mr_genius

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:01 PM) So what else did he say? Seems to me that scientists always do this...they choose the data that best supports their theories and go from there...it's too bad he did the same, but are you really surprised? They should also note any data which contradicts any conclusion they have reached. . . should. . . but they don't want to lose out on any funding. especially on an issue as politically charged as global warming.

I'm surprised McCain is doing this poorly in Nevada.. Paul could take second?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) I'll say EXACTLY what I said before. If the overall economy wasn't in good shape THEN or NOW, we would be in a deep recession. You have one sector that is dragging down the whole shooting match, and if the other pillars weren't doing pretty well, we'd all be a lot worse off. BigSqwert is still thinking about a universal house care system. aka, free houses for everyone. it's very simple concept, if your house is free you can afford the payments. duh.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) Well we all know Tex won't cash the check because he doesn't believe in deficit spending Well him, and all of the people voting for Ron Paul... I think Ron Paul voters want all their tax money back, not just $800

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) And don't forget this one... lol, that post was like a year ago when the economy was strong. It's pulling through this big predatory lending scandal and high energy prices. nice try

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) A group of Katrina survivors/evacuees has filed suit against the government. For 3 quadrillion dollars. haha i thought that link was going to send me to TheOnion.com

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 03:41 PM) Sometimes the best way to see if its BS is to throw out a line of BS yourself. In my tech interviews I use a technique where I ask 2 difficult questions. One is a made up technology that doesn't exist, the other is a question that they should never have an answer for as its far above the level of the job. If they look at me and honestly answer, I dont know or I haven't run into it. Points to them. The minute I see them glance to the ceiling tiles, and then make up an answer just to give and answer or tell me how they revolutionized said made up technology then I drop them. People fluff their resumes and experience whether its an election or a job. But be prepared that someone may call you on it. Over stating your case, and making up experience is a bit more than slightly exaggerating some experience. That could backfire though. If you ask someone really smart and qualified that kind of question they might be thinking "haha, no way I'm working at a place like this". Could lose out on talent. If someone is interviewing for a high level tech job and has like a masters in Computer Science from Stanford and mad experience I wouldn't be comfortable just making stuff up trying to trick them. Actually, I wouldn't insult an interviewee with trick questions even for a lower level job. There's plenty of legit questions I could think of that would have answers which would be difficult, if not impossible, to bs through without me knowing.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) There's some truth to that... you never tell them a real weakness in a job interview unless you can make a strength out of it. Definitely. Funny thing is they know they aren't getting the real answer to a question like that. It's kind of a "lets see how well they can bs an answer" type question

job interview: Question: So, whats your biggest flaw? Answer: That I work too hard and do to great a job.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) I agree that his answer sounded great. That wasn't my point. He really didn't give us a "weakness". Caring too much isn't a weakness. I thought it was the worst answer. His "mill stories" are worse than Guiliani constantly talking about when he was mayor on sept11, 2001.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) - the fees were a portion of the winnings. and john edwards was good at winning. man, he really shouldn't have done that. - now that he is no longer in the senate or a practicing lawyer, he's supposed to just speak for free? i know he's already rich but i imagine the idea of no income isn't too appealing. - how much do you think Clinton spends on haircuts? - he is no longer involved with fortress Yes, he shouldn't charge large fees for talking about poverty or at least give the money to the poor. But you're right, he wants the money, so he keeps it. As far as his trial lawyer career, I doubt he was in it to merely help people (which is what he would lead people to believe) but to profit. And that is fine, but he needs to drop the altruistic sham. He only dropped his predatory investments once caught red handed.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Mr Genius, could you post a link to the discussion that is occurring in your avatar? I'd like to see/hear that discussion... It's from the CNN youtube debate, McCain questions Paul's foreign policy. http://youtube.com/watch?v=atYgjPD4uqc&feature=related

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) Hopefully after a couple more 4th and 5th place finishes I can stop hearing about this Ron Paul madness. Ron Paul is doing pretty well considering his political stances. I like that he adds to the political discussion. I wouldn't call it "madness".

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) aside from the haircut and the house what are these actions? why does a man who fights for the poor have to live as if he is? why is that a prerequisite? Well, for me personally... some guy that claims to only be out to help people but in the past took massive legal fees from people he was "just trying to help", demanded large sums of money to speak about "people he wanted to help", gets $400 dollar haircut and complains about 2 Americas, wants to go after corporations but is a hedge fund investor (he was actually invested in predatory lending) seems to be a fraud when he claims to be only in things to help. I'm sure there's more, but the guy obviously isn't going to win so everyone is kind of ignoring him now.

