Balta1701

The Las Vegas Review Journal has given a heads up about poll results to be released tomorrow for NV:

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) Apples and Oranges? Very true. But the point remains...it's not the fact that they're young or old that matters. It's whether or not they're any good.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) Like relying on two virtual rookies and a senior citizen for your 3rd through 5th spot in the rotation? Like, say, the 2006 Detroit Tigers, with Kenny Rogers, Jeremy Bonderman, and that Justin Verlander dude? (Bonderman, btw, is only about 3 months older than Floyd).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:31 PM) I don't think so. More will vote at a location they are already at, like work. People find all sorts of excuses, and not knowing where to go is one of them. Not being able to get off work is another. But in a primary system, there's a way around that; it's called an absentee vote. The problem with the caucus system is that absentee voting is impossible. Therefore, the only way to get people to actually participate and be counted is to hold the caucuses in a way that they can make it. Is it somewhat unfair that the caucuses are being held at the location where some people work but not others? Yes. But the fact is the system is unfair either way, and given the choice, I'll always take the option which is unfair in the sense that it allows more people to have their votes counted instead of the system that excludes potential voters.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) People need to read the quote Here's one attempt to crunch the numbers on Karl's claim there:

So far, an apple and a diet Dr. Pepper.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:19 PM) See, and that is a HUGE issue I have with caucuses. I realize a caucuses probably favor Obama (whom I support). but Americans should be able to vote in secret. The one thing great about America is that we cant be influenced to vote when in the booth. It's what makes us different than supposed "democracy dictatorships" where you can vote, but if you dont vote for who we tell you to vote for... we kill you. THat is a bit drastic of a comparison, but who is to say someones JOB isnt in jeopardy for voting for Hillary and Not Obama? It's just not right. This is why the Caucus system just sucks. One of several reasons.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) That is the fundamental difference between the Clintons and Obama. The Clintons are all about trying to suppress those they think will hurt their goals, while Obama says "just vote. I dont care if it's for me or not. Just vote". It's " " vs . The potential issue here is that Clinton has been doing better with the self-described Democrats, while Obama has been doing better with the Self-described independents...but the Self-described Democrats have been attacked for 8 years by Karl Rove's voter suppression fun time gangs, from the Florida recounts through the issues with paperless voting to the connection between voting rights and the republican-endorsed voter ID acts, false vote fraud claims, and the Attorney purge scandal. This is one of those issues that could well hit at the heart of Hillary's supporters...yes Obama's the one who mentioned the evil one's name yesterday, but Hillary's the one trying to deny people the right to vote because they work too far away from a caucus point. That's a message that I think hits right at the heart of her strongest supporters.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) Clinton is a bit pissed about this Nevada thing... I tell you what, this is NOT the way to reach out to activists in this party...trying to make efforts to deny people the right to vote in a silly system like a caucus. If it was Obama pulling this sort of stuff, that's the kind of thing that could drive me to Neutrality. What makes a man turn Neutral? Bill Clinton, it seems.

One other little wrinkle in this plan I learned about yesterday is that it completely screws over the elderly, and the longer you've been working, the more you're screwed by it. Think of it this way...you've been working 45 years, paying your taxes at say 30% (pick a rate, whatever). You're 65. Looking forwards to a retirement. Maybe buy a yacht or something. Then suddenly, the government switches to a sales tax instead of the income taxes you've been paying for your whole life. Suddenly, all that income you've earned that was taxed at that 30% rate is going to wind up being taxed again when you go out purchasing anything. The only things that aren't taxed are whatever monies you were able to put away into tax-free accounts; any money you saved that you've already paid the taxes on will get taxed 2x, once when it's earned during your 40 years of working before the switch, and once when you spend it after the switch when the price of everything goes up 40%.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 12:02 PM) Someone like Jim Mora Jr.? In a vacuum...yes, he would have been the ideal kind of guy to bring in for this exact situation.

