kapkomet

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) LOL. Another Clinton plant. Now I really do believe that the quote was either butchered or taken out of context completely. I'm telling you, this b**** will stop at nothing to destroy people to get her power.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 05:19 AM) Sabres/Caps was on Versus HD damn.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:02 AM) The race in Iowa continues to tighten up, as Huckabee keeps up his fairly amazing upward trend, in a new poll in IA... Romney: 26% Huckabee: 24% Giuliani: 14% Thompson: 10% McCain: 7% Paul: 5% This is two straight polls where Huckabee is within the margin of error of Romney in Iowa. In other news, Giuliani just can't make up ground in Iowa, and Thompson and McCain are still mired in 4th/5th. Have to say, if we actually get a Huckabee v Obama election, I'll be pretty happy. I may not agree with Huckabee on a lot of issues, or even Obama on some, but it would sure be nice to see two people running who seem genuinely... genuine. I'm not sure that Obama is "genuine"... but he has the cleanest record due to the fact he's "young".

Why is it that someone who realizes that we can't just leave is a "crusading, change the world types"?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) You don't pull that kind of stuff at Christmas. You do it within the next 2 weeks. People stop paying attention to the news somewhere between the 20th and 24th in a lot of families, because either you're traveling, you're getting time off work, you're stuck at a line in an airport, the kids are home from school so you're dealing with them, and so on. There's like a 1.5 week period where people just don't follow the news that closely (Heck, think about the reaction of this country to the tsunami, took us like 3 days to really start realizing how bad it was)...which is going to be an interesting variable with Iowa at January 3rd. It's possible that whatever we see in the polling data on Dec. 20th might be the last thing that matters in the race for that reason. That's why I said BEFORE Christmas. My money is on the 18th or 20th (Tues-Thurs heading into the holiday weekend... you need enough time for it to hit before the Friday rush to the holiday weekend, but short enough that she doesn't get "caught".)

QUOTE(The Critic @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 11:24 PM) Oh, you'll rave too - it shocked me how much better a hockey broadcast is in HD than standard broadcast quality. Of course last night there weren't any HD broadcasts... I'll pick one up in the next couple of days hopefully. But I must say, it's AMAZING the difference just on regular tv shows.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Here is a thought for the day... If Clinton continues to slip in the polls in IA and/or NH through December, with Obama leading or matching her, I can virtually guarantee she'll pull a nuke out of her back pocket. She's got something big on Obama saved up, I guarantee it. It may or may not even be true, or relevant, but its there. And if she sees a loss coming, she'll use it. So... what might she have, do we think? I've LONG said that there is going to be a (three or four days before) Christmas surprise pulled out on Obama...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) Makes sense to me. These candidates are so fake, this might as well be running for a Mrs America pagent. Ding. And it's disgusting.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) I would agree. The only way I see NY potentially coming into play for the R's is if Rudy wins the nomination, and someone other than Hill wins it for the D's. And even then, it's so slim of a chance that it's not really worth any more thought. It's 99% that NY goes to a (d) no matter who wins the nominations.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 06:26 AM) I think Romney said it best. The Republican Party needs to clean up its own house. I totally think it's time for a lot of these old hands to step aside and allow some new blood to come to the forefront with some fresh ideas on things. The party's message of "Elect us or the terrorists will get you" is not going to work anymore. I have also read many articles that said that many economic conservatives stayed home back in 2006 because they are fed up with runaway federal spending and may well boycott the '08 election as well unless someone steps up with a workable way to get a handle on it. Yea, because the alternative is so much better (Hillary).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 11:36 PM) Because I know enough about this issue, I'll chime in here. No, we are not heating up the world faster than at any time ever before, and I can give 1 concrete example and a couple possible examples. The concrete example is at the end of the Marinoan glaciation, something like 600 million years ago. This was the last glaciation to cover the entire planet with a block of ice, if we understand the geology well enough (this is something that probably has happened 4-5 times in geologic history). When one of these "Snowball earth" events forms, then the ice has a high enough albedo that it should be stable forever without some other force impinging; the planet would reflect too much light to warm up. But, it turns out that about 10 million years of volcanism puts enough CO2 into the air to warm the planet up enough to get rid of the ice even in an ice-world. When you break apart a snowball earth event, you may rapidly go from a complete ice block to a hyper-greenhouse world where all that CO2 is still in the atmosphere but suddenly the albedo drops to normal levels as all the land reappears. That's an awful big temperature increase in a very short time period (Maybe on the order of hundreds of years or less). There is thought to be so much energy in the atmosphere from this sort of event that the term for the storms it creates is actually "Hypercanes". It's also possible to get rapid warming in other ways. For example, a massive release of methane locked in permafrost or in the ocean could accomplish a large warming on a rapid scale. We've seen rapid releases of methane from lakes, and that happens on a timescale of a day. A large event from an ocean could take anywhere from 1 year to 10's of thousands of years, depending on what the driving force was. So, it's possible that the earth has warmed up at this rate before in geologic history. And I'd say it's likely it has. The key issue remains not what we're doing to the earth, but what we're doing to a climatic system that we've adapted our civilization to. The earth will survive us almost no matter what we do. That's a really good way to put it... seriously.

