Chisoxfn

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 06:45 AM) WTF? They don't like when their representatives do nothing? This has been one of the most productive Congresses in terms of passing legislation in decades. You have to go back to Johnson's first term to see a Congress that did this many major bills. You can look at it 2 ways. You can either tell me that the Dems totally overreached, or you can tell me that the Dems didn't go nearly far enough, but if people don't like representatives that do nothing, then they'd have loved this Congress. Ya, they've passed legislation that had major holes and it is pretty evident that America wasn't happy with what had been passed for the most part.

If it is anywhere close to 200 million per day I have to ask, why the hell are we paying for him to go there and do that? That is freaking outrageous.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) No, they said they were violations of a secondary nature. Which is as good as nothing. no sanctions makes me happy.

excellente!

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) Iowa recruiting violations? Ha. And NCAA says no problem to Iowa's actions.

I don't think Paul will be back. But I wouldn't bet on that.

Trade Winds is only open during the trade period. Hotstove discussions will always be in palehose

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 1, 2010 -> 10:17 PM) Seriously? You would use the words "very clean" to describe Steve Alford? Let me know what kind of infractions we had under Alford? People can talk about the Pierce incident and debate whether he deserved a second chance or not, but Iowa had zero recruiting violations that I am aware of. Just cause you don't like the guy or something doesn't in any sense shape or form make the program dirty.

That was just a fun game to watch. Deng looked brilliant and was just such an efficient scorer. The guy has the shot to be a consistent efficient scorer on offense and if he can play agressive he'll be a great fit for this offense along with Rose and Boozer (boozer should open up some more mid-range space for Deng). Asik played well, although I was very dissapointed as a whole by our low post defense. Pretty non-existent on Aldridge at times, although at other times, Lamarcus just hit everything, even when contested. Korver did a nice job coming off curls and moving and Bogans did a fantastic job annoying Roy all night. Fun game to watch, especially since Rose had no shot all night. Note: Officiating was freaking terrible. In fact, the refs were the only thing that prevented that from being one of the funnest games I've seen in a long time (just fantastic ball movement on offense and a beautiful up-tempo game). I really really buy into Thibbs.

Texans

I'd take him. I don't think hester is a wide-out so that leaves us with Bennett and Knox as of this point in time (since DA doesn't play much). I want to see what Jay can do with an above average wideout and Moss is still that. Plus it is only for a year.