mr_genius

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) What cup size do you have, Mr G? haha, reminds of the seinfeld episode where George Kastanza worked at the bra factory

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) I would agree with you. None of my male colleagues get called "dear" or complimented on how they look when they give a talk. It's frustrating--but we also don't have any minority men in my program to compare my treatment to. Anyway, here is an amazing op-ed from a while ago from the NYT. The other women in my program (and some who've finished) all found it really resonated--as did some non-academic chums. my boss at work is female, she has winked at me before. no joke. once i finished writing a complex algorithm for a big customer of ours and she said "nice job" then winked! oh, and the other day, I was talking to some lady at work and she said something about how she liked my shirt. i feel your pain.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) I have good news then! The Cowboys won SB XXX.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 09:16 PM) I was reading a little yesterday about Romney campaigning about his record with the economy compared to McCain's "Commander in Chief" stance. Basically Romney is saying that McCain is liberal. Touting the New Yorks times support of McCain and his work in the Senate with Dems on immigration and campaign finance reform. Romney points out that McCain voted against Bush tax cuts, therefore Romney can surmise that McCain likes high taxes. McCain is calling Romney a flip-flopping, tax-raising, liberal. Oh, and McCain says Romney wanted to surrender in Iraq.

Is Bush walking around in the crowd signing autographs now? lol i don't remember seeing a president do that before

Nancy Pelosi might have a face made out of plastic, but she sure can give a great "I'm the new Speaker of the House" speech.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:37 PM) Thankfully, there is still some intelligence left in America that still doesn't explain H.Clinton voters. seriously, how stupid do you have to be to buy into all her bs and vote for her.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 08:33 PM) She needs another coat of primer. That will give her that surprised look you are used to. haha

Pelosi looks drunk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BorlbpUIKPw

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 03:13 PM) This whole thing assumes that there's something wrong with steroids. And there's not. I wish more players did them. Brian Anderson needs to totally juice up. be like Brady Anderson, all of a sudden hit 50 homeruns.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 01:44 AM) You and I agree on one thing for certain and that's the living above means point. The average joe schmuck out there either is completely ignorant about handling money or simply does not care. I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who gets wiped out because they spend too much. The government didn't really screw up when they went off the gold standard but when they got rid of the debtors prisons. Speaking of the government, there will come a day when the budget melts down because we're too deep in the hole and that's when the Social Security and Medicare and such will go bye bye. don't forget about free health care for everyone. thats could really push things over the edge. From the Wall Street Journal ouch

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 08:37 PM) I understand completely. But if you ask me it is kind of strange for Ron Paul to promote himself as the one true capitialist, while trumpeting the horn of extreme protectionism. Free trade is capitalism as its best. He would actually be hindering our economy by throwing up barriers. I've always thought Paul was a total free trader, I would imagine he supports the NAFTA and WTO deals. If he doesn't, that would be contradictory to what he professes as sound economic principles. I do know that he opposes running deficits in which we use foreign countries to finance our deficit spending, but I think that would be considered a separate issue.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) That makes them both sound like bad options. I think they are both pretty good options, with McCain being the better one of the two. I think we agree. I like McCain, he's not a 'hard core' conservative, but thats not a bad thing for me as a voter.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:23 PM) Romney's core beliefs have completely changed since he was Gov. I hate that. That isn't realistic. That is pandering to the extreme as far as I am concerned. Romney is a much worse option than McCain IMO.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 08:16 AM) You do realize that NAFTA only included the USA, Mexico and Canada right? China is a whole different story. We have had trade agreements with them back to Rich Nixon. new deals with china were signed in the 90's. Chinese trade deals with the WTO. NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement, China isn't any where near north america. My posts have included the wording "NAFTA and China deals" or "wto, NAFTA, and chinese deals". The word "and" or a comma shows that they are different and used in combination, not that they are the same thing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:29 PM) Honestly, yes, it is because of oil. How do you think those planes and boats make their way across the Pacific? of course... no oil = no shipping of goods. silly me. what if they were solar powered ships, how would that change anything? also, oil has been around well before the trade deficit with china. /leaves thread for good this time

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:24 PM) I said nothing of the sort - I wasn't just talking about China. Were we only discussing China? And you are assuming that increase, in China, was due to changed trade policies. Instead, I'd suggest, the economic realities of massively increased production moving to China, changes in currencies, and various other factors all played major parts as well. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007 -237,477,000,000 is the deficit with China. any talks of a trade deficit needs to address that. As far as the second point, the economic realities of were you are talking about had a lot to do with the WTO and the China trade deals. Both the currency issue and manufacturing production increases are a direct result. so in your opinion this is a large trade deficit that, in your opinion, coincidentally sky rocked after the WTO and Chinese trade deals. I think I need to just end my hijacking of this thread

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:06 PM) Oil is a big part. And SS2K5, note I agreed with you - those trade agreements had an effect, just not a very large one. between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 07:41 PM) I won't. The trade deficit is almost all due to American consumers. Trade pacts really don't make that big of a difference in my eyes. If we quit buying Toyotas, Sony's and everything else made everywhere but here, the trade deficit would be gone, and the dollar would go back up, NAFTA or no NAFTA. People will buy a cheaper item of equal quality almost every time, thats what the trade agreements allow China to do. American companies produce their products in China too, not just sony or Toyota. China doesn't have the same worker standards the US does. They sure don't have to pay minimum wage, so basically manufacturing in the US is pretty much screwed. Many would argue that it's just a fact of global capitalism and the American economy needs to adapt. Of course, raising tariffs could make the US more competitive, but that could hurt the economy as well. things would cost more, inflation could be a big problem.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) Perhaps a better thing to say then would be that, like many issues, Bill Clinton's administration just sort of slid through without taking any action that could help correct the growing trade deficit when it may have been more manageable than what we have today? he was proactive in getting those trade deals, not just a bystander.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 06:13 PM) I can't say I know the numbers, but there are so many economic reasons for the trade deficit that were in place well before Clinton that I can't see how NAFTA or those China deals are anything very large. actually the wto, nafta, china trade deals Clinton agreed to in the 90's are a huge reason. Not all his fault (of course), but he holds a lot of blame. Bush has done nothing to stop this trend. He likes the Clinton China deals, good for exploiting cheap labor... big profits. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statis...rical/gands.txt Here is a link about trade deficit with China from ,often considered left wing, frontline. It basically admits that trade deals are the reason for the deficit, so this isn't the vast right wing conspiracy trying to take Bill Clinton down. Many would argue that the trade deficit is good for the US consumer, cheaper goods. But there really isn't an issue of what the cause of it is. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...hina/trade.html

Dow Jones finished up 300 today. It's a pretty big relief that the market didn't tank these past couple days after the big losses in overseas markets on Monday.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) Bad trade agreements in that period had little to do with the current trade deficit. Overall economic factors in the US play a much bigger role that way. actually, that's not accurate. Our trade deficit has a lot to do directly with NAFTA and deals with China signed during Clinton's reign.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 07:51 AM) Despite that I don't like Bill Clinton much, he was indeed a pretty good President. More so in hindsight even. And the economy, as Bush 1 once rightly (but politically stupidly) pointed out is not something a President can do a whole lot with. That said, Clinton and Congress did manage to do a lot of good with the tools they had during that period. They also had a tech bubble which, of course, burst. And signed some bad trade agreements, basically setting the ground work for some of this massive trade deficit we have.