HuskyCaucasian

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) I think Clinton's voter suppression claim in NV is going to hurt Obama more than any gaffe about Ronald Reagan. It's ironic because it was really the Clintons who tried to suppress the vote.

MSNBC called it for Clinotn. DAMN IT!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) Which means they would be splitting delegates once again. That is correct. It's a dog fight. I really prefer this "splitting" method rather than the Republican winner take all. It's far more realistic of who people want. This is why I am a HUGE supporter of removing the electoral college and going by popular vote in the general election.

I predict a 1% difference between Obama and Clinton in the end. I don't know who wins, but the difference will be 1%.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) And this is one of those things where context is key. Obama didn't praise what Reagan did, more what he could do in terms of reaching out to people. EXACTLY. People seem to think Obama was saying he liked Reagan's policies. Nothing like that came out of his mouth. He praised Reagan's ability to bring people to other and to read the country and know they want to go another rout and TAKE them there.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 12:06 AM)

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:56 PM) However, I can't think of another movie that is designed for the theater experience more than this film. I just don't think it will translate over well to DVD, and thats disappointing, considering how much I enjoyed it. I guess I'm just happy that I saw it now. Go see it. Agreed. It needs to be seen on a huge screen. Especially if you sit close to the screen, it sucks you in. WARNING: Dont be prone to motion sickness if you sit near the front though.

WOW! THat movie was INCREDIBLE! It started really slow, but picks up once the attack begins.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) 1600 bucks would be amazing for this newlywed couple And for this couple who just found out we are gonna have a baby. But it doest fix the country. lol

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) I believe part of the issue is the age that the classes would happen. At 16 or 18 I don't believe the kids have enough "real world" experience and it does not "stick" for the 10 years or so until they are buying homes, etc. Think how hard we strain to remember some items we learned in High School. I graduated HS in 2001 and I dont remember a damn thing I learned in ConsumerEd sophomore year. I learned it all at home and from experience.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:45 PM) I'm gonna make a slightly different point - that it exposes the nearly complete lack of education on finance that this country's kids get. For the leading economy of the capitalist world, we sure don't seem to value knowledge of finances in our schools. Its an afterthought if its there at all. I have to say, i wish every kid in America had my dad. He taught me so well. I know to save money. I know not to over extend. i know to budget and plan for the unexpected. I cant tell you how many times I have stood up to my wife (who LOVES to spend every dime she makes) and say "no, we need to save it. we dont need that". Then guess what... we needed the money for medical bills or car work or some unexpected reason. You can teach kids at school all you want, but the best education is at home.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) Freezing foreclosures is a horrible idea, in my view. I could understand freezing rate increases temporarily, or setting some other restrictions in there. But if you freeze foreclosures, you will only make the problem worse. For one thing, those mortgage companies that are already losing money and laying people off will suddenly be laying off even more people. And for another thing, you'll just end up with an even bigger pile of foreclosures later for it, which is even harder for the economy to stomach. very good points. I was in favor of a 6 month freeze and in those 6 months work to revamp the system. I think the SYSTEM needs to be fixed.

I SHOULD be a little fair here. A combination of this rebate with the freezing on foreclosures might be a kick in the seat. I dont like the foreclosures freezing solution, but it's temporary. Might just be enough.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) But, wouldn't Dean Witter have a vested interest in persuading the average investor that stock market is not only healthy but undervalued? I've never understood why our entire economy is based on speculative values of companies.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) Funny thing too, what may bring us out of the recession was a major contributor to going into one - housing. There has not been a housing recession like this in a very long time, and maybe not one as severe ever. It runs against the grain. Opportunists are going to start buying up depressed property for future development. That gives desperate sellers cash, and encourages that future development. The only reason it hasn't started in earnest already is the parallel credit crisis - those developers won't get as leveraged as they did, and marginal ones won't be able to enter the market. But for the majority of them that are semi-well-funded, they will only be encouraged. See, that is were i think the problem lies. It's the housing / credit market (they are tied together). That is why i dont htink Bush's plan works on any level. if nothing else, it gives it a very small temporary bump, but then it goes right back tot he same course. The underlining issues need to be address. The underlining problem is a really bad mortgage system. It's a combo of people who over extend themselves and lenders prey on those people and peopl ein worse off situations. If that isnt fixed int he next few months, this tax refund is pointless.

Ok, I understand the need to drive more money into the market, but it's not FIXING the problem. $800 or $1600 isnt going to pay mortgages that were doomed fromt he start. it wont pay thousands of dollars in medical bills. The underlying problems need to be fixed, just dont throw money at it and expect it to get fixed.

Share your thoughts. Below is a link to Bush's plan... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/business...amp;oref=slogin

I had an interesting thought... Hillary has a VERY big advantage over all the other candidates... she can be in two places at once. What i mean is, she has Bill. Hillary can hold 4 events.. Bill can hold 4 events. While in the same time Obama might only hold 4. Yes Barack has Michelle... but she's not Bill. It really give her an unfair advantage.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) most Edwards supporters WOULD go to Obama. I'm an exception. we're a relatively stubborn lot so i don't think most of us would just go to the "leader". If we were going to do that we already would have. I hope that is true. I have always said if Obama sank and Edwards rose, I'd vote for him and some republicans before I voted for hillary.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) I sort of agree. But if Edwards loses ground, I think the majority of his supporters will tend towards Obama anyway. You forget that people tend to favor momentum. The "well, my candidate lost. might as well support the leader" theory. I hope it isnt true, but it can happen. If I were an Edwards supported, i would switch to Obama. I also believe that it's "if you dont vote for Hillary, you are voting against her". That favors Obama, and I think he knows it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:15 AM) He/they could do whatever they want. But if you are John Edwards, and you have a chance to use that huge number of delegates to achieve something... you do it. And his followers will undoubtedly go along with it, at least mostly. I really doubt he goes to Denver, if no one has 50%, and just tells his delegates "do what you want". Just seems really unlikely to me. I just worry that Hillary's momentum will overshadow anything Edwards can contribute. I think if Hillary wins NV and second or better in SC... Edwards fades and Obama looses ground.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:12 AM) I was under the impression that his delegates would have to go to one of the other candidates. Does he make them to go to his candidate of choice or can he just endorse one of the 2? I was under the impression you are PARTIALLY right. I think there are some that are committed and some that can float. not sure. And I am not convinced he will have enough to really matter. If he consistently finishes 3rd he wont have much to give. Especially if Hillary wins NV and a close second in SC.. she gains momentum that possibly sinks Obama. At that point it's too late. He needs to bail NO latter than after SC.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) And if he can't BE the next President, then getting to choose that person is the next best thing. Plus he'll probably get a cabinet post out of it. Ok, I need some clarification on this. It's the second time of read it. how does he get to choose?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) ETA: I think that since Edwards isn't ready to pick a side yet Oh I dont think it's that, I think he is just stubborn. He HAS to know he has no chance to win right now and to think he will run this all the way to the convention is ignorant. He needs to endorse Obama or NEITHER of them wins.

Another quick point... MSNBC or CNN (i forget which) just mentioned there is some "pressure" from Culinary work union heads to the workers to vote for Obama.