These attacks that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns have been trying on Obama are really out there. I really don't see how these things are a scandal in any sense.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) so tell me then, why did he start a poverty center in NC? why did he go down to New Orleans to help clean up? Only he knows the real reasons why. I have a low opinion of the guy, so I think it's just an ego thing. He wants attention, puts on a big production of going to New Orleans to "help the cleanup", but his main interests are gaining more power and wealth for himself. But I could be wrong, he might be a great guy. I am just weary of a guy like him who is the self appointed voice of the poor, while many of his previous actions have shown him to be less than genuine.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. Seeing how successful he was as a trial lawyer, I am sure he can convince certain people of just about anything.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) I said "nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field", not THE least. If you are going to put my quotes in quotes, then make it my quote. And its still true. He is near the bottom of the list in experience. There are a few whose exprience is less - Giuliani definitely. Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors. I don't agree with that. Hillary and Obama have less experience. The don't do jack in the Senate, and they've barely been in there. I also think you are putting too much weight on limited Senate experience. Yes, I flip-flopped from my "I'm done with this discussion" statement.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:23 AM) House Rep is not comparable to Senator. They are on a very different level. Not only is the Senate the senior house, we're also talking about the senior/higher 100 versus the lower 435. Its AAA over AA or A+. And Governors, having executive experience, I'd put well above the US House, and possibly above the US Senate as well. Honestly, I think you underestimate the amount of government experience all those years in the House of Reps gives someone. For one thing, the house has exclusive rights to initiate revenue bills. Obviously a Senator's vote carries more weight than a House reps (because there are less Senators). He has more government experience than the top Democrats running, thats for sure. I'm just going to leave it at that, because I think you just made a blanket statement "Paul has the least experience" and now you're just going to stay with it no matter what.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:05 PM) It seems the mayor of Boston has a problem with affordable health care. This line from him just cracks me up. "Limited service medical clinics run by merchants in for-profit corporations will seriously compromise quality of care and hygiene. Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong." So what, only for-profit hospitals are allowed to make money off of sick people? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...s_in_retailers/ Yea, thats a fairly absurd statement. His suggestion that competition and for profit medical service is bad is a very one sided, regressive approach to solving a problem. Is he suggesting doctors do not make a profit off healing the sick?

I'm glad they are starting to give a reasonable time frame to get you all out of there. IMO, the US troops have done their job and it's time to bring people home.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 06:06 PM) You two seem to be equating experiences like House Rep the same as US Senator, Governor, etc. That's kind of like saying that a guy who spent 8 years in A-ball has more experience than someone playing at the major league level for 4 years. Its more years, but not in the same league. I don't think that is an accurate analogy. Serving in the House is comparable to being in the Senate. If you want to stay with baseball, it's more like comparing the AL to the NL.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:48 PM) 15 years, on and off since the 70's as a house rep. Compare that resume to, for example... McCain: Vietnam vet and POW, Navy liaison to the US Senate in the late 70's, Congressman 1983-87, Senator 1987-present, 2000 major party Prez candidate Huckabee: Lt Gov for 2 terms, US Senator briefly, then Governor for about 10 years Richardson: Former energy secretary, former US Congressman, UN Ambassador to US, 2-term Governor Biden: 6 term US Senator - 34 years Dodd: US Rep 6 years, US Senator 25 years Thompson: 10 Years US Senate, a bunch of years as a lobbyist Ron Paul has never made it past US Representative, failed in numerous political bids... his resume is just not anything like the most prolific, and I'd say is closer to the bottom of the pile in that regard. His resume seems to be line with the the candidates of both parties I would say his experience is middle of the pack, if you count in Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, ect. I wouldn't say losing an election should disqualify anyone form running again. McCain has lost before, so has Romney, so has Edwards. Experience is not an issue with Ron Paul. He's not going to win the GOP nomination because of his political stances (mainly because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq war), not because of his lack of experience. Biden and Dodd seem to have the most experience, and they aren't getting any votes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) Most experienced? You need to do a little reading. He is nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field for both parties. I like some of what Ron Paul brings to the discussion, but, you need to be a little more aware of your facts. Hasn't Ron Paul been in congress for a total of like 20 years or something? I think he was elected to his current seat in 1996, and also served in the late 70's and early 80's. Not 100% sure on the number of years. edit: Ok, I looked it up. Looks like he has 15 years experience in congress. Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd district. In office January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985 Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 14th district, Incumbent, assumed office January 3, 1997