NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT." A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB. Just seems like you are overreacting here. I don't see hate x10, I see people hitting Bush for writing a lame book, by all accounts. I'm still going to read it, though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) Jesus, you guys are ridiculous. Ridiculius about what, exactly? Reviews I've seen even in conservative circles are that the book is pretty shallow and lame. I don't think this is a party bias thing. QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) f***ing hilarious...and pathetic... the book? Have you even read it yet?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) FYI Miller is challenging votes such as "Murkowski, Lisa" as illegitimate. You can argue that he's doing it because he's desperate and it's his only chance, but it's still pretty dishonorable to democratic elections. He's desperate. He will challenge, they will be reviewed, and he'll lose most. He seems to be postponing the inevitable. That said, I think most candidates would do the same thing. And its really not an awful thing. What will be really annoying is if after the vote he loses (which he probably will), he then tries to sue. That's when it gets really petty and stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) IF...their government doesn't collapse the second they hit a legitimate economic blip. While none of us are expert in this, my personal guess is that the risk of that is very, very low.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/o...f-the-hook.html They are essentially in a currency war here. But yes, I think China is the main culprit and right now, in terms of global currency markets, China's pegged Yuan and monetary policy associated with that, is the single biggest impediment to a larger recovery. That isn't to say that the US isn't also making machinations that have global effects, because they are, just like the whole damn world is now. Its just that China is far and away the biggest problme. Them letting their currency float in the open market would be helpful for basically the entire rest of the world right now, and for them as well in the future.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 11:07 PM) Beckham was horrid in '10 and Morel has proven nothing. How is that a championship caliber IF? LOL, horrid? Come on now.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 07:41 PM) Tex, they contest votes like that to make sure there are enough contested ones that they have to be looked at and decided on. 'Working the system' would be playing within the rules as allowed. trying to have the rules changes midstream is just wrong. They already had one rule changed that allowed the polling places to hand out a list of all who signed up to be a write in candidate. previously the rules said no. But a judge appointed by daddy fixed that one fast. No matter how many times you say the bolded, its still not true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 05:23 PM) The Cubs want some state aid for Wrigley Field renovations. Good luck with that. LOL, I saw that too. They want $200M, and they say it will be supported by an ISA bond float and plowing back any money beyond the base $16.1M in entertainment tax paid on tickets already last year and each year. Ricketts claims that means no new taxes for anyone. Of course, it also means he's taking money away from the top of the entertainment tax, which means less revenue for the state, which means either higher taxes or less services. Plus saddling the ISA with new debt that could jeopardize future borrowing costs. And oh yea, the Governor and the Speaker of the House are both Sox fans. Good luck with that indeed.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 12:27 PM) NSS, the code does specificly address the write it situation. it says exactly how the name must be written, and then says no exceptions. Right or wrong,. how can anyone say that it isn't clear? See Soxbadger's post before yours, he puts it better than I did.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules. How many different ways can you interpret NO EXCEPTIONS!! It doesn't say, "unless you are an idiot who can't spell and doens't care to take enough time to figure out HOW to spell the name of the person you thnk you want to vote for" These things going on are not exceptions against the rule. They are dealing in situations that the code does not explicitly address. Let's put aside this silly idea that no interperetation of the law can be done, because that's impossible. And let's also put aside the equally silly idea that a vote for Lisa M, when there are two Lisa M's, should be guessed at - that vote should not count. So, you are left with the cases in between, which follow that law but still need to be looked at.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Except where you have cases of people who wrote her name wrong, on purpose. Read blogs and news stories up there. There are people who wrote it wrong thinking, incorrectly as it seems, that they could be playing with Lisa on that issue. Would suck to lose with a few hundred writeins with your name spelled wrong. So yes, I think it is a good policy to have. Spell it right, or too bad. Knowing how to spell ONE name correctly isn't too hard of a burden and doesn't imposes economic hardship on anyone. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. You really think any significant number of people wrote it wrong on purpose? And if they did, well honestly, they didn't really want to vote, so they can go screw themselves. That parts not a legal interperetation, that's just my opinion. No one said anything of economic hardship either, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

