bmags

i love talkingpointsmemo

go crow

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 04:22 AM) Link. haha, that's my paper! Go Digmo.com!

well, it's like how Obama claims a victory in Missouri, even though they split delegates.

People are stupid: "Stay Scared! FEAR WILL SET YOU FREE! I can stop the terrorists!" All that B.S. People are dumb, especially people in Ohio, they've produced two terrible cities.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 4, 2008 -> 10:28 PM) I keep saying that this is New Hampshire all over again, but no one wants to believe me. The 3AM ad was effective. The sad thing is, I don't think I'm kidding. I thought he was rolling too much, but now, I think you are right. Sadly, I'm going to have to deal with Clinton in this race for months, continuing to dirty up someone in her own party.

this is so exciting! It's gonna make listening to the online broadcasts a good replacement while I'm still in missourah

I just have to wonder, with the recent semi-surge for HRC, who are these people that are actually convinced by negative ads?

It is difficult for me for a couple reasons: 1) For democracy to work, we need an educated citizenry, as far as even state congressional positions I feel we have that working. But for positions like States Attorney's (and added to the fact that assistant SA's we never see or hear about, they are even hard to find online, work these cases) and Judges, it is extremely difficult to have an educated public. 2) The reason they are up for election is accountability. As bad as flaunting your conviction record has shown the potential to be, so is the potential of these important positions being given to people as favors. I don't know what would work better. But I feel like #1 ain't workin too great so far.

I would also like to point out some problems in the criminal justice system. We've been fighting the supply of drugs with billions of dollars for 40+ years unsuccessfully. When do we start committing the same amount to the demand? More than that, from a distance, the things that make us angry are when a guilty person goes free(edit: obviously neither are ideal, but it was the amount of times this happens comparatively is so disturbing). But studying the criminal justice system, I'm so much more disgusted at the innocent ones going to jail due to prosecutorial misconduct, and the false confessions finally being brought to light with books like Grisham's "The Innocent Man". It is not once in a while this goes on. One of the problems is how we grade. The police dept's are graded on number of clearances, the prosecutors on convictions. But the job of a prosecutor is supposed to be to find justice, not convictions. I believed the SCOTUS ruled on that in the 30's? Then, with their job being an electable position, I think it has done the opposite of it's intentions. Rarely is prosecutorial misconduct reported on because journalists aren't as familiar with the legal system and they end up just covering the "box score" as opposed to the game. So what they take to us is "look how tough I am on crime", and that is measured through their conviction rate. So when the police are graded on how many cases they can get to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor on how many he can convict, how many times is good police work circumvented in way of career ambitions? just a thought...

Oh yay, more movies of uncomfortable band name drops. "Oh yeah, man the Ramones are awesome" "I was more of a sonic youth guy" "SOONIC YOUTH?"

no, man this pisses me off. School proposed our emergency alert system. Saying we'll have emergency texts just sign up. BUt the company doing this text alert thing would also be sending us advertisements. They basically just raped our #'s for "security". That company luckily didn't happen, now we just have a text service exclusive to the school.

I just think that Obama doesn't want to get into that war, I think he'd rather that sit. be forgotten. Because a radical black islam will always be more threatening than a protestant who hates catholics and thinks rapture will occur.

I heard they are cuttin down hard on it this year. It'll be the first one i've missed since junior year of high school

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 05:23 AM) The pitching was the key to the Sox winning it all. That, and a s***load of luck and everyone playing well. Yes, okay, right. But we DID have quite a bit of 'contact' pitchers, and so Crede's defense in '05 was an important part of that pitching, as was Rowand in Center and Uribe at SS. Why do we need to undercut Crede so severely? Yes, he was below avg. offensively in OBP for most of his years. But a lot of fans think he's great because he was ours during a championship run. Seeing the reality isn't that important. We had great pitching. We had great defense. And we had great power. Joe Crede helped in all three of those categories. He was ours then. He's about to be gone soon. People will miss him. So who cares, they'll soon learn to love Fields. No use breaking down memories. I'll choose to forget seeing crede weakly pop up to third on a looping swing, for him hitting the game winning home run in the 10th against cleveland. I'll miss him. He created a lot of memories for me.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 06:50 PM) You live in Missouri. Never associate the word perfect with that state again. Yeah... I do like KC but the St.L. ...

