vandy125

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 18, 2012 -> 07:27 PM) That was my point, it's the only page not blocked. Well, actually I think PIPA is unblocked too. But I mean come on.....dat ass! I remember reading through the page and they did leave a workaround in place. You could use the mobile site through your phone or tablet, or you could turn off javascript on your browser. Then, you would still be able to hit the site and do what you needed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) The main takeaway is that the supposed uber-enthusiasm to defeat Obama isn't readily apparent from the caucus turnout numbers, but I'd toss out the caveat that it's an indirect measure and not necessarily completely predictive of enthusiasm for voting for Any Republican over Obama. There may be a significant portion eager to vote against Obama and don't really care who that other choice will be. I wouldn't be surprised with the bolded part being the case. There were 41% of caucus voters that were undecided going into the day of the caucus. That is a very large number that either don't like any of the choices or don't care which one goes against Obama. Personally, I was in that 41% as I am actually good with Mitt, Ron Paul, and with Gingrich (as weird as that sounds). I saw positives to each of them and negatives to each of them that make them all a wash.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) If there's anything that ought to scare the Republicans, it's this. In 08, there was 2 contested caucuses, so there was likely very little Democrat crossover. In 2012, the Republicans were the only contested caucus, so if Dem leaning independents wanted to cross over and vote for Paul or something like that, they could do so willingly. And yet, turnout dropped a fair amount. They won 10 on the strength of a hugely motivated base. If they can't even match Iowa's turnout from 08, that is a real sign of a disaffected base. To put it in more of a historical context, 2008 was a record-breaking turnout year with 118,411 votes cast. According to that article, 80% were from the GOP, which would be about 94,729. This year, the turnout was more than 4 years ago at 122,255. Only 75% of those were from the GOP according to that same article, which was 91,691. So, putting the spin on it that turnout dropped a fair amount from a record breaking turnout is not really one that matches up with the numbers IMO. I don't have the historical numbers for GOP percentage that cast votes, but here are at least the total amount of votes cast for several of the past caucuses to give a better historical context. 2012: 122,255 2008: 118,411 2000: 85,761 1996 (last time Republicans were running against an incumbent Dem): 90,889 1988: 108,560 1980: 106,051

This is absolutely ridiculous! How does Apple get a patent on switching between applications while on a phone call? Maybe someone can show me an explanation how this makes any sense at all. Apple App-Switch Patent

This Iowan supports Ron Paul and will do so in the caucus on the 3rd.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) Anyone have a Kindle Fire? The wife wants one for X-Mas, and I want to ensure they aren't piles of trash. My wife loves it so far. She keeps on saying "Oh, I didn't know it could do that!" She uses it to check email, visit facebook, do basic web browsing, read books, play some basic games, and view movies. I enjoy playing around with it too when I am able to get my hands on it. I'm working on getting all of our DVDs into mp4 format and will put those onto a Wifi enabled disk drive (There is a 500 GB one from Seagate that has a battery which lasts 5 hours, and there is also a 32 GB SSD one from Kingston). Then, we will be able to take that with us and stream any of our movies onto the Fire while we are flying or traveling anywhere. This is actually the same route that people are going with getting around the space limitations of the iPad. Most of the negative reviews I have seen are from people who think it should be an iPad. It is not an iPad. It is a $200 tablet that does certain things well as opposed to the $600 tablet that does a lot more but at 3X the price.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) if anyone here has a kindle do you mind answering a few very boring questions? I have the $79 Kindle as well as the Kindle Fire, and I just bought my mom a Kindle Touch for Christmas. What kind of questions do you have? So far we love them. The limited space on the Fire is an issue for plane flights or when you are not near wifi and want to watch movies, but I think I've found a solution for that.

Well, considering how he started out his career, he may know a thing or two about slumps to help some of the players... that's all I got... I'll just have to wait and see how he does, but initial reaction is ????

