KevinG

Apparently Dan Harmon is out as show runner. Seems like a weird happening: http://danharmon.tumblr.com/post/23339272200/hey-did-i-miss-anything Wonders how the voice of the show is gonna change. I think the writers are gonna try too hard to keep it the same and it will fall flat. I will still watch though.

It was a sentimental move through and through, I will give you that. Bad signing not in the least. The Cubs were not going to contend this year, they had no hopes of contending this year. At the time of his signing he still could throw the ball (and well). He was signed to a 1 year 3 million dollar contract with an option for 2013. What reliever out there should have the Cubs gotten for that price? It was a no brainer signing, he has history with the club and is a fan favorite. Kerry, the player he is/was relaized it was time hang it up and he could no longer help the Cubs. The signi

Here is the video http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?c_id=chc&content_id=21544077&topic_id=17807232 I hope he stays with the cubs in some capacity.

So thoughts on the Season Finale. It did indeed get dark. It felt kinda like a series finale to me. Well there is a half order for next year. Hopefully we will get #sixseasonsandamovie

I think Jules purposely knows how to push my buttons. Are you secretly my Evil Twin?

You keep bring up the point the money to make investments is taxed at the "normal" rate, I am not going to rehash this post, I suggest you reread. The tax rate that the wealthy pay is perfectly legal. A majority of the tax payers out there take full advantage of the tax laws to keep as much money as possible. Operating under the law is perfectly ok. What I am saying the laws are wrong. What is so wrong about bringing back the tax rates to Regan's day? I can't remember but there was a great post a few back about Regan. Our country is in an economic crisis right now. We are spendi

I love Kerry Wood, I put most of the blame on his "Disappointing career" on Dusty Baker. That guy know how to burn out young pitchers.

Back to name calling again, super way to make a point. I work, I work hard. Making investments is not work. If that makes me smug, then so be it.

" hmmm.... no. That is extremely misleading. While yes maybe the initial money was taxed at the "normal" tax rate, you can use the interest income then to buy more investments, thus being taxed at a lower rate. For example if I made 50K (after my tax rate of 25%) at my job (where I actually do something), I used 10K to buy some stocks. From that 10K I ended up making 50K (which is taxed at 15%). I now take 10K from that and make 50K which is taxed at 15%. (as a note I used extremely inflated numbers for easy of explanation) Also you are making it sound like you are taxed double, once f

You called me smug, I took offense. Sorry my articles where all over the place. I found some more, but I am not sure what that would do, I believe you know how to use Google as well s I do. Anyway this is back to my original point. I will try to break it down and the points. 1) Corporations should not be required to hire if they don't need to 2) Corporations have been given tax breaks to encourage job growth 3) If there is no need to hire why should they be given tax breaks? 4) Tax breaks for corporations do not bring jobs Why not instead of giving tax breaks to corporations we use

I am the one on my high horse Jules? For christsakes you called a pretty well known fact about the GOP's love for corporate tax breaks "magic." Like they didn't exist. Either you are baiting me or blind to what GOP does. I provided solid answer to you question on tax breaks and you come back and call me a name. Good job there. If anyone is smug here it is you. Also on Scott Walker, you do not live in this state, you have not been effected by his policies. The job number thing is laughable. First when Walker presented his numbers: http://www.forbes.co...ection-miracle/ So Wisco

Seriously? I did a quick google on GOP corporate Tax Breaks, got these an more. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/122902194.html (Wisconsin state politics but that is where I live) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-28/small-business-tax-break-prompts-debate-on-economic-benefits http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html (an article about the stimulus bill which had corporate Tax breaks in it, in an attempt to appease the GOP) http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-12/business/31154490_1_aig-spokesman-mark-h

You threw this out, you said the Obama could do better (which "I think he should keep sating what he's been saying" makes no sense btw). I think his point was apt and easily understandable. We obviously got two different things out of the article. I am wondering if you understood the point Obama was trying to make. To me, in your comments, you didn't. That is just me. I am not trying to be an ass, but I tend to come off that way.

I agree, unfortunately that is not what the GOP seems to think. They want to give tax breaks to corporations and the very wealthy, while cutting services to the poor (which is a tax increase just by another name).

Exactly, but the line of the GOP is businesses need tax breaks and deregulation so they can get the economy going again. Tax breaks and deregulation are the crux of the GOP plan to fix the economy. What they country needs is investment in itself, infrastructure, and education. These can only be done by the government, it requires government spending.

So CAT has record profits right? But large corporations need tax breaks so they can hire more people and get this economy rolling again. But you say they don't need the workforce because of efficiencies. If a corporation is getting tax breaks and incentives from the government they should be hiring. Or the money should be put back in to education to help people get better jobs.

Remember when McCain mocked Obama on the tire gauge thing? That was pretty dumb. The Right tends to take things on face value and never really sees the nuance in arguments or points. Remember this is the party that brought us No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and other such gems.

Any point he would have made would have been jumped on by the right user stand the as out of touch. ATM's, automated check outlines, robots in factories, whatever. Simple fact businesses are getting more efficient, people are been put out of work because of this, we as a country need the infrastructure to provide better jobs and education. This is what the president said: the other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a l

Wanna guess where the majority of ATM's are made? China. Automation will always occur, business will forever try to become more efficient. However when we become more efficient we need to move people into different jobs and allow them the opportunities for growth. The republican policies will not do that. It is a nuanced point, and I agree with Lost Highway, it was made well, if you think about it. Unfortunately those on the right don't think things through and believe it. This is the problem with Fox news and talk radio. I wonder if Tweedling actually read the full article or only

What does that even mean? Support bands in what way?

Let's hear it for the degradation of the banking industry! I say we need more deregulation! Seems to be working just fine for JP Morgan, and its investors. Mitt 2012!

But it is ok to own slaves, beat your wife, etc. To me I could never support a party (the republicans) who do give the same rights to all people, regardless of race, creed, ability, sexual preference, etc. Republicans have said, you get special treatment based upon who you love. That is wrong. Having gay marriage isn't "nice" it is fundamental question of rights. The Democrats have a long way to go on this issue as the issue of gay rights, but this is a start. As we know the president's statement is not going to allow gay marriage, but it is a start, it is a big step. The repeal of

Stewart had a bit about this yesterday (when Biden jumped the gun and said he supported gay marriage on Meet the Press). Back when Obama was running for state senator he fill out a questionnaire and said he would support gay marriage, etc. So what I would guess it is politics got in the way of him supporting publicly in the past. To quote Biden, "This is a big fucking deal" So now I have a question for all of the republicans out there, how can you support a party/candidate who does see a portion of Americans as equal to the majority of Americans.

Obama officially supports gay marriage, about fing time. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html I have never understood why the party [Republicans] of personal freedom with a "laser focus" on jobs and the economy cared about what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home. Oh wait, I forgot the Republicans are controlled by the religious right.

"But the wild things cried, "Oh please don't go- We'll eat you up- we love you so." RIP Maurice Sendak.