Chisoxfn

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Jeffrey Dahmer did some interesting things. Nice, comparing a CEO to a serial killer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) You're about the only person I've ever heard describe her tenure at HP as anything other than a debacle. I never said she was a good CEO. I said she did some interesting things, whether they worked or not is a whole other story.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Fiorina was terrible candidate. She ran on a business-savvy platform, which is a joke because she was so incompetent as an executive. I don't know, Fiorina moved up in ATT, took over Lucent, and did some interesting things at HP. I'd say in general she had a pretty successful life and accomplished a hell of a lot. Was she the best CEO ever, no, but you know what, she did what most of us will never do and did it against more odds as a women (especially in the mid 90's).

Seriously, if we are spending 200 million per day, than I'd rather pay to have the other countries presidents visit us in the US. We can pick up the tab.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) And she spent like $150 million of her own money to do it. Wrong candidate, that was Meg Whitman who ran for governor.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) GOP establishment candidate Fiorina lost pretty bad too. A bunch of tea party candidates won. Overall, the tea party helped the GOP in the midterms, that much is obvious. If they don't vote, or vote third party no big swing in seats. Fiorina made serious headway against a long-term senator in Boxer in a state where democrats have a 13% advantage in registered voters versus republican. California is as blue of a state as it gets. And well, it could be construed as a microcosym of what happens when you have an entirely blue state (I'm not going to count the governator). And Fiorina got smeared out of the election. 2 weeks ago she had a chance but Boxer hit her below the belt late.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) Now here I agree. Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective. Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***. I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves. I agree with this. And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 05:36 PM) Well, the Des Moines Register said there has been no decision on any punishment yet, though initially, Iowa was told none of the players involved would be able to play at Iowa. I read to the contrary on ESPN.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one? The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies. And out of work Feingold is going to make things very uneasy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now. And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008. What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority. It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that. And if you guys don't think that Obama and the democrats didn't notice where the republicans took power again, you guys would be niave. It was in the significant swing states or even historically democratic states. I'm curious to see if Feingold sticks his nose out and tries to run for the democratic nomination 2 years ago. He just might and that could really make things crazy.

I look at it as the Obamas travel entourage and travel schedule is similar to an executive that overlavishes himself and I think we've all seen that America isn't happy with that. Whether that is the voters or the shareholders of these major corporations, people have made it evident that those in power can't just spend other peoples money like crazy.

I'm not writing off the democratic party, I'm writing off the fact that in 2 more years, more change will occur and the republicans will likely grab a hold of the senate. Whether they get the white house or not as well, I have no idea. Hard to say when you aren't sure who will be running. I also expect the tea party movement to grow more in the next 2 years.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) Do you really think the President shouldn't travel? I believe when we are going through a global recession we should make sure we do our part. We should try and limit various things and ensure what is truly necessary and what isn't. Do I know for a fact that we need to go or not go to India, hell no I don't. Don't pretend do, but do I have a problem with Michelle O'Bama going on these ridiculous vacations to spain, spending a ton of money in other places, yeah I do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Typical? Seriously, the main costs involved are security and supporting air force one. Even if Obama has a larger "entourage" with him, which I have seen no evidence of, the increase in cost for extra hotel rooms and meals would be tiny. Come on Jason, you have to be smarter than to think somehow the cost of security and air travel for the President has somehow materially changed with this or any other new President. Well I had read article and heard pundits state otherwise. Am I saying Obama is spending an extra 200 million, no, but he is certainly spending more and I ask why? And the bigger the entourage the much more significant the security force required and as a result, the security costs increase significantly, which has happened.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) ...and it will swing back the other way by about 2014. Would you like to bet on that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) First, look at the bills that DID pass. The Stimulus bill was half tax breaks, which was not the Dems' intention, that was a concession to the GOP. The Health Care bill had all sorts of modifications to it to make it palatable. Clearly, concessions were made for votes. Second, its been well-reported that Obama and his cohorts have reached out to GOP leaders in Congress, and were basically told that there was no interest in compromise. Revolution? Hardly. They took the house, and couldn't take the Senate despite how bad everything is. And did you seriously say Obama is one of the worst Presidents in history? He's not even the worst President in the past decade. They made huge headway in the senate despite it being an election cycle in which by and large it were republican seats up for re-election. They held all of their seats and made significant headway. What happened in the house was the biggest swing in 60+ years.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Revolution? I don't think so. Anymore than 2008 was a revolution. Cycle, maybe. Pendulum, maybe. Revolution, hardly. Biggest swing since social security was passed. I'd say the biggest swing in 60+ years is a pretty powerful mandate of sorts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) Let's not forget that the $200m figure isn't exactly well-sourced. Hell, I don't believe the 200M figure could possibly be true, but regardless, it sounds like it will be at a significant cost to our government and for what I ask?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) Could you find anything more trivial to complain about? No, not really. Spending massive amounts of taxpayer money is not trivial to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:24 AM) Should Presidents just not leave the country then? I'm sure daily security costs for just sitting in the White House aren't cheap, and the motorcades and plane trips around the US aren't exactly frugal, either. Compare it to the typical presidential travel costs. This administration in general has had far more people traveling with him. A much bigger "entourage" per say and the global costs have been excessive. And personally speaking, If it is going to cost that sort of money to visit various countries than no, I'd put a significant limit on presidential travel. We have this huge deficit and spending 200 million a day to travel to India isn't somewhere high on my list of priorities.

