mr_genius

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Show me something that shows that those are not factual things stated. Sqwert, there is physical evidence that early humans hunted animals and ate them.

Ouch, John Edwards booed off stage in Des Moines http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/110...und_Refund.html

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) Wasn't sure where to put this, but I know how much the conservatives love to make fun of Chavez's rants, so... Hugo Chavez called former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar (the one previous to the current one, who supported Bush in the war on terror) a fascist, and a snake. His comments were so insulting that even the current far-left Spanish PM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, scolded Chavez. And the best part? The King of Spain told Chavez to sit down and "shut up". Oh, and the best quote, coming from a guy from Cuba supporting Chavez haha, socialist dictators preaching about legitimate exercise of power

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) Sure. That's a small but growing group. I think a lot of the fiscal conservatives, disillusioned with the party going a little too far with the crusading bent, are attracted to the idea of a Ron Paul type candidate. If he decides to run in the national as an independent, he could really screw the GOP's chances. He said if he loses in the primary he won't run as an independent. He had said he would go back to congress if he doesn't get the nomination. He also stated he will not endorse the GOP nominee if he doesn't agree with their policies.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) Just so you know, I'm not basing my knowledge on CNN's opinions. I think the party's division is clear from the decisions, votes and candidates. That isn't to say the Dems are some model of unity either - they are actually much more fragmented than the GOP. But its less of a 2-group thing there, and more of a lot of gray. you also have the Ron Paul supporting, more libertarian type GOP voter.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) For VP, do you mean Florida's Sen. Mel Martinez or their Gov. Charlie Christ? Martinez would be an interesting pick for that combination b/c of the appeal to hispanics, but if Rudy left office during that term Martinez would not become Pres. b/c he was born in Cuba. my bad. Gov Charlie Christ.

GOP : Rudy Guiliani, with the VP nod going to Florida Gov. Charlie Christ Dems: Hillary Clinton, with the VP nod going to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. edit: haha, had wrong name in as Florida gov

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 02:46 PM) I think you are assuming that the GOP today is the GOP from the 80's and 90's. I would agree the economy, debt and Iraq are huge, far bigger than social issues. But I think there is still a significant chunk of the GOP's voters that are of the opinion that getting a "real conservative" in office (in their minds, meaning a Christian Coalition model of conservative) is paramount. That's the party schism I've been referring to for a while. I think you are right about the endorsements of whomever wins the nomination, but I think that socially conservative bunch is not yet ready to crown Giuliani as the nominee. ETA: And Iraq is a nexus issue at the junction of religious conservatism, foreign affairs and economics. Obviously this is a "we'll see what happens" type thing. I know CNN was really pushing the "party schism thing" for a while, but they don't know what they're talking about. That would be the equivalent to going to Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity to get the inside scoop on the Dems. A supreme court nominee is a big issue with the religious right people, and Giuliani will give them more of what they want than Clinton. And they see Giuliani as the guy who can win. Oh, and you're right about Romney, they won't vote for him because he is Mormon. They see that religion as a cult.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 11:47 AM) And, I find it just as unlikely that the GOP can win with a pro-choice, socially liberal and multi-marriage New Yorker like Giuliani. So who can they put up in a national election with a real shot? You are underestimating the absolute fear that the ultra-conservatives have for Hillary Clinton. They think she is the anti-christ or something. If Giuliani wins the primary, you will see more endorsements like Pat Robertson. The GOP's main problem is national debt, Iraq or the economy.

You guys hear about the Clinton campaign planting people in audiences to ask certain questions to her? Reminds of that phony press conference so many people were freaking out about lol

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) That's what bothers me though. "I won't even try to do something for the minorities. Heck, I don't even want any of them working with/for me." That's why so many people look at the Republican party as a party of old, rich white men. Well, the GOP has put people of color in higher government positions than the Dems have. But I guess the GOP doesn't have a platform that appeals to a lot of African Americans. If a community automatically votes 90% Dem every election, the other party is going to consider those votes gone and try to appeal to voters more likely to punch their ticket. The Dems do the same thing, they pretty much don't even try to appeal some of the very conservative portions of the population and I can understand why. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to be a party that gives everyone what they want.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 06:00 PM) Well if I were black I would wonder why I would ever think of voting for Guiliani. EDIT: I guess as a white person I wonder the same thing. I doubt Giulinani is counting on the black vote. If he is he is gonna lose for sure I wonder why anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton, but I'm sure lots of people will.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Not sure which thread to put this into, but I found it interesting. An analysis of the level of diversity amongst high-level campaign staffers for each major campaign pfft, whetever. if there were more minorities you would be calling them phonies. what, GW Bush is good because he has minorities in high level positions?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) And I think you mean a $9T debt yea

