kapkomet

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Well, the article doesn't say that, but yes.. that is the POV of Rush and Hannity. He served on aboard with him... ergo they are in cahoots. Okay. Again, this by itself is a non-story. But I guess it means nothing when you meet people and have a meeting with them, unless it's George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - then it's a news story worthy of digging up everything you can. Just sayin'.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 05:53 PM) So, I understand the motivation for keeping the Senate in that it certainly does even out the power of the states. But I would like to hear you make the case about why that's a useful thing in the Presidential race, where his job is to represent the country, not necessarily the sates? Why should some states have more power over deciding the President than others, and perhaps more importantly, why should winning the electoral college with weighted states count more than the popular vote? IMO you have to look at it as a whole, and not the fragmented parts.

Well, let's just do away with the ENTIRE SENATE if we need to vote by "popular vote". That's why in some of the parliamentary systems, we see prime ministers win with 20% of the vote. No thank you, I like our system just fine. Don't forget the Senate angle when you're talking about doing away with the electoral college system, because that's where the balance is in this whole argument.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 12:06 AM) I refuse to believe that any of the 3 remaining candidates, Hillary included, put themselves through so much grief simply to serve their own aims and ambitions. That's pretty naive, IMO. Why else are these people doing what they're doing? For the good of "America"? Bulls***. They want their own 'aims and ambitions' met.

And I agree as well. That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves conservatives can kiss my ass.

