bmags

I think Columbia, MO is an awesome town. But yay, Naperville/Aurora...I am awesome.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 11:26 PM) My brother was telling me after the Cubs sweep, that week was unbearable with all the people in his face talking all that hot s***, but the next week after the Sox sweep they were nowhere to be found, and he had to track down some people because they were avoiding him. lol. haha that's hilarious.

why would cubs fans be under sui watch, they've made their entire marketing scheme after being losers (but FUN LOSERS!!)

i couldn't help but laughing ... but seriously what trash.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 08:22 PM) More importantly, if I was spending 33% of my work time looking for another job, would I get fired? Probably, and with good reason. Its the boss that's important here - which for a Senator, is their constituency. Running for President is a full time job. If I told my boss, "hey, I am going to go try to get another job, so I'll only be around here on occasion", how do you think that will go over? Well, your job is not a U.S. Senator. If during his term in office, and he never ran for President, he went and had a diplomatic trip to different countries around the world to promote U.S. interests, but during that trip misses say, 25 inconsequential votes, did he not do his job? Well, he is representing you as a U.S. citizen, but not as an Illinoisian, so is his job only to represent your interests? Well, by running for President of the United States, he is representing the citizens of Illinois, he won by nearly 50 points in 04, and is ahead by a large majority with the same type of policies he intends to implement as presidency, so is he not serving your interests as he runs for president? He is. He is agenda-setting currently and pushing policies that won him his senate seat in Illinois to national conversation. And while he is running for president. Staffs of hundreds are reading each bill and writing bills and writing recommendations to the Barack Obama on how to vote and what the conditions of the vote will be. He is reading constituent mail and having responses, even if written by an aide. He has offices in Illinois to help consitutuents with a number of things, academy recommendations, governmental problems, accomplishments. So during this campaign, he is pushing many ideals of Illinois voters to a national forefront, making it to close votes, having his staff work with constituents at home and staying in touch with their concerns or suggestions. Yet because he will miss 30% of his votes, largely without consequence as to the nature of the senate, he should step down? I would argue that Obama running for president are doing more for their state than Durbin is currently. Is this situation comparable to your work?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:22 PM) Again, you are off on the wrong track here. That is not why they need to vote. They need to vote to represent the interests of their constituents. as a US senator your interests should be two fold, you bring with you the knowledge of how it affects your constituents, but you are also there to serve the people of the United States. Running for president accomplishes the latter and the former.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:21 PM) This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore. And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents. It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do. First off, no it's not the same argument. Correct, and for the vast majority of McCain's senatorial career and majority of Obama's, they were there to vote, and draft legislation. BUt during campaigns, it has been accepted that candidates can spend prior months to a big election (say, a presidential one) on campaigning. This is due to the logic that with 98 other senators, the majority of housekeeping will still be getting done, and the importance of the future of the congress, country, party is dependent on the ability of the new candidate to run. If they need the candidate, then the candidate will come back, and make an informed decision on that bill that was probably a staple of their campaign anyways. So, in conclusion, whether or not a senator running for president is there whether to hang a flag over the capitol for Secretary's day will not affect congress. So no, your government, your senators are not failing you by campaigning for higher office. It doesn't matter, no matter how much that might shock. Much like how when your governor could be running for president, the state doesn't fall into a quagmire with legislation all piled up on the executives desk without anyone to pass it.

For all the literalists, it doesn't matter DURING CAMPAIGNS, especially for higher office, clearly during their tenure they need to be there so they can have credit claiming and bills to their name. But during a presidential campaign, Washington is not failing us because of the campaigns of two senators.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Buh? How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that. Few votes will be close enough to need every senator. If they can't get enough senators for cloture, then it signals to come back, which they most always will. But during campaigning it doesn't matter if they are in Washington for voting, because, as said, most bills will pass overwhelmingly. Hence, it doesn't matter.

So glad it looks like this war is really going to end in the next 4 years.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:01 PM) Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those. From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there.