I should note, I'm not saying the republicans wouldn't have done it any different between 2008 and 2010 with that mandate. But what happened happened and a lot of flawed legislation was passed which a decent part of Americans don't agree with in full or have issues with. Why else do we have a 3rd party showing up and to an extent this tea party movement is more a party. Hell, there are varying degrees to what tea partiers stand for. Some consider them an extension of republicans but they also want to make it clear that they have their own thoughts and beliefs and to be frank, some could argue that some of there core beliefs go back to some of the things our country was founded upon (which was small government). The revolution happened for many reasons but by and large my personal belief is in a small government that ensures certain necessities but by and large stays out of your way. Again, all of the above is my complete and utter opinion and nothing more.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:37 AM) That is complete B.S. Obama tried that route multiple times and was rebuffed. The lack of cooperation is absolutely a two-way street, and the GOP has just as much blame for it as the Dems or Obama do. Show me where it happened. Show me where any sort of serious discussions happened. The dem's threw a middle finger to the repubs after 2008. They had all the mandate they needed from the voters and could push through whatever they wanted. All the repubs could do is try to block the progress and sit around and do whatever they could to slow the stuff that they didn't believe in from going through. And well, they had little ability to impact or stop it and the bills pushed through are all the evidence I need to support my opinion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) Oh my. You need to stop tuning into Rush on the way to work. As far as I'm concerned its the truth. Generalized a bit, certainly, but what I said above is the absolute truth. I'm not saying the republicans would have acted any different in there shoes, but the republicans taking the house is good for America. America works and functions best when there are multiple parties in control and power. While I fully buy into the republican way of thought and republican economic policies I would not state that they acted perfectly over the 2nd 4 year reign that ended in 08. At the same time, I think Obama is one of the worse presidents in our countries history. Just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:00 AM) To me, how the Republicans won the house is simple: Do everything you can in your power to completely obstruct the political desires of the opposition (democrats), scream bloody murder that the system is broken (even though you were the ones breaking it), say that if you are elected/re-elected you will fight for real Americans (while being the back pockets of big business), and continue to do everything in your power to completely obstruct the political desires of the opposition to the point where absolutely NO legislation to fix the economy is passed, there by sinking the President, and getting your man (or woman) in there in 2012. See, it's that simple. No, it is as simple as the democrats pushed everything they could through for the past 2 years and never reached out for any sort of olive branch. Obama never had any conversations with the minority republican leaders. It was pretty much an FU given by the democrats to the republicans. They didn't want to work with the repubs and had the power to do so because America had voted them in. Well, that has changed significantly now.