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 12:42 AM) Thanks for the interviewing tips, guys -- I appreciate them all, sorry it took me so long to pass along a thank you. Jason -- it wasn't an accounting firm, it was the accounting department at a Milwaukee-based company called Direct Supply. I haven't gotten word back from them but there were also two other fellas at school who were interviewing for the same open positions (it was part of a program that I signed up for and was accepted into that basically allowed me the opportunity to interview -- sort of confusing, I know) and they haven't received calls back either, so I'm hoping for something early in the week. If not, as DBAHO said, it was great experience as it was my first 'real' interview. Speaking of which, Jason, may I ask -- what route did you go? Did you major in accounting and then go straight for the CPA exam? And if so, how many years were you in school for? I met with my advisor and he brought up an interesting thing besides the typical MBA and CPA routes that I always thought about, and that's law school. I'll be taking my first business law course next semester so I'm looking forward to seeing whether I enjoy that class. Well, I know you didn't ask me, but I'll share, because I've been there, done that on just about all routes of accounting, FWIW. I majored in accounting, and got my MA before MA's were required. Now, MA's don't mean a damn thing because you have to have some sort of post-graduate work to sit for the CPA exam. When I first started working, I took temp jobs because I wanted the experience. I then joined a small CPA firm and it was the worst s*** I could have experienced. But it was the guy running it, not necessarily the work. I will say that "busy season" sucks ass. I then went back to "private" and I worked in several industries - automotive, airline, small business healthcare, large business telecomm, and now pharma. In the process, I went back and got my CPA 7 years after I graduated with the MA and then a couple of years later I went back and got my MBA. Honestly, I think the MBA has opened more doors then the CPA, but it's one of those things that it certainly doesn't hurt you to have as many credentials as you can get. It's one of those things in my mind that says you invest in yourself so that you can differentiate yourself when it comes time for tough times (layoffs) or good times (promotions). The more credentials you have, against an equal performer, a lot of times it will get you the opportunity. For me saying all that I have said the above on the technical crap, the KEY differentiator is what I like to call "soft skills". It's your style, communication, how you obtain buy-in at the workplace that will make you ultimately successful or not. The degrees and credentials help you get your foot in the door. You have to work on the "soft skills" and that to me is where colleges and universities miss the boat now-a-days. Critical thinking. Teamwork. Buy-in. Actually working with people you can't stand to accomplish something - those are the things that will help you. I'll leave you with this thought. If something is uncomfortable for you professionally, DO IT. It's how you grow. P.S.: I don't know what you know about SMU school of law, but it's one of the better law schools in the country that's located in Dallas. I worked with a general counsel that at one point in time was the chair of the school of law at SMU. The guy was a brilliant mind, and he was a damn good businessman. I respected him and his demeanor. I point blank asked him one time with my career in finance, should I go to law school? He said that it's an option, but it's a killer and most of the time it doesn't lead where you think it will. He said in today's environment, an MBA and a CPA will open just as many doors. When he told me that, it was (I think) 5 years ago. I think that an MBA has gotten a little more common now, because it's quietly taken the place of a regular college degree in terms of the requirements for management positions. However, I think that an MBA at the right kind of school is invaluable, as long as they teach you to think critically. That's (again) what makes you successful. I hope this isn't too much blabber for you (kids...) (KIDDING!!! - I feel old typing out all this crap). P.P.S - this is one of my longest soxtalk posts ever.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 07:42 AM) I guess my point is that there's no way any politician can win with a lot of people. Either they awful for pandering or awful for being blunt. There's nothing in between. Kap, I didn't say you were a McCain supporter, btw. I just said that every candidate panders. A lot. This scandal seems to be purely about the fact that Obama didn't. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 07:50 AM) I am actually going to defend Obama here... For someone who grew up poor, and has now officially hit "upper middle" class, I know A LOT of people just like Obama mentioned. The elitists are the ones who have "yes" men feeding them crappy info to fit their campaign agendas, and have no idea about what is going on at the neighborhood level of things. I'd love to see Hillary Clinton step into a couple of the neighborhoods I lived in/grew up in, and ask those people living at/below poverty level if they were bitter and disenchanted with the political system or not. They all pander, they all sway for what lobbyist they need. SS, you saw where I came from. I don't think it was quite the same as you, but it was pretty similar. There ARE people "bitter" with the political process. Hell, I'm one of them. I'm bitter as hell. But, I also think that Obama said it the way he meant it originally, and that is that these people (as Hillary said) "cling" to beliefs that end up creating more of the same for the politicians we keep sending to Washington. Obama did NOT say that originally, but his spin of the subject is now how he's coming across. Again, when you combine it with the company he has kept over the last 20+ years of his life and watch his "rise to power" I don't think Obama gives a damn about my plight more then any other person around here. He's saying what he needs to say to be elected, and that is more my point then anything.