jackie hayes

Reminder: The draft is tomorrow night at 9:30 pm Chicago time. Make sure to keep that time open and get yer sleepers lists ready, and I'll see everyone then.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 07:20 PM) Actually it came up in conversation with a Daily News reporter IIRC. I just don't care who politicians bang, as long as they don't break the law to do it. Alright.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 05:12 PM) If she were to try and make a speech on race, she'll get destroyed by the medai. She has NO street cred on race. She is a privileged white woman. I don't think it has anything to do with "street cred", and I don't think the media would lash out. I just think it will sound hollow. It's a copycat move, it's weak and desperate. And she's not a very good speaker, anyway. I've never, ever seen her speak even half as well as what I watched today. Obama's the inspirational candidate, Clinton's the practical one. If she tries to become inspirational, she'll fail. She just doesn't have that ability.

You have to wonder what Clinton will do. She claims to have not watched the speech yet, which strikes me as a mistake. She also may make her own speech: which strikes me as an even bigger mistake. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/18/po...ry3948776.shtml Add in the news that Florida apparently won't revote, and Hillary's all of a sudden much worse off than yesterday. Which I didn't really think possible, but there it is.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) That one burns holes in my retina. That's not the color, that's the force of my insight. You are quite welcome.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) So why is that any of our business? He didn't break the law. Ask him. He had a press conference to tell everyone, presumably so it couldn't be sprung on everyone later. He chose to bring it up, I'm just relaying the story.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 03:13 PM) I think that comment exposed you as a closet racist. You've just been outed. No sense hiding it now. btw, open-ended question: which one is the correct shade of green? This is the only acceptable shade of green, because it's the one I use. Friggin idiot...

Paterson admits he's had extramarital affairs: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/nyregion...aterson.html

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) What the hell were they expecting if they are reacting negatively? Now they've zoomed back up. A lot of people were hoping for a full point. Not everyone, but there was speculation of anything from half to a full point.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) According to CNN, it was technical difficulties with the audio. But still, it doesn't look good, does it? I know, it was just annoying, b/c there's something I wanted to do. The audio seemed to be a problem throughout the speech, although part of that was Obama not being able to decide how close to mike he wanted to be. Overall, that was one of his better speeches, especially in the middle. A little long, why are all political speeches so long now?, and I think he almost always gets pat and cute and vague at some point. But the bulk of it was quite direct, so that's good.

Hey, Barack, you know what really pisses me off? Did you guess, saying you'll start a speech at one time and keeping me waiting around for it to begin? Wow, yer good. You say you want to bring people together, then you get them together, then YOU TALK. We ain't bonding while we're waiting around. /rant

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 17, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) I just sent you a PM with a threat of great bodily harm. Check that out when you get a chance. Is this one at least different from the last three? Because I don't think it's even physically possible to do that to a kidney.

I saw that a couple days ago when someone told me to look at the Brett Favre article. It's some damn good writing.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) Who is citing ABC? I was just thinking of what I had been reading online. Checking my browsing history, the ElectionGeek blog and this story: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6..._political.html cite ABC. ABC also covered some of the more controversial statements that spurred this 'phase' of the story (including the 'God damn America' part that the ABC story lead with) on Thursday morning, on Good Morning America. (MediaMatters quotes parts of the coverage, and ABC's details on the transcript of the show show that they did discuss Wright.) It's true that ABC did not preempt all programming to air wall-to-wall coverage of Jeremiah Wright and the nefarious left-wing plot to bring a monstrous America-hater black separatist antisemite into the WH. f***ing Democratic hacks.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 17, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) Reportedly, the value of Bear Stearns' building in Manhattan is about $1B. What does that say about the rest of their assets? $1 bil, huh? Sure that's not a Bear Stearns real estate value?

Alright, I'm going to put in a weekly transaction limit of 5. Working out the season limit of 100 on a week-by-week basis, we'd have 4 transactions per week. Everyone seems pretty happy with the 100-move limit, so I didn't want to go below 4, since that would effectively lower the season limit. Considering knightni's concern, I thought 5 gave someone enough flexibility for a busy week (5 changes would mean almost 25% roster turnover in one week), but would pretty much cut off streaming (seeing as streamers would use about 3 each day). Like I said, not everyone will be happy with this, it's too many for some and too few for others. It's a compromise. If you have strong objections, feel free to pm me, though barring an uprising it's unlikely I'll change it again. Thanks to everyone who gave input, and see y'all Thursday night.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 08:35 PM) I haven't seen all the media reports on this, but FOX seemed to be the first major coverage. It could have been a buried ABC story, so I guess that would constitute 'breaking it' . I saw a CNN piece that covered it, by in a way as to defend Obama. This really isn't the type of story Democrats in the MSM newsrooms want to cover, especially following a Democrat scandal involving Spitzer. No, I think Fox was the first gleeful, 24/7, 80-point headline coverage of it. Given the number of cites ABC receives, I'd hardly say it was buried, though it may not have been featured as exclusively as Republicans wanted.

QUOTE(MurcieOne @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) or masturbate.... argh i hate you coach Hardt! Hmm...not sure why you'd be wanting to pull one off after spending time working out with your coach. You can say you hate him, but...