QUOTE(shipps @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) Wow,no one wants that Atlanta job.I know there has been alot of negativity coming out of there the past year or so but I dont think it is that bad of a job.All the bad revolved around Vick and the coach quiting on the team and that is over now. If I was Garrett, I wouldn't want that job either...because I'd be expected to do something I can't do in that position...be the magical super coach who turns that organization totally around next year. Atlanta needs to grab someone from a good program with some skill at coaching, someone who isn't just the hot coach of the month, someone who won't bail on them if things go poorly for 2 years, and just commit to completely rebuild around him. Set up a system with a quality GM and coach combination, tell the coach he's going to be there for at least 4 years no matter how much he loses, and tell that pair of people that it's their job to rebuild that organization from the bottom up. Find a QB that fits, clear some of their bad contracts, trade a few people for draft picks if anyone is movable, and just expect to lose for 2-3 years. Jason Garrett would be horrible in that role, because if you hire Jason Garrett, you're hiring the guy who you expect to be your quick fix. There is no quick fix in Atlanta. They have to commit to losing for a few years while they rebuild, and there's no other way around it.

Obama picks up an endorsement from a L.A. area union head (800,000 members). If the national numbers are actually as close as those last 2 polls I posted yesterday suggest, then amazingly, it could well come down to who wins California and by how much, because the 3 big super tuesday states are CA, IL, and NY, 2 of which seem to be foregone conclusions.

Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

Meanwhile, back in the NFL...Wade Phillips is seemingly going to be looking over his shoulder at his OC for the next year, if he even is retained at all. Garrett is staying in Dallas, turning down the Falcons and the Ravens. IMO, this will only serve to make both of the teams he has spurned better in the long run.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 09:16 AM) por qua? Specifically, the fact that Leahy has spent the last oh, 8-10 months or something like that threatening to bring a contempt citation against the dozen or so Administration members who have refused to respond to Congressional subpoenas but has yet to actually do so. He's in the process of proving that congressional oversight simply doesn't exist because Congress doesn't have the balls to take on the imperial presidency.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 09:20 AM) When Rogers says "shows signs", I assumed that meant its a guess by Phil that he'd eventually do that. But looking at the numbers, he did indeed play 68 games in the OF last season, compared to 54 at 2B. Nice catch YAS. I wonder if that means they moved him to the OF right around the time they picked up Richar...and decided that they weren't going to have a 2nd base opening in the next few years.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) Another big endorsement for Obama. I'm so annoyed with that guy right now this actually sours me on Barack a bit...

QUOTE(JFields27 @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) why do that when we can do it right here!!!!!! woo Because it would really help that site grow if some of y'all could drop by and visit on occasion.

Since we've had a lot of posts during this thread...let me remind people...http://www.talkbulls.com would be a great place to visit for anyone with even a remote interest in the Bulls.

Supposedly, Cloverfield will feature attached to it the teaser trailer for next December's Star Trek movie.

One other little bit for our resident Edwards fan. Taking a look at the media coverage from January 6-11, the period surrounding the New Hampshire Primary, where Edwards (and Huckabee) finished in 3rd place, here's what the total amount of media coverage looked like. For all practical purposes, Edwards was basically non-existent in most media coverage around that time.

I didn't post the Zogby one because it's Zogby, but now there's another poll showing the same thing, so why not. 2 polls now, national polls, suggesting that the Obama/Hillary race is basically tied to within the margin of error of the polls. Zogby: Clinton 39 Obama 38 Edwards 9 The Hotline poll: Both polls basically done before last night's debate or the michigan primary. Thanks to Super Tuesday being so large, it does start to approach a national primary. It's close enough that if Clinton loses both NV and SC, that might well be enough to at least deny her the nomination and turn Edwards into a true kingmaker.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) I would have rather took a chance on Lieber than Colon. At least with Lieber his injury was in the foot and nothing to do with the shoulder or arm. He did have Tommy John surgery a couple years ago I believe.

FWIW