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 12:40 AM) You know what I hate about politics? When something is said awkwardly. Because words get twisted enough on their own, and then when someone is ham-handed in what's a valid comment and all of a sudden things blow up. You have someone who says, I think that people are angry and bitter that they haven't had good jobs where they live in 25 years. And because they don't believe that government can help them financially, they cling to social issues (often religious, or gun control, or immigration) when it comes to issues of voting. So Kap, MrGenius and the other GOP water carriers out there, I'd like to know what exactly is so wrong with that statement? Because having read what he said, that's the message I get. I guess I can understand if you think its because the insinuation is that Conservative politics has failed its constituents, and disagree on that basis. If you think it's wrong, why? But I did see someone here all but call Obama a Marxist by making an observation that has nothing to do with Marxism. And I guess the thing that bothers me the most of what I've read about this comes from you, Kap. You sit there and b****, piss and moan about politicians who pander all the time. McCain's done it when it comes to the Evangelicals that he has eschewed in 2000, actually going to Bob Jones University and welcoming the endorsement of John Hagee. Hillary did it in reaction to this comment too, by saying "I don't meet bitter Pennsylvanians, I meet resilient Pennsylvanians." Obama made a rather surprisingly candid observation about what he saw. And where he saw it. And he didn't pander to make the point. And this is a problem, why? I've not said a word about John McCain. But since you brought it up, personally, I cannot or will not vote for him. I've already decided I'm out on this election. He's as hypocritical as the rest of them, if not more so. So, please, don't accuse me of carrying "GOP water" because I think they all suck. My comments are strictly for those "Obama water carriers" - and you see it once again in this thread - the guy walks on water in their eyes. When Obama clarified his "quote" - sure, whatever, he said it poorly. But I think when you listen to this guy talk and then bounce it off of the company he keeps, and where he's come from, my point is that the guy does not represent himself the way he really is. He's a smooth talker who has a tinge of "bitterness" from the world around him, not a second coming of the glory boy of poliitcs put on a pedistal like most around here like to put him on. And the media has been waiting for a "misspeak" by the smooth talker to pounce on. Guess what? It just happened.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 10:48 PM) Not sure how legit this is, but: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid Well, if this was before Friday, maybe. But look, cut it any way you want to, but I GUARANTEE you that Clinton gets a HUGE bounce off of this stupid "eliteist" crap. This was EXACTLY the crack that Hillary needed to now go ahead and (re)take control of this thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) Of course there is a pattern. He's black and grew up poor. So, he had less advantages in life than some others may have. That pattern isn't racism - its reality. What is more amazing to me is that, if you listen to what he says, he almost never blames it for anything. Further, he's very clear repeatedly that he had a great opportunity as an American to even have a life like his. Its amazing to me that some people are still unwilling to acknowledge that growing up black is not the same as growing up white. Its reality. People have the same legal rights regardless of race - yes. People of all races have the opportunity to succeed - mostly (with the exception that there are still some hard core racists out there). But the climb up for someone poor in this country is a lot further than that of those in the middle or upper classes, and, guess what? The majority of blacks grow up on that lower end of the income spectrum. They have a tougher road to success. Denying that is being in denial of reality. And yet, despite all this, you have NEVER heard Obama say in his books (I've read both) or his speeches (I've seen quite a few) that those people are entitled to something for nothing, or even something that others are not. Not once. What he says quite clearly is he wants the playing field to be level, and I agree with him*. *caveat: I do not support any form of affirmative action or other quota or balance-based program, which is simply institutionalized bigotry. The playing field can be leveled substantially without giving people artificial advantages because of their race. But what is the message when you take all of these instances as a whole? Again, each fragment that I posted, on its own, doesn't mean much. NSS, I agree that growing up when Obama did, there wasn't an equality. But, I think that he doesn't embrace all Americans like he says he does.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) Been listening to Hannity and Rush huh? Here's the problem with that. The ONLY connecting evidence is that he served on the same board of a foundation as he did. If that's the case. the entire board should be considered potential terrorists. People point to a statement by the Obama campaign that they are "friendly". Here's the problem. I cant tell you how many people i knew in High School or COllege that i completely detested, but I was friendly with because I had to be. Beyond that, there is no connection. Actually, no. I haven't had a single minute to listen to any of that. But I did read an article about it a couple of days ago. I think that there's a little something there about Obama's mindset back at that point in time, and I think that it's another element about his character. Do I think it's wholly Obama? No. But, as I said with my post, when you take all these little instances and start adding them up, you get the real Obama, not this pomp and circumstance hoopla that everyone wants to think of him right now. The man has some serious skeletons that no one wants to discuss. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will do it for us. If not, I'm sure there will be some "discussion" of it later.

