happened before 1952. 6. Teddy Roosevelt was president before 1952. 7. FDR was president before 1952. 8. Indian removal happened before 1952. 9. The Oder of Retaliation actually said "for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed" and "every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and received the treatment due to a prisoner of war." 10. If I already point out that a executive orders made AFTER the one I citied from the 1952 case was over-ruled by the Supreme Court, what was the point of using it as an example of the "plenty of executive orders signed without legislative precedent"? Wasn't my point that the practice STARTED in 1952? What started in 1952? Judicial review of executive orders? I was referring to your statement that EO's had been used since Washington's time and I was trying to point out that they've been just as reckless and oftentimes unconstitutional for the whole history of our country. They blatantly flaunt the fact that they circumvent the supposed checks and balances that our government was founded on. They're not the only way to do so, but they've clearly been used for legislation (this includes amendment, BTW) coming out of the executive branch, a power which is (rightfully) fully vested in the U.S. Congress.

I disagree. Executive Orders have been in use since 1789 and are only supposed to be used to direct action within the executive branch, and limits on their use have been enacted by the Supreme Court. There have been some examples of executive orders that exceded the authority of the president, but since the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer presidents have cited what laws (passed using the process you referred to) they are acting under when giving them. The use of executive orders by the future Obama Administration has been cited in the press as a counter-action to outgoing Bush Administration executive orders. There have been plenty of executive orders signed without legislative precedent (i.e. without "laws" to cite, as you put it) and/or ones that have been unconstitutional, including EO10340 which you mentioned with the 1952 case. How about EO6102, which made privately holding gold a crime? But, it might be too easy to simply pick on FDR's numerous unconstitutional executive orders. JFK issued EO10924 establishing the Peace Corps., which has been subsidized by the government. Richard Nixon's authorization of price controls in EO11615. Abraham Lincoln's April 19, 1861 Executive Order to blockade Southern ports who had seceded from the Union, whose secession he did not recognize. Abraham Lincoln's July 30, 1863 Executive "Order of Retaliation", which authorized an execution of a rebel soldier for every Union soldier executed. Many, many presidents use of the executive order to establish Indian reservations so they could forcibly relocate entire people groups. (I really don't like Lincoln, BTW. So I'll just stop here. Suffice to say, he issued quite a few really terrible executive orders, as well.) So there's plenty of examples of the executive branch creating law or otherwise bypassing procedure without any established reasoning, but through force. And, the alarming thing is that there has been a rapid rise of the use of these executive orders since Teddy Roosevelt started getting EO-happy.

Holy crap! It really is the greatest picture ever. And here I thought you were using hyperbole.

I like this. I think it could be used as a brilliant template for people worshiping at the feet of Obama. Sort of a partisan madlibs. Here's how it'd go: An interesting development in the (noun) crisis: Apparently Obama is looking to (weak policy that doesn't draw much criticism from the press) to (verb affecting the weak policy on the crisis) I think that's a (adjective of praise) idea, and it'll go a long way to give people faith that He [you forgot to capitalize it BTW] isn't (obvious criticism and ultimate effect of when the aforementioned weak policy that doesn't draw much criticism morphs into His actual plan.) And, for good fun, an example from the recent past: An interesting development in the Georgia crisis: Apparently Obama is looking to condemn Russian aggression to shore up global support for Georgian independence. I think that's a smashing idea, and it'll go a long way to give people faith that He isn't a cut-and-run wimp on foreign policy and will provide Him ample talking points when He mounts the "intervention" to stop the all-out Civil War in Pakistan that we had no part in causing.

Look at how short he is.

And he would just let you do that. Creepy.

Here's one I just thought of today: Koko B. Ware. I can't really imagine JYD as a heel either.

As a fan of Seattle sports, can I just say that we need to do everything? (Here are some quick notes that might benefit the franchises and the fans.) Sonics Invent a time machine and kill Clay Bennett before he bought the team. Mariners Um, sign Griffey to a 1-year contract to bring back fan interest and hedge our bets in case he's still the injury-prone has-been he's proved to be this year. Huskies Re-sign Ty Willingham. (Even though it won't be done now.) He was on the hot seat since before he'd signed with the team and he's been making slow, but steady progress over the past couple of years with his recruiting classes. It's not his fault our one star that's somewhat ready right now (Jake Locker) got injured early on in the year. We've still got a bunch of freshman we're running the offense with. Our defense is abismal, however. He needs to fix that.

-a Stone Cold half-face/half-skull t-shirt -a DDP diamond cutter symbol t-shirt -a Rey Mysterio mask/"Flying Fury?" t-shirt -a Rock "Electrifying 1" jersey -I also had a crappy Rock raising his arm on the turnbuckle t-shirt that I never wore

Being a Shawn Michaels fan as a kid, I couldn't stand Bret Hart. He was so boring, using the same spots in every match and attempting to keep the match on the mat at times (which really drove me crazy as a kid.) Owen, however, was a great wrestler in my book. He could work any style and make himself and his opponent look good. I guess I just really liked heels as a kid, and especially cocky heels. Most of my favorite wrestlers were on the top of their game as heels and I've never really rooted many faces on to victory. Along those same lines I thought Hulk Hogan sucked big time. I've changed my mind on Bret, but, while I respect Hogan, I don't consider it a pleasure to watch him in the ring or even watch most of his interviews.

Did anyone else have trouble figuring out "The Supreme Fighting Machine" gimmick. The Soviet Suplex he used as a finisher really threw me off, as well as the red singlet he always sported. Was he supposed to be a communist? A UFC washout? Pre-Taz Taz? I mean, WTF was he? _______________________ As far as guys I knew who sucked. Pretty much every big man without charisma bored the crap out of me as a kid. (Plunk basically everybody but Kevin Nash, Sid, Undertaker, and Andre in this category, with people like Big John Studd and Kane straddling the line.) As a WWF fan I'd always find myself criticizing one half of tag team contenders in the mid-nineties. HOG was a decent heel, fun gimmick, but Phineas really dragged him down after he was added. Zip was a pile of crap in the Body Donnas and he was clearly just added so Skip would have something to do, other than job to Barry Horowitz. Bart Gunn was clearly less talented and charismatic than Billy. Surprisingly, perhaps, I always thought Thrasher was a much more interesting personality than Mosh (until he joined Lo Down.) Also, I always thought Hawk was light years ahead of Animal in both style and presence.