Uh, what?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 6, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Hell gets colder, as I agree with you here. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 6, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Any system you can possibly imagine or propose would work better than this stupid mess where 2 totally unrepresentative states are given inordinate power for no obviously good reason. As long as both parties and the media are willing to accept that mistake, then there will be other states trying to leapfrog. Haters

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Since no one noticed...the Kaptain hit HR #30 on the year today. I was there to see that no-doubter. I think they were saying he has now had 5 years of 30 HR and 100 RBIs. Dang impressive. Also, nice to hear a bit about his charity work in the article.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) I don't think that's obvious at all...outsourcing to private companies with claims that the contract will produce savings, booking savings immediately, and then having the actual contract cost significantly overrun the estimate is a very common thing to do in government. Happens all the bloody time. Usually the contract happens to go to a campaign contributor, too. In fact, I'd say "The government contracts out way too much and should just directly employ people to do a lot of these tasks" strikes me as a point of view that fits quite well within the modern Democratic party. So where would it fit, "the government contracts out way too much and should just get out of a lot of these tasks completely"?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) Although this study states that it was motivated by Heritage, it's clearly not even trying to compare the same things. It is dealing with the effectiveness of contracting out, which is a totally separate issue from whether or not federal workers employed by the government directly are overpaid. It's a pretty blatant completely new topic. So, what would really be the point? All it really shows is the solution to cutting costs is to not fire public employees and hire contractors do to the same work that they were doing. And again I would say that is pretty obvious, IMO. If the public sector compensation is out of balance (and I haven't said it is or is not), then get it in line if that helps with costs. If the public sector compensation is in line with the private sector then the only way to cut costs is to get out of some of the work that is being done completely (not outsourcing it, just get out of the business of doing it).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) The problem is...the Heritage method is the wrong way to do it. Controlling for education, age, etc., is the only proper way to ask that question. It would be much better if the Heritage foundation produced an honest study looking at that question, rather than forcing other groups to perform dishonest studies to match a dishonest methodology. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing anti-government think tank that routinely publishes misleading or factually incorrect studies. They compare every private sector employee, from fry-cooks on up, the the whole public sector. It's a crap comparison because there's a lot more low-wage, low-skill, low-education private sector jobs that just don't exist in nearly the same proportion government. Look I actually agree that the Heritage Foundation study does not show the complete picture. I was just pointing out that this other study doesn't either and doesn't help out its own cause by changing the comparison instead of getting at what we would really like to see. IMO, both studies are probably crap because they try to twist the picture to fit their own conclusions. I'm not sure how the Heritage Foundation did it in their study, but it is a pretty blatant twist in this other study to not even compare the same things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) I'm pretty sure that when you account for experience, education and the types of jobs in questions public sector pay is lower, but I could be wrong. Well, the article was written in a direct response to a report that states exactly the opposite. The problem is that they didn't do an apples to apples comparison IMO. They compared "in house" work to contractor work, which I would think is always going to be more expensive to bring a contractor in. You could throw in private company ABC instead of the government and they would probably come to the same conclusion. I honestly wouldn't know since A, I haven't researched it, and B, I only see the conservative research group side. It would be much better if they did a study that compared the same sort of thing that the Heritage Foundation did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) This is good enough to stick in here in case I ever need to remember it. IMO, that is kind of a "duh" article. Based upon my experience the issue is not that they are outsourcing and getting private sector contractors, the issue is the cost of outsourcing period. It always seems to cost a whole lot more to bring a contractor in than it does to do the work in house. It doesn't matter if they are a private company or the government, contractors cost more money to bring in. I would rather the government lower the benefits for their own people (assuming that would make it inline with typical private sector pay/benefits) and bring more people in to do the work "in house" than have them go outside and get contractors.

Can her son be kicked out of his own house instead of her?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 11:42 AM) If you have an understanding of how the program works, there's no reason for it to not "Be around" unless some politician actively decides to end it. Its biggest issue, IMO, is that not every portion of it adjusts for inflation in the same way. Benefits actually go up at slightly above the rate of inflation, while the tax is actually decreasing relative to inflation, creating a long-term deficit. But because of how it is structured, there's no reason for it not to exist at ~current benefit levels unless someone stops it. Based upon the Trustees own conclusion the reason for it not to exist is if someone does not change it. Here is the conclusion directly from the web site. I totally expect that disruptive consequences to occur. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 07:41 AM) Fair to say that the most interesting policy exchange last night was Rick Perry calling Social Security a joke and a ponzi scheme and Mittens saying that it needed tweaks but protection? That was interesting. One thing I'm curious about is how many people in their 30s and younger are counting on Social Security being around for their retirement? Who has that as part of their retirement plan? I know that I'm not. I totally expect everything being thrown into there by me will be used up and gone by the time I hit retirement.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) And then imagine that the ocean rises up 10 feet and swamps every street so that you can't get out. Just take a look at Weather.com and it gives an idea of how big this thing is: http://www.weather.com/weather/hurricanece...eats_2011-08-23