QUOTE (The Beast @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 11:06 AM) Prove it, wite. No need to use caps. I just think some people, including posters here and especially Ozzie are making a big deal out of nothing. Obviously I'm an umpire and I know for a fact, I may not like some of the people I'm working for, but it doesn't make me have a vendetta against them, and I won't change calls because I know I'm umpiring for someone. When people get out of line, you get thrown out, which is exactly what happened to Ozzie and which is exactly what happened to several coaches I've umpired for. Yep. Of course, back to my comment on how umpires can do no wrong, and as how someone else pointed out, they all stick together. Look, Guillen's comments were for a purpose. Personally, I disagree with him taking it to the media, but well, that's Ozzie for you. He gets asked, he tells it like he sees it. It's not really that big of a deal, but then people want to turn it into a big deal.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) <!--quoteo(post=1609783:date=Apr 11, 2008 -> 08:25 PM:name=Athomeboy_2000)-->QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 08:25 PM) <!--quotec-->I feel a little bitter FYI: Before this story takes a life of it's own, here is Obama's clarification.... Too late (on the story taking a life of it's own). Let's connect some dots. First, read Obama's book. There's some racial overtones in it. Subtle, but there. Now when I say that, I mean that Obama says that he's had a hard time because of his color in places in his life. I don't want to say he's "racist"... that's not my point, and I will get to my point in a minute. Second, Michele Obama says she's "never been prouder of America" - now why was that again? Third, the people that Obama associates himself with... the "weather underground", Rev. Wright for 20 years, etc. Fourth, the comments over the weekend about people being "bitter"... There's more, but I think a clear pattern is being established about who Obama really is. Any single one of these things, on their own, would be fine. But, when you put them all together, we find that Barack Obama is quite the eliteist, in my opinion. For all you people who want "inclusion" from your Democrat Party, Obama isn't really all that inclusive. He wants things his way, and all this talk of change, etc. is to change things to HIS way of thinking. He doesn't have room, in his mind, about thinking any other way. THIS is why this man is a dangerous candidate. He's more like George W. Bush then you people want to admit, except he's a liberal, so that makes it ok. I never, EVER thought I would say this, but at least with Hillary Clinton, you know what you get (a pathological liar who will do exactly what the polls of America tell her to do). With Obama, generally, people have no idea how jaded this man could really be. If you start "connecting the dots", I think Obama has some serious issues that need to be vetted before this man could take the White House.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:21 PM) The first 2-3 weeks of the Iraq debacle don't count? GW1 certainly counts in my book, that's about as conventional as you can get. Well, does Afghanistan now qualify as an occupation? My bet is you would say (albeit different from Iraq) yes. There's conventional warfare for a short period of time, but the "debacles" that will always follow these conventional wars will likely never find the light of day ever again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:15 PM) Couple points. First...um, there might be a reason why there's quite a few "Patriotic" movies being made in the 1940's. Second...if you want movies to be made that portray a war in a positive light, we should stop getting involved in these disastrous occupations we keep doing. Third, there is no such thing as a conventional war anymore.