By the way, with 20% of the write-in votes counted so far, 98% of them are going to Murkowski. If that continues, she wins easily.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360. edit: That smily face was a 'B with a ) when I pasted it. Hmmm. Seriously, how much more clear does that need to be? They do NOT have to match oter intent. They have a clear rule to follow. And the case law is equally clear that in edge cases (i.e. where the name may not be spelled correctly as discussed here) but the intent was clear, should be counted. This is how the law works - it does not explicitly cover every conceivable situation that may occur. So despite what some people think, there will always be intereperetation. And it does not stand in violation of that law in my view, because clearly the voter cannot know everything about the candidate's paperwork. Did they use a middle initial? Did they use an abbreviated first name? Putting blocks in place that require voters to know what they can't possibly know is essentially a block against all write-ins, which would never stand up in court. Therefore, you have to allow for the voter to express the name as best they can within reason, and where there is no logical question of intent.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 09:50 AM) While there are parts about the voter intent, after that where the write in rules are, is says very clearly what HAS to be doone for it to count. If the people writing the laws just wanted voter intent alone, they would not have added a special section saying that write ins count ONLY if written the correct way. That is pretty clear, kinda like when a law says SHALL NOT. I agree its clear - its clear that they have to take what the voter says, but that in cases where what they say doesn't exactly match any candidate, they have to determine voter intent. Which seems like the logical way to do it. I fail to see the problem here, except again, with the whole Lisa M thing (and in that case, I think the vote should go to no one).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) The problem is the law up there says that for a write in vote to count it has to be spelled just like it is written on the write in form. That is the law. Now people want to change it after the fact so that it benefits them? Change it before the election. Bad enough she got rules changed before the election to allow the election people to hand out a list with all the write in candidates names on it, now they want to change this rule mid stream as well? 'Abundently clear' shouldn't matter, there IS a law in place there to follow. Joe just wants them to follow it. Actually, if you read the articles about this, you will see that the law also allows the election judges to use voter intent on any questionable ballots. So, they are following the law - they are just following the whole law, whereas Miller wants them to follow only part of it.

Fixing SSI to be solvent forever is really friggin easy. Just remove the stupid, regressive cap on income for taxation. Its one of two tax increases at the federal level I am actually OK with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) The Foxnews.com banner yesterday read "Obama Debt Panel Eyes Cutting Social Security, Home Deduction." Of course it did. Are you surprised?

Looking at the now longer article (the one yesterday was sort of a teaser), I think its interesting to note that this investigation is continuing, but for a number of other teams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 07:19 AM) Tea Partiers in AZ city oppose municipal garbage collection. The horror, the horror... I've been in Fountain Hills. Its an isolated little bubble of old snowbirds and retirees who wanted to be somewhat "alone". That crowd will tend to have a pretty big tea party alignment. For example, a few years back, many in the town were up in arms that a Target was going in, afraid of the riff-raff that would invade their town.

For the most part, these ballots will be abundantly clear for voter intent, except for one problem. There is another "Lisa M" who was a write-in candidate. So anyone who just wrote Lisa, or who wrote Lisa M, probably won't count, and shouldn't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) That gambit only works if you legitimately believe anyone actually cares about the deficit as anything other than a political cudgel. Based on the number of people who complain about the deficit on 1 hand and endorse extensions of Bush's tax cuts on the other, or the number of people who say openly that cutting taxes doesn't increase the deficit and then still go on to win elections, I don't think it works that way in real politics. No, the gambit works well specifically because it doesn't matter if anyone (or any majority) really cares about it. It works in the administration's favor either way.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) Can you guys delete the lists - just for now - please? and done.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) I thought that wreck was much, much older. Recent enough that Gordon Lightfoot (then others following like Simon Barr Sinister) wrote and performed a famous folk song about it. I have it on my iTunes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) I get the latter part...but the way to get the narrative on the deficit back is not to offer up your support for substantial Social Security cuts (which the deficit co-chairs willingly say has zero to do with the remainder of their deficit proposals, they just don't like OASDI) That's a bluff, they aren't actually offering that up at all. GOP says no, Dems can say "fine, see how hard this is?" GOP says yes, Dems say great, you go ahead and run with that, and see what happens.

Removing list for now...