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) Actually, I think the story broke on talk radio and FOX ran with it that night. The story has been around in some form for over a year, but it picked up steam with the Farrakhan award, and really hit its stride with the analysis of the printed sermons. I'm fairly certain ABC published the first article reporting on those published sermons. (And it does seem that they are credited most often by early stories/blogs.) Fox also, as I understand it, bought the sermons. I'm pretty sure they reported on those after ABC, but independently. As far as I'm concerned, both Fox and ABC broke the story (at least, this phase of the story), but it's simply not true that Fox was the only one covering it.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 11:21 AM) when the story first came out, Thursday I believe it was, Fox was the only one to show it. CNN didn't do anything on it, and neither did CBS or NBC. Now, they kinda have to do it because it has gotten so big. But it is obvious the majority of the media is in the tank for Obama. Not only on television but also in the newspapers. The Chicago Sun Times, the New York Time, etc. I'm not saying Fox isn't unbiased, because they are in favor of McCain and the Republicans, but at least they will report all the news. Fox's bias for Republicans is nothing compared to the majoirty of the media's bias and love for Obama/Democrats. Iirc, the first article on all this came from ABC.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) To me the s*** that goes on in this threads is whats scary. Instead of just seeing this guy for what he is, and saying he is a fukcin nut job racist. People have to take sides right away, even to the point of some defending the dude. One has said he doesn't even see a problem with his speeches for christ sake. Would he really feel the same if this wasn't Obama's pastor and just some wacko that was caught on youtube?? I doubt it. Others want to turn the story to something else...Lets see who endorsed McCain...so we can rip him Let's turn to some conservatives who paitned Obama a Muslim. It's hilarious and way f***in sad at the same time. I mean just look at the reactions here. Let's just try to imagine for a second this was just posted in the Buster because of the pastors comments and had no link whatsoever to Obama. I'm guessing the responses would be drastically different for some. It's like nothing can be wrong with your canidate...even some sick f*** like this that he has gone to for the last 20 years. You can't just say...I really like Obama and am still voting for him, I just wish he showed some better judgement here or I love everything obama, but this is f***ed up and I have to put one strike against my guy. I mean maybe I'm late to the political game. I never was big into politics really, but maybe this is just how it is. Defend at all costs. It seems like such common sense to me..someone is a wacko, I'm gonna call it like I see it. I can give a flying f*** if it happens to be the 'guy' I'm endorsing for something. I'm not gonna look the other way if I thought he showed bad judgement and that's exactly what I think Obama did. He showed terrible judgement here. He has ratched up the statements against this guy the last two days, because it has become a firestorm, but what has he been doing for the last 20 years. Why continue to listen to someone preach hate, if you don't believe any of it. This is not a crazy Uncle, as he has said. You can't choose your crazy Uncle...you are stuck with him. Obama chose to stay and listen to this guy preach hate and blame white people for everything from a poor black jesus to the 9/11 attacks. So yeah...I definitely question if Obama believes some of this stuff and I don't care if he is your favorite canidate...how can you not at the very least, give pause to some of this stuff. If this was my absolute favorite candidate, there is no way in hell I would just overlook this, or start searching for a defense or something, but maybe I'm just not as morallitcally corrupt yet. *Yes, I just made up the word morallitically. look for it to be added to webster shortly. I would say you're painting with an awfully broad brush here. Not all Obama supports, not even many, are defending what Wright said. But belonging to a church means more than listening to one person. If that were the extent of it, churchgoing could be replaced by books on tape. You are ignoring the idea that a church is fundamentally a community. A person can belong to a particular community but not subscribe to its uglier elements, and given the fact that Obama has explicitly stated that he rejects these comments, that describes him rather well, imo. I don't expect a candidate to abandon a community simply because there are parts he disagrees with. Again, I'm not excusing what Wright said. But this attempt to stick Obama to opinions that he explicitly renounces seems pretty silly. A vast left-wing conspiracy!...

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 01:59 AM) So if someone dosen't agree with your moderate views they are labeled lunatics and militants? No, I confess, you've got me down. I'm really just looking for the next Ronald Reagan so we can defeat the coming commie menace. Anyone who posts a thread about Hugo Chavez that is not unstintingly gushing about poor, innocent, beautiful Hugo, freedom fighter for the masses, champion of the downtrodden, is clearly a paleoconservative who gets off whenever any discussion of Star Wars comes up, who waits desperately for the next champion of the right to swing into the WH like Indiana Jones and crush every worker everywhere and the principled warriors who have no thought but the dignity of the worker. Oh, unmasked!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 05:33 PM) Applause. He's pretty witty. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/nyregion/15paterson.html

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) It is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't know, I just don't put too much stock in this. Pat Robertson has made some pretty outlandish comments and he's been pretty close to the president. Billy Graham has made some outlandish comments and was very important to a number of presidents. This man has obviously helped Obama find faith and understanding. As far as political views, perhaps Obama has taken some to heart, in that he has fought against poverty. But this whole trying to paint him as an unpatriotic, angry black man is silly. Nobody who didn't love this country would enter themselves into the mudslinging contest that is a presidential race. They at the very least wouldn't get far. And at the very least they wouldn't run their campaign on hope running a positive campaign. He doesn't want to shed this guy, so it leads me to believe he is a friend. A close friend. I don't see this being a big deal for me either. Obama hasn't run his campaign highlighting he's black, if anything he's tried to downplay and strived to be a candidate for everyone, he hasn't ignored any states like Clinton (not counting MI and FLA) just because of unfavorable demographics. So I don't think a reminder that yes, he is half-black and shares some views that blacks have been treated poorly by America is such a bad thing. I agree with that for the most part, and it doesn't affect how I think of Obama. I'm just saying that the rhetoric itself is extreme, and it seems best to be honest about that.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 05:14 PM) So if you commit a war crime that makes you a terrorist organization? So hasn't the U.S commited war crimes? Doe's that make us a terrorist organization? If you don't care what my opinion is than why respond. I'm glad to not be a moderate. No, I was just pointing out that if you really believe this is an army, you should reasonably want them hauled away, since war crimes are their mo. And, no, you're obviously not moderate, nor even half-moderate, nor even one-eighth, etc. Happy militant lunacy, GoSox.