There is no one else who talks about Obama's similar activities...right. Not one of us was interested in FISA, not one of us commented on public finance, nobody talked about Rev. Wright. That didn't happen. All that happens is McCain bashing. You are the lone fighter to show up Obama.

good lord, this is off topic, but this kid I went to High School with, Mike Bowden, his stats at AA are unreal. I remember he was in trade talks for Mark Buerhle last year. Damn, do the Red Sox have a steady team for a while or what.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices. You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention. Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless. Obama is a progressive candidate. And what a silly thing to ask of an article. It's frame was to show how silly and dumb those rankings are, misleading and shallow. They have no even pseudo-scientific way of qualifying what their rankings are. They can choose any number of ways to decide whether a bill is liberal or not. It doesn't have to take on the fight over whether Obama is a liberal, which he is, but the most liberal senator, which he's not, because, they are two different topics - and articles have this thing called 'framing'. I'm saying it would be much easier had Obama been in office in 2000-04, when Bush actually used COngress, for his multiple major bills he passed. As it stands, there is no major GOP issue that has been in pushed since 2004 to test your method on, therefore it's a stupid rank anyways. Most of those bills, as the author said, are questionable whether of not either party can claim them exclusively. As I said, most bills pass overwhelmingly, considering they've gone through multiple committees of both Democrats and Republicans. And per the fuel economy thing, so reaching across party lines to get Republicans to sponsor the bill as well, is somehow not a good example. And maybe an example of how fuel efficiency shouldn't be a party issue, but a necessity. My point is the label, as they handed to Kerry (and his they admit was misleading), is damaging. And if they are going to give a rank that is, one, unprovable, and two, as they even have it grossly unscientific. (I'm thinking of ways to this, and think of Schlesinger's popular presidential rankings), then it should be qualified as such if people are to claim it. Especially today as McCain calls Obama an extremist and an "I don't know? wink" socialist, with these rankings as the qualifiers, it is good to debunk this 'most liberal myth'. He isn't the most liberal, many of his plans were less liberal than Clinton's, yet these arbitrary rankings justify it how? Because a journal competing for recognition says so?

batman 1 and 2 were alright, but boy, batman and robin was a piece of s***, that's for sure. Typical Joel Schumacher trash

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) I am glad he is a whole 3.4 percentage points better. Those are both just sad. They both should be embarassed with those kind of numbers, I don't care about campaigning, they do have a job to do. They both seem to have forgotten that. Besides the main point of the article is a joke. Before he started his Presidential run, what was the biggest issue Obama has ever taken a predominantly GOP stance on? but you have to ask yourself since 2004 how many big GOP bills did Bush try and get through? Social Security reform never left committee after he went public right away. Bush's entire second term has been him on foreign policy and little else. So what you have is a large amount of bills that can be owned up to either party. And most bills actually pass with overwhelming #'s. But as for whether Obama has reached across party lines, he's worked with Tom Cobourn (R-OK) to increase government transparency.(link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/s3077.html ). And he's worked with bills across both party lines with fuel efficiency: Obama, Biden Sponsor Bill With Tax Breaks for Auto Fuel Gains Monday, March 5, 2007 Printable Format By Gopal Ratnam March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Automakers in the U.S. would get tax breaks for raising fuel economy 4 percent a year under a bill whose sponsors include Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The proposal includes ``generous tax incentives'' to retool parts and U.S. plants to meet the tougher standards, Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement today. The legislation would allow different standards for different types of vehicles, rather than an average for an automaker's entire fleet of models. The bill proposes ``a better system that combines protection for U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs with predictable increases in fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in the statement. The proposal joins others in Congress to boost auto fuel efficiency. President George W. Bush, a Republican, called for a similar 4 percent increase in his State of the Union speech in January. A bill similar to what Obama and Biden proposed failed to get through Congress last year. Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, and 10 other lawmakers are seeking to raise the standard for cars to 29.5 miles per gallon by 2010, from 27.5 mpg now. U.S. Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering a climate-change bill that would also address fuel economy. The other sponsors of the bill backed by Obama and Biden are Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican; Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican; Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican; Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican; and Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. Changes adopted last year for light trucks, which include pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles, will boost their required fuel economy to an average 24 miles a gallon starting with 2011 models. The current standard is 21.6 mpg. To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at [email protected] So what's the big GOP issue he should stand with them on? The War? Making the tax breaks permanent? If he did I wouldn't vote for him.

