What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Main"ILK"Thread -trackin all uses of the word (1 Viewer)

Heavy B said:
Words cannot sufficiently describe the level of loathing that I have for Obama and his ilk.

That said: Let's have some hard proof before we go besmirching people.

And isn't this shtick? A guy named "Larry" who looks like the very poor man's Larry the Cable Guy puts out a video like this? C'mon, men. Pull back on the stick and drag this thing out of the mud.
Ilk abuse here
 
Sofakings

SofaKings said:
adonis said:
I'm not quite sure how the content of the bill was changed by Pelosi's remarks, which were what they were voting for or against. It's all silly.
Well the GOP has to be wrong somehow in Sulla and its ilks eyes. Gotta start somewhere cuz you know it couldn't possibly be the Dems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another CUI

OC Zed said:
sholditch said:
Amazing that she is actually blaming the government for an economic depression created by a lack of government oversight of financial institutions. Hard to write a good editorial when your primary premise is that shaky. But if you ignore that I guess its ok.
Ahhh yes, more regulation is all that we need. Regulators will know what is best. Just like all of that regulation we passed at the beginning of this decade (Sarbanes-Oxley and its ilk) have done wonders at eliminating any market downsides. Yup.Did it occur to you that much of this economic collapse was spurred on by government intervention? Hmmm, years of cheap money from the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddie artificially keeping mortgage rates low, a tax policy which heavily favors home ownership, etc.

Oh, and I don't think Rand is blaming anyone at this point... she's been dead for about 30 years now.
 
P Boy guilty.

P Boy said:
General Malaise said:
Okay, well if we all agree that she's not cut out for this job, why can't we just remove her? Who keeps putting in her charge of all the important things? Seems like if sentiment was so strong across the board, she'd be in charge of something trivial, like ways and means.*
One of the beautiful things about our system of government. The people in her district choose to have her represent them. That's their right. The Dem's have chosen her as their House leader. That's also their right.But putting forth a person of her ilk as a leader may not threaten her seat locally, but it sure could affect national elections in 2010. In fact, it's part of something I'm counting on. Now if we could just get the Republicans to act like political conservatives again (and leave the social #### alone - those are battles no one is going to win and can only be used against them to distract from the issues at hand).

ETA - and please, please, please let Repubs ditch this love affair with Palin. There's no winning with that, no matter how much she may warm your heart (which disturbs me no end).
 
Bronco Billy: Guilty.

Bronco Billy said:
tommyGunZ said:
And yet none of this matters, b/c Repubs can count on your vote in '10 and '12.

But if it helps you sleep at night, :thumbsup:
If the Dems continue to put up thieves dedicated to their twisted form of "social justice" thinly disguised as do-gooders like Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their ilk, I really don't have much choice, do I?I'll sleep just fine at night, thanks.
 
keep up the good work videoguy :lmao:
:hifive:

ffldrew said:
So based on this bill is a teacher excluded from studying the writings and philosophies of Malcom X? No study of the Black Panthers?

It would be pretty tough to teach a history of an ethnic group without bringing up their oppressors ...because without those oppressors many of the leading writers and teachers of that ethnic class wouldn't have meaning. Should a class not understand Bull Conner and his ilk in Alabama as the backdrop against MLK teachings? or even Malcom X vs. MLK?
 
Honestly, I think a plan of this ilk will be adopted at some point in this country's future. It is inevitible.

I say this mostly because of the massive shift in work looming on the horizon: automation.

Within the next 20 to 30 years, I expect the vast majority of unskilled labor to be automated, as well as a fair ammount of mid-skilled labor. You can already see the beginings of this today, as automatic checkout machines are reducing cashier jobs, ATMs reducing teller jobs, etc. Within 10 years I doubt we'll have many truck driver or taxi driver jobs as self driving vehicles grow into a mature state. Even some higher end jobs, like doctors and lawyers, are going to have a drastically changing reality when hyper enabling tools like IBM's Watson get rolled in to medicine and law.

In the past, when technology makes a job obsolete, it also usually creates a new job as well. Maybe not a full replacement, but some jobs. Imagine an assembly line of workers replaced by robots. The line jobs are gone, but we can add in robot maintanence and programming jobs as a replacement. The thing is, the advance of technology is accelerating. Jobs are being eliminated more rapidly than new jobs can replace them at an increasing pace. Even with a full economic recovery in the US, I don't think we'll ever see 4% unemployment again. 6% is my estimate of the best we can do, and I expect that % will creep higher and higher in the next few decades.

Every one of us can pull a level. But only so many of use are capable of higher end jobs. So, what do we do about the folks who cannot find low skill work because it doesn't exist? The options are to institute something like a basic garunteed income, or to continue doing what we do now, which is very little combined with looking at them with disdain and calling them lazy. While today's option hasn't crumbled our society yet, I think moving forward this will become a greater and greater problem. At some point, we'll either find a way to support people who do not work (either by choice or because they're skills/intelligence is not enough to enable them to contribute) or we'll have a revolution. I prefer the former to the latter.
Ilk abuse here.
 
You and your ilk still will, despite the fact that any of your glorious right wingers would do the exact same thing and you'd defend them til you were blue in the face. Maybe pre-Iraqs we would have something to stand on, but the way we've conducted our military the last 25 years, we have absolutely ZERO standing to tell another country what not to do with respect to sovereign borders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top