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) Secondly, Russert didn't make it about him. YOU made it about him because he actually had the stones to not let the candidates give a bs answer to tough questions, and you weren't accustomed to that by the previous moderators. That's for the other candidates, not the moderator. Once again, on Meet The Press, if Russert wants to do his faux outrage to drag out pseudo-controversy, that's his prerogative. Moderators are there to keep the debate moving, bring up topics, and make sure both get the right to speak (or all get the right to speak.) The Farrakhan question was a fine question, but the 40 follow-ups were ridiculous. This isn't the Meet the Press debate, it was The Democratic Primary Debates. Russert needs to ask questions and shut up.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 06:02 PM) Well, I disagree with you, and apparently NBC does as well, as Russert is considered one of their top reporters/commentators. I like the pointed questions, and I think it's necessary at this point in the campaign to do a little seeking. These two candidates are far too sharp and rehearsed to simply be "guided" at this point. Should Russert and Williams have simply sought to guide both Clinton and Obama they would have received the same answers and the very same debate as was held less than two weeks ago on CNN, which was already a litany of the same answers the candidates have been giving in their speeches on the trail. These two asked different questions, held the candidates to actually answering them, and therefore, I think at least on a few accounts there was some new information exchanged, if nothing else. Some will not like Russert's style, although judging by his career trajectory there are quite a few more that do. As for the first comment, my point exactly. Good TV journalists are ranked by how loud and interruptive they can be. And as for the next bulk paragraph, they can reserve that style for interviews on their show or news conferences. Is it getting repetitive now? Yes, 20 debates into a primary season would get tedious. But it's a debate, between candidates, on issues and character. This has just been an unusually long primary season, and debates b/w parties can only go so far. That doesn't mean as a moderator you can make it about you and do these silly "gotcha" questions.

I've heard all these polls don't mean anything with how strange texas's system is.

I was a huge Elliot Spitzer fan when he was bustin the music industry and what not, but I've heard his current governor term hasn't been that great. That made me sad.

Well, clarification: Missouri bars close at 1. He turned 21 at midnight 6 drinks is pretty good to fit in that window.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 07:13 AM) Honestly, I disagree with that. How often do we watch these debates and the candidates will dance around the question or refuse to come anywhere near it entirely. Hilary is particularly fond of doing so, although Barack did so about the public financing of the general election question. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Russert trying to make the candidates squirm a bit with uncomfortable questions. Basically, he was trying to get Obama to reject Farrakhan and whatever base he brings along with him, and Obama was unwilling to do so outright. I don't see anything wrong with that. God forbid we try to make candidates make actual decisions as they will have to do should they ever reach the White House instead of skirting around every pointed question and stating they have a "plan" to fix everything. How was he unwilling to do so, clinton and russert were looking for a specific synonym to what he already announced. IF you do not agree with someones anti-semitism, you do not agree with their anti-semitism. so "farrakhan endorsed you, should jewish americans trust you?" ANd "I did not seek out Farrakhans endorsement and have distanced myself from him" more than answer that question. There is a difference between interviews and moderation, and aside from the fact that russert is terrible at both, moderators are supposed to guide, not seek. And he completely overtook the debate in a way I found disdainful. He's an egomaniac. Nobody cares about him, he forces it on. He had that "i'm looking out for the american people" logic in a way that isn't truly representative. It's so bad journalism logic. He's into creating a "gotcha" mode, and creating controversy, what we need now is a media that isn't so reactionary, that demands accountability. They aren't asking the obvious questions in results to things. It's one of the things i like about talkingpointsmemo so much, despite it's left slant, when something comes up, they get you the document, they check the facts, they don't report on the report. And Russert is just a blowhard, posing as someone searching for real truth just by yelling louder and acting more incredulous. And he's not the only one, but it's an unfortunate dimension to TV news. It is just shallow. And the once shining beacon of it, 60 minutes, is dead. Dateline is a joke. The news magazine has been taken over by hidden cameras and celeb interviews.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 05:52 AM) I am not sure what group I agree with here. I find that to engage in a lot of socialization in college, drinking is almost a must. However, that being said, I have never had a drink of alcohol in my life and I am sure I have missed out on a ton of the socialization in college. But, i honestly don't care too much about being that social, so it really never mattered to me. This is an interesting conversation. well, honestly, my post two pages ago may have been ignored, but it rings true. I thing this thread response encapsulated two things: 1) People didn't like being told they were dropout losers because they drank 2) trying to help out beast learn the values of person to person interaction I have friends that don't drink. BUT, they don't shy away from interaction. Parties aren't their scene and my fraternity and myself respect that, but they also are involved in a lot of things in campus. That is not a "in place of system", where you aren't drinking so you must do this instead, but, I think it is important in college to push yourself far more than academically and mix yourself with different groups of people for self growth. My greatest personal strides in college have not come from drinking, but from interaction with a diverse group of people (i was a summer welcome leader), and I feel it's important to building important social skills. That said, I work my ass off in school, do drink, do have fun, and resent a sentiment that because i do these things and get stupid on weekends I'm somehow inferior. My friend turned 21 tonight, I don't regret celebrating it. And maggsmaggs, you live in almost a perfect college campus. I love our cafe culture, our music culture, our film culture. Go take advantage of the j-school buying T/F tickets and go to the director Q and A, you'll meet people there. Get as diverse a network as you can, because our campus, as well as many college ones, have such a great opportunity to maximize every strength available. and go tigers baseball. Go Crow.

no no, i just thought that was the best example of Russert's incredulous "why don't you answer my questions to my absurd standards and I'll interrupt you until I get the answer nobody cares about"

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 04:53 AM) Well, thats what Tim Russert does. It's nothing new. He hounds everyone with repetitive questions like that. As we already talked about in the thread, I think it's a better question to ask if this is appropriate type of stuff for a debate. Where the questioner begins to take center stage at times. that was the point, I was making fun of him for his tomfoolery on stage. *and him as a person*