per thecarpetbaggerreport.com (a few months old) "Yesterday, while exploring whether a center-left presidential candidate can win with a progressive policy agenda, the NYT noted: To achieve the change the country wants, [Obama] says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.” But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year? […] “When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. And that came shortly after James Dobson issued an alert to his religious right membership: Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama — not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history. And that came shortly after Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster and strategist, repeated the right’s talking point. “Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator.” I’d hoped previous efforts to highlight how foolish this might have had an effect, but it appears some highly misleading talking points are harder to knock down than others. Media Matters’ take was especially helpful. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him the Journal’s “most liberal senator” label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage. Obama himself criticized the Journal’s methodology by noting that it considered “liberal” his vote for “an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress.” Media Matters has also previously noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication’s previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the “most liberal senator” in 2003. This really isn’t complicated. National Journal argues that some senators weren’t given scores if they missed too many votes. Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings, but that wasn’t enough to disqualify him from the rankings. Why not? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so. National Journal argues that Obama took the “liberal” approach on 65 out of 66 key votes. There were other senators who cast more liberal votes on more liberal bills, and senators who voted the party line more often than Obama, but that doesn’t matter. Why? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so. When considering votes, the labels themselves are arbitrary. Why is, for example, requiring 100% inspections of shipping containers for national security threats a “liberal” position? How is establishing English as the official language a “conservative” position? Is a position “conservative” or “liberal” for cutting subsidies to private business to offer student loans? This study says it is “liberal” to do so, although that position is practically of no difference from Ron Paul’s! Any rankings system that insists, right off the bat, that Joe Biden is more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders is automatically suspect, but the closer one looks at the process, the more flawed it appears. That National Journal is willing to acknowledge that its John Kerry ranking in 2004 was bogus is hardly reassuring — if the magazine was wrong then, perhaps it’s not quite reliable now? I still think Brian Beutler’s observation is the right one: “[T]his is philistinism masquerading as social science — it’s the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics. Journalists ought to understand that. And those of conscience ought to ignore it, or lay it bare, but certainly not feed into it.” That was true when Brian said it in January, and the rankings look no better now." http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15015.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 03:02 AM) The price of eggs has jumped nearly 50% in the last year. They're one of the fastest increasing priced foods. haha, I was just about to say that. I can't afford eggs. toast and jam.

lol at danks letting this go to his head "Danks just hasn't been the same since the President name-dropped him"

I'm going to the Sunday Matinee...because I'm what you'd call a 'starving college student'. Peanut butter and crackers for dinner tonight, wooo!

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) You should pm bmags, we call him 'the king of pop' around here. He's a huge RHCP fan, Hootie and the Blowfish too. . Yes, I've had a few tonight. you know, Los, I went out of my way not to reply to that damn post...and you have to go and I guess I would go and see Brian Wilson, Rex, but it is close. ted Leo live is how he should be heard, his songs are stripped and raw and he has more aggression. But, I wouldn't be able to turn up seeing someone like Wilson, but when you are there yell obscene comments about mike and kevin love.

I never get tired of Ichiro rumors. I traded for him in MLB 2k5 and he was a totally awesome addition.

what's everyones names on tpm? Mines the same. Rarely do I post unless I see something stupid.

yeah, lets make our poor areas military zones!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) I guess he is the only one allowed to make blatantly partisian posts and have no one speak up about them? It doesn't surprise me at all. I'll be honest, about two people have really made me just dispise Barack Obama anytime he on TV. Being constantly innudated with the constant barrage of garbage attacks has made me actually look for stuff to refute some of the stuff that gets posted here. In that process I have really grown to lose all respect for Obama the candidate and person that I used to have. I never agreed with the guy, but I at least respected what he was trying to do. Because of the ridiculous level of attacks against McCain and pro-Obama postings, I have looked to even things out a little bit, just because the level of one-sidedness here had gotten to ESPN-level proportions, about hearing how great the Yankees and Red Sox are. Anymore I try not to waste my time replying to the inane nature of off-cuff jokes from 20 years ago being pointless anyway. Usually I stick to the GOP thread unless I get stalked there too. Its like being harassed downtown everyday by the damned Greenpeace and EnviornmentIllinois people. It makes me want to empty my gas tank on a baby seal. I probably should just leave the cult-like Obama love mentality alone, but I am weak, what can I say. The forum is plenty active on its own. I'd actually argue that it has been less active as more people have quit posting because of the nature of the beast here lately. yeah it's like an election year or something.