bmags

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) That's sort of irrelevant to the fact that Obama ran a piece, on the same subject, and McCain's was rejected. Unless McCain's letter clearly violated some rules of the paper (like it was full of expletives, or revealed state secrets, or whatever), then this is B.S. journalism. The editorial board should be ashamed. There's a big difference between rejected and revising. Rejected would be refusing to publish anything from McCain. Revising is what most everyone does. And when you are going to get a big spread in the Sunday edition of the NY TIMES, yeah, you might have a few drafts.

Is this sarcasm?

the republican thread also is carrying this dialogue btw.

First, the editorials are a different staff than the hard news portions of papers. And two, in my opinion, this was the NY Times wanting to out Scoop everyone. They got Obama's definitive Middle East positions before his speech exclusively, and got mucho coverage for it. They wanted the same from McCain. McCain's editorial wasn't much different from what he says on TV, so it wouldn't have been big news, and when I say this, I'm saying it's not much different because of the way it is structured/the way it is said. The Times is looking for the "Why we are going to win Iraq by: John McCain". Big, Bold, huge talking point for every media, and they'll all have to say : McCain's editorial in the NY Times today. I come to these conclusions due to the editor clearly wanting another draft from McCain. I understand the perceiving this as favoritism, from the ill-worded "what are your troop withdrawel timetables", but I can also see how the Times just wants to sell some papers by outscooping everyone. They are one of the big news outlets who are doing well with their web site, and out scooping everyone at a national level helps immensely. And further, I'd love for the responses to my query letters to editors to come back so polite and explained. Perks of being a Presidential candidate.

Sounds excellent! I'll read the journal when I have the chance.

see here's the thing, as someone said, and why I laugh at when some people argument about who is good and bad in the nfl so adamently, every year the opposite happens of what everyone expects except for a few AFC teams. Sure, the cowboys will probably be good this year. BUt besides that, I wouldn't put a guarantee on any team.

no. Super hero movies sure to bring in big bucks. I suppose they won't know the difference though and soon we get to see great ones like Capt. America and ...Thor.

god, more proof how stupid america is, space chimps is in 7th place. People here just aren't ready for good cinema. /green.

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 05:14 AM) So, I need some help: My hard drive crashed just the other day. Obviously, lost all of my music on my computer (9000+ songs). On the positive side I have an iPod with basically all the songs I listen to on it. My question is do any of you know a program where I can take music off of my iPod and put it into iTunes free of charge? I know there are programs you can use to do this but the ones I have found require a payment which I'd rather not do. iRip used to give a 15 day trial but I think it's been taken down since. Download.com used to have it. So if you had this problem in 05, i'd have been great help.

the joker was the only batman villain that i've loved on film. But hell, I guess if I had to choose I'd take riddler.

I hope what batman learns is to not fall into the trap in, while trying to top the previous movies, they add too many villains. I know the thinking behind it, but the story becomes to convoluted and moves too slow.

I saw it today. Then I finally read all the black script in here.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jul 19, 2008 -> 07:10 PM) Have the people that made that list ever been to Aurora? hey watch it soxy, you're talking about the city of lights here. this is in that sardonic tone.

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.