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) The House passed a bill today to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, saving taxpayers some $50 billion for the year. The AMT, for those unaware, was created long ago as a loophole-closer against the ultra-rich from getting out of taxes. But, as the legislation did not include any sort of inflationary adjustment, middle income families are now running afoul of it. So, each year, Congress fixes it for a year. There is a further $30 billion in tax savings, including extensions of things like child tax credits, some property tax exemptions, etc. Here is the part that is causing consternation. The Democrats, desiring to follow the pay-for-play guidelines, worked to find $80 billion in revenue to offset these costs. They did so, primarily, by closing what they see as a loophole - taxation of carried interest. Carried interest is currently taxed at the 15% capital gains level, even though functionally, its really income for the portfolio managers or high end proxy investors. So, they propose to put the carried interest rate into income tax, which would be 35% for most of them. This generates most of the $80 billion. Dems say this is closing a loophole, where investment managers are making income but not paying income tax. Republicans say its a new tax, therefore they won't support it. The White House promises a veto. Now, I don't like new taxes. But here we have a case where the majority is trying to follow the guidelines of fiscal responsibility - you know, actually paying for their spending - in order to fix something everyone knows needs fixing. And the Republicans, meanwhile, want to spend without taxing. Sound familiar? It appears to me the GOP has taken yet another step away from fiscal discipline, and towards spending money they don't have. In any case, for some of us, if this little tiff doesn't get worked out, that AMT might bite us in the ass. Spending is too high, thats for sure. A 9 trillion dollar deficit is atrocious. Cut spending instead of raising taxes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) Even without the tax break, they work pretty well now. I don't see very many solar panels. I'm sure there people are using them and they work, but to make a big dent there needs to be massive amounts of people using them. Giving some more incentives could rapidly increase the number of people generating energy with solar power. So what else should we spend those tax dollars on? Energy independence and decreases in harmful emissions are important IMO, would be well worth the money.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:53 AM) For solar, the big use won't be giant fields of panels - it will be distributed use. People will put them on their homes, which will give them some, most or all their energy needs. Thats a good option. Solar panels are still fairly expensive, but if they were made a tax deduction that could help things along. Hopefully solar panels could be shown to be an economically sound investment and environmentally responsible.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) Here is a link to the Select Smart one. A lot of those questions were really weighted and doesn't really give good choices to "vote" on.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) When people let their dog s*** in my yard and pretend to pick it up with a bag Oh man, I hear that. People letting their lame dogs crap all over the place and don't clean it up. It's the worst in the winter and when I see tons of dog crap and piss all over the snow. If you live in an apt in the city, you shouldn't have a bunch of dogs in the first place, let alone let them crap all over the sidewalk and not even bother to clean it up.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 03:14 PM) Major equity markets currently down 2 to 2.5% (Dow down 2.64% ~ 330 points) on further credit market fears, oil pushing $100/bbl and GM posting a whopping $39B loss (including a $1.8B operating loss AFTER special items). Ouch. Oil prices are a major problem IMO. The US needs to seriously start working on alternative fuels and conservation.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 08:51 AM) So were letting the dollar fall so we can take growth out of other countries? LOL So much for the strong dollar. How would you suggest we could raise the value of the dollar if we didn't want to take growth away from other countries? Actually, a lower dollar is good for conducting business with other countries. Many economists suspect the low dollar is a major factor which is staving off a recession. However, a dollar this low creates a very real chance of inflation. It also lowers dollar based investments .

Obama needs to win Iowa. If Clinton does, she has the Dem nomination locked up IMO.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 08:51 PM) Study after study shows this to be true. Information gained under extreme duress is not even remotely reliable. wouldn't want to participate in that study. "ok, we're gonna torture you for a while then you fill out this questionnaire. "

wow, Ron Paul raised $3,800,000 in one day http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Indiana Jones and The Belligerant Druggist, no doubt.