QUOTE (The Beast @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:14 PM) I'm glad they fined him---he was being a whine-y b****. Yes, because umpires are GOD like in your eyes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) When Saturday Night live did their Obama/Clinton debate sketch and she referenced it, suddenly there was a week or two of the Media trying to "Vet" Obama and trying to find as many negative stories as they could about him to try to create some measure of balance. And on top of that, there's plenty of other times this campaign that Hillary has used the media's insane urge to pounce on her for anything off kilter to her advantage. She may well have won the New Hampshire primary and saved her campaign by waving the red cape at Matthews et al., and having them go absolutely nuts for 2 days. (TEARS! OMG! TEARS! WHAT DO WE DO! OMG!) DING! And then, it backfired bigtime, thank goodness. I hope that Obama wins PA and this thing is over. Then the "vast right wing conspiracy" can then go into a full court press against Obama.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:14 AM) Yesterday made 172 days since Chicago recorded a high temp of 70 degrees or higher... The all-time record is 184. The average distance between 70 degree days over the winter is 145 days. Our low temp last night was above 70. And yes, the appropriate response to my post is:

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:05 AM) OK Kap, explain this one to me. Frontier Airlines filed for bankruptcy today (though they are still going to operate). I was a bit susprised because they seemed to be doing OK. Turn out, they basically were. Which leads to the two strange things about this - and maybe your background in the industry would help me understand this. First, Frontier's largest credit card processor (Wells Fargo) decided to "hold back" a substantial amount of cash paid for its tickets. Which brings up the first question - why would they do that? And is that even legal? Is this a sign that Wells Fargo is having liquidity problems? Then, Frontier decides to file for bankruptcy, because apparently if they do, that forces the hand of the processor. Seems like a drastic measure to achieve this, but, there it is. So, is this something that you have heard of before? Credit card processors not paying the companies they serve? Seems bizarre to me. It almost looks like this was a domino effect from Wells Fargo. One way or another, I hope Frontier can pull it back together. I like their airline and fly them whenever I go to Denver. I can answer better later - it's a bit complicated - I would want to see the filing because I wonder if Wells Fargo had leasehold agreements on some of the air frames and whether or not they were trying to squeeze cash on the other side.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 10, 2008 -> 02:04 PM) Urban growth boundaries could have helped prevent some of the mess. (One of the reasons Portland is first on my list.) Sure - but when you have space down here like you do, there's no reason to not take advantage of it, or so the theory goes. I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way things are down here. Read: access roads right along the freeways. Talk about wasted space, yet it's pretty damn efficient for traffic.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 10, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) The only issue I have with Austin is the growth. The Chamber of Commerce has the hard sell on the area. Very tech savvy region. Great campus. Seat of Texas government (adios, mofos). The issue is...the current infrastructure can't handle the people that are already here. Ans last I saw, Austin is the 2nd or 3rd fastest growing city in the country. And it's only going to get worse. But if you can live close to Central Austin a lot of those problems kinda disappear...to you at least. And ifyou love Tex-Mex, and I do and am going to miss it terribly, this is the place to be. *sigh* But then again, I'll get to go to more Sox games!!! And what's #1? Fort Worth, Texas. And damn don't I know it. Talk about infastructure that can't handle the population. WTF is I35W a two lane highway for leading into downtown Fort Worth? Dumbasses. Actually, in June of this year is when the population of Fort Worth is supposed to cross over and be larger then Dallas. The metroplex is one growing blob.

We just took some of the (nearly) world famous child in blue bonnets pictures (it's a Texas thing). When I get them off the camera, I'll post them.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Heh, no idea why McCain would do that because if they WERE still a "significant threat" then that would mean the surge failed, or at least didn't succeed as much as he hoped, and it hurts him politically. Seriously, every time McCain opens his mouth I start thinking more and more that he is just on the "stay the course" bandwagon and doesn't understand that confronting terror goes far beyond Iraq. If this was as simple as being sure that staying there would give us a clear victory (a delusional belief shared by waaaaaaaaay too many people in this country unfortunately) then that mentality is fine. So far, honestly the only candidate that seems to "get it" is Obama. He might not have the right plans, at least not yet, but when you listen closely at least he sees the big picture, he knows this is a cluster**** and he knows he needs to be adaptable and change his mind. When I listen to Hillary and McCain it sounds like they are just responding to the partisan rhetoric I was complaining about earlier. The only other candidate that was saying anything different was Paul, but his ideas were a day late and a dollar short, too focused on the past, and therefore impractical. This part (what I bolded) is a very important point. There is NO clear victory in this war. There never will be. However, when you're dealing with a psychological type of warfare, you have to have victories in the battlefield for the psychology to work. That's the problem here. Winning a "traditional" war is easy for us. No one on the planet could stop us now on that level. However, the American population as a whole has a spoiled brat mentality and they don't want to sacrifice a damn thing to really win this new type of warfare. And don't think that our "enemies" understand this all too well. That's why we can never "win".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 12:20 PM) The testimony looked about like what I expected. Petraeus seemed like he was being mostly straight-up from what I can tell and there didn't look like there was a whole lot of administration doubletalk/lying by omission. The comments I see from CNN readers is pathetic though. 80% of them are either in the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME" camp or the "DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA AND WANT US TO LOSE" camp. The other 20% is intelligent people who either say "regardless of why we were there in the first place there is too much of a risk to national security for us to leave in a hurry now" or "this is a short-term tactical success in a long-term strategy that has failed miserably, from here on out we need to either develop a better strategy or quit wasting our time." Ignore the 80% and pay close attention to the 20%. If anybody says something like "Democrats just want this to be another Vietnam" then it should be clear they don't understand how complex this is. DING...

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 07:50 PM) and Bush has followed the law when? And yes, they are supposed to. I don't think I need to remind you that Congress voted to allow Bush to use military action against Iraq.