Disqus - Latest Comments for streetsofchicago

Re: Streets of Chicago - FREE DOUGHNUT DAY!

streetsofchicago — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:00:18 -0000

Haha oh no, the doughnut will be just a little appetizer to whatever
disgusting thing I have for lunch.

Re: Streets of Chicago - FREE DOUGHNUT DAY!

streetsofchicago — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:39:14 -0000

Haha I wish but it's one per customer! And I'm too much of a fat man to
share. I'm definitely hitting up the Jackson one at lunch.

Re: Streets of Chicago - FREE DOUGHNUT DAY!

streetsofchicago — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:36:16 -0000

South Loop (near Jackson and Wells) and at Union Station

Re: Streets of Chicago - icanseenewyorkcityfrommyhouse: But that’s not...

streetsofchicago — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:13:47 -0000

I agree that the blame is on everyone. What was initiated by Clinton was
left alone for the most part by Republicans. However, that was so because
at any point where Republicans tried to encourage safer loan practice (and
prevent loans being given out for houses that people obviously couldn't
afford), the Democrats would publicly smear Republicans as "hating the
poor".

At this stage in the game, to put fault on one group is ridiculous. So many
people can't afford a new house because they can't find a new job. And so
many people can't find a new job because no companies can find room in the
budget to hire more people. It's a shit spiral and everyone is to blame. I
just refuse to be told that I blame poor people.

As far as the Democratic Congress, yes I was referencing the last 2 years.
And when things started nearing the ledge towards a disaster, attempts by
Republicans to monitor and regulate were shut down by Democrats who urged
basically junk loans for everyone. In the true Republican spirit (even
though I'm independent), I don't like regulation of business in most
senses. In this case, I didn't either but Republicans were forced to take
the regulation stance due to the carelessness in the housing and loan market
for 8 years during the Clinton admin.

Re: Andrew Card on respecting the White House...

streetsofchicago — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:55:12 -0000

And I'm not saying that a suit is the ultimate factor. Policy is. But
would you rather the same policy from a homeless person or a person in a
pressed suit? That's my point.

Re: Andrew Card on respecting the White House...

streetsofchicago — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:53:15 -0000

How old are you? Have you ever held a full time office job? Because if you
haven't, try to walk into work on the first day without a suit and tie (or
for women, a pant suit or professional dress) on. See how seriously people
respect you. Not only will you be under-dressed, but people take your
sloppiness as a sign of disrespect, that they don't deserve the effort for
you to take 5 minutes to clean yourself up. Wearing a suit has nothing to
do with policy or "complete abomination of all our values and beliefs". It
has to do with respect to constiutents. So don't dilute the point with
Obamaspeak. If being progressive means not wearing a suit in order to look
decent, call me old fashioned. There's nothing wrong with that. At all.
So don't bring that noise here.