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2011 -> 02:20 PM) Ron Paul usually gets attention for his Austrain economic policies and isolationist foreign policy, but one thing that's usually ignored is that he's a staunch social conservative. That may be true, but he always says that it is the right of each state to decide those issues, not the federal government.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) I dunno that an 8 week old embryo (not a fetus and not a baby) can ever be kept alive. You'd essentially have to keep growing the embryo in a vat. It's not anything close to a living thing at that point. But "if you never abort, it'll eventually be viable!" isn't a hole in the argument, it's circular reasoning to deny a woman a right to control her own body. In most cases, couldn't some body control have been thought of well before the question got to this point of when life begins? I'm not talking about just a woman, but a man as well. Put something on, take birth control, whatever, there was a point of control before we even get to the question of when life begins. I really dislike that we are trying to determine where life begins. To me it is just a sad question to have to ask, but it is reality. In my very humble opinion as just a guy on a message board, there has to be some accountability about the control they used in getting pregnant. You just have to realize that if I do this without taking any precautions or even with precautions in place, there is a chance that nature will take its course. That is reality and to me that is where the decision was made as to what precautions were taken if any at all for an unwanted pregnancy (most of the time). After that happens, they should have to deal with the consequences of that choice. I'm not at all saying that abortion is an easy choice or consequence. IMO, I just don't think the sacrificing of life or potential life should be an option for those who are going to have a harder road in life because of their choice. Of course that is all JMHO on this and I realize that it is not an easy thing to deal with at all. I also know that there are bad situations that come up that really muddy this water too so that it is not always look black and white. An unwanted pregnancy is just really a sad situation all around, but we seem to in many cases be missing accountability for what brought up that sad situation, and it really bothers me that we sacrifice the life or potential life at the altar of convenience.

It is interesting to note, and maybe I have this wrong, but the thought of being uncomfortable with people making mistakes on convicting people for when to end their lives, but that same correlation is not brought up with a fetus. How do we know we are not making a mistake with when we "decide" that life begins? What if we are wrong on that? Is that something we trust ourselves with considering the thought of not ending the life of some rotten criminal because there could be a mistake? IMHO, there is a correlation on what you trust in regards to both abortion and capital punishment. If you don't trust the process on one end, how can you trust it on the other? In both cases fallible people are making "decisions" on when there should be life.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) "change" =/= accusing the fed chair of treason and implying he'd face violence if he came to Texas. Try not to come back with some snide retort, but aren't we jumping to conclusions a bit there? Since when does this imply violence? That can mean an awful lot of different things and you are jumping to the conclusion that it equals violence. I honestly haven't made up my mind on who I would vote for. So, don't consider this a backing of Perry.

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) In a keeper football league, anyone in 4th round or later is eligible and you lose that round. Without a doubt keeping Mendenhall and I think I'm going to go with Roethlisberger but I have some other decent ones. Mike Wallace? Steve Smith NYG and Rice both are big if's. 4 Steve Smith (CAR) - NO CHANCE 5 Antonio Gates 6 Percy Harvin 7 Mike Wallace 8 LaDanian Tomlinson - NO CHANCE 9 JETS D 10 Ben Roethlisberger 12 Steve Smith (NYG) 13 Rashard Mendenhall - BEING KEPT 15 Sidney Rice Wallace or Roethlisberger? I keep wanting to lean towards Rice because of how late he was drafted but his injury and QB status push me obviously How many teams in the league? Because of what the Steelers defense is usually like, I wouldn't be incredibly high on Roethlisberger since they can switch to run mode pretty easily. He is just not consistent enough for me. Depending on what your league is like, I'd even think about keeping Gates. Otherwise, no one really stands out to me there except Wallace. I would see him as a pretty good keeper. I also have a dilemma in my keeper league. We are able to keep 3 of our players in a PPR, 12 team league. I'm definitely keeping Aaron Rodgers and Ray Rice. My final decision is between: Matt Forte Peyton Hillis Frank Gore I really don't know where to go with this one (I also have Wallace and Gates but am sure I should go with a 2nd RB).