Hey, wow, the Goracle was at the BushCo White House today for climate talk. How quaint!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 10:30 PM) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Can I have a dollar?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 10:28 PM) Well, there is one other part to it...a lot of them haven't been in the minority for a long time, and they're looking at being even more solidly in the minority come the next election, so they really won't be able to do a lot of the things they'd want to do. It takes a different type person to be an effective representative from the minority when your priority goes from being enacting your legislation and earmarks to trying to prevent the majority from doing the same thing, and a lot of the retirees just don't want to deal with it. See, I don't buy that because the majority of these guys that are stepping down were in the minority pre-1994. It's not that. There's more to this deep within the Re-pube-licans.

I really think there's more to it - as all the Re-pube-licans are resigning en masse. And it's not just for lobby money.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) great info. So if a politician was able to stand up and say, for our public interest and national security that we reduce crude oil imports from 10.1 million per day to 9.6 million by 2010 and here's how we do it... wouldn't the public be behind it? You'd think... but it seems like there's always more to the perverbial puzzle.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 09:08 PM) interesting... i didn't know about the iraq trip thing. i wonder how much pressure she'll get from the establishment to take Obama or another candidate. (similar to Kerry with Edwards) The establishment knows she needs someone who is perceived to be "moderate" to win all the marbles. Don't forget that.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 10:04 PM) grow up and stay out of the thread then, post padder... Giuliani v Clinton (third party, no matter who it is) Giuliani v Obama Giuliani v Edwards (third party again) Giuliani v Richardson Romney v Clinton Romney v Obama Romney v Edwards Romney v Richardson McCain v Clinton McCain v Obama McCain v Edwards McCain v Richardson Thompson v Clinton Thompson v Obama Thompson v Edwards Thompson v Richardson Huckabee v Clinton Huckabee v Obama Huckabee v Edwards Huckabee v Richardson Pretty much 100% right on FOR RIGHT NOW, but a lot is going to change.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 05:28 AM) I have to agree with DBAHO here. I think climate change is probably real. Common sense tells me that human activity pumping all sorts of s*** into the air has massive consequences. Also take into consideration the fact that almost all serious prominent figures in the world think it's a huge problem means action is the only option for me. The death, suffering and despair climate change is likely to cause make economic recessions insignificant. Really? Hmmm. I guess so, the Goracle says it's true. Again, for the billionth time, climate change IS real. But it's been going on for millions of years. Humanity *MAY* have something to do with climate change, or they *MAY NOT*. But this horse is long dead.

Ditto! Sounds like mom and baby are doing well.

Who did he piss off? I just started another thread.

Wow. The Re-pube-licans are self-imploding. I wasn't kidding when I said the Dems would get a super majority (my definition is a filibuster proof senate). It's going to get ugly for Re-pube-licans, as it should. They have TOTALLY abandoned "conservative" principles.

Exactly, Alpha. Good post.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 06:44 AM) Considering my left-of-centreness I kind of thought, well he'd been embarassing himself for quite some time, ie ignoring climate change, fully endorsing war on terror... But from the media angle I think the "humiliating" part comes from the fact that he's the first PM in Australia that's also lost his seat in an election in some 100 years. I still don't think that's something to be particularly ashamed of, but the media's the media. I think Australians were also tired of Howard's following of Bush into Iraq, and his ignorance of climate change. And just signing onto Kyoto, or its future extension, whatever it may be, doesn't have any effects on the economy whatsoever. The actions a government might take to try to achieve Kyoto goals might have a negative effect on the economy. But even then are there actually any examples of a country going into the gutter economically as a result of trying to cut their emissions? I don't think so. First, have you ever heard of cause and effect? Second, none of the major economic powerhouses (either current or building up to) has signed on Kyoto? Now why is that? (I know, I know, it's pure bunk and stubborn-ness... whatever)...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071123/ap_on_...o_naming_rights What a f***ing idiot. How about we tattoo Richard "DICK" Daley on his forehead and sell those naming rights to a condom company or something?