NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:41 AM) It seems the New Deal has been mentioned in a few threads and I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone's take on if it was good or bad. positive or negative. The short answer is, both.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now. I think Hancock and Co. specifically chose not to think of things like this. It is my opinion, from my readings of the federalist papers and the Constitution, etc., that the intention was to steer clear of regulating personal relationships.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) When you rented the storage unit you signed a contract. You need to read that very carefully and see what you signed before you make any decisions. That's good advice right there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) How many "big" states does McCain have? 1 TN has 11 EV and over 6 million people, making it the 17th most populast state. That might be considered big.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 08:41 AM) So here is something I thought was interesting from the polls, whici I think is reflective not so much of McCain's weakness as a candidate, but more about how weak his campaign has been. The following are the only states where McCain has a solid (double digit) lead in recent poll averages: AK AL AR ID KS KY LA NE* OK SC TN TX UT WY That's just 14 states, which means that 36 states are either in Obama's corner or "in play". And one of those 14, NE, Obama is contesting one of the three EV's. To me, this data shows me an inability for McCain to get his message out in an effective way. As a follow-up, Obama shows double digit leads in these states: CA CT DC DE HI IA IL MA MD ME MI MN NJ NY OR PA RI VT WA WI That is 20 states, plus part of NE. So its more or less 20.5 to 13.5 in terms of solidly held states.

So here is something I thought was interesting from the polls, whici I think is reflective not so much of McCain's weakness as a candidate, but more about how weak his campaign has been. The following are the only states where McCain has a solid (double digit) lead in recent poll averages: AK AL AR ID KS KY LA NE* OK SC TN TX UT WY That's just 14 states, which means that 36 states are either in Obama's corner or "in play". And one of those 14, NE, Obama is contesting one of the three EV's. To me, this data shows me an inability for McCain to get his message out in an effective way.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 05:54 AM) I moved my things into their storage about six months ago and left Chicago to go to Portland, Oregon. Somewhere in Minneapolis they called me and said that my credit card was declined and that I needed to pay them right away. Since I used my debit card, I called the bank to see if there was any reason behind this. The bank told me the storage company had never tried to bill me. I called them back, repeated what the bank said and they told me, "Oh, we don't accept debit cards." I thought it was ridiculous that they hadn't told me earlier, and they had me send out a money order. Not a big deal. For all the following months, they billed my debit card for storage fees without a problem. Once I got to Oregon, I got a quote for how much it would cost for them move my stuff out here since they're a company that specializes in long distance moves. They quoted me a little over $8,000. I wasn't going to pay that. I got set up with another company to do it. In and Out said they needed a $250 money order to pay to get a 3rd party truck on their lot and to have their movers move my stuff into that 3rd party truck because they don't let anyone move stuff out of storage due to legal issues. Fine. I sent the $250 with a letter, as requested by them, stating that I authorize them to use this money only in the event that I send a third party mover to take my stuff and any waive any liability from their company to the other. A few months pass, I decide it's easier to buy new things and give all that stuff away. A friend wants the stuff, so I pay to have it delivered to them. They deliver the stuff and there are items missing and things that aren't mine. I call them up and tell him that there was a mistake and that they need to deliver the missing items and pick up the things that aren't mine. They say they'll call me back when they find the table. Then I ask them about being refunded that $250. They say no problem, we'll refund you the money and so I give them my address to mail the check. A few days pass. I get a call from the head guy over there and he says that they're not going to refund my $250. I ask why not and he said its because we used that money to move your things from short term storage to long term storage. I asked him why nobody told me about this. He said that I should've known. I told him that there was nothing in my letter, that they requested, that authorized them to use the money for anything but handing my stuff over to another company and that he was foolish to think I'd know they'd charge me to move my stuff from short term to long term storage. Then I ask him about the missing items and the items that aren't mine. He tells me it'll take them months to find my stuff but that he wants to pick up the things that aren't mine tomorrow. I told him that he can't pick anything up until the rest of my items are delivered, that I'm not going to inconvenience the person I gave the things to by making 2 more unnecessary trips because his company screwed up. He says he doesn't care and that he's going to pick the things up tomorrow. I said the same thing back, not until you deliver the rest of my stuff. He says the same thing. Then I tell him I'm going to do whatever the hell I want with the things that aren't mine and throw them out if they become an inconvenience. Then he said he will sue me if he can't pick the things up within the week. I said you can sue me, or you can find the rest of my stuff, bring it here, take the stuff you brought here on your own mistake, and the problem is over. He continues on that it'll take months to find my missing things and that he's going to come and get the stuff that's not mine. Pissed off as I was, I gave him the information to for my lawyer and told him I'm going to throw the things away just so he can have two angry customers and a legal battle at the same time. He hangs up. 20 minutes later he calls back and says that I'm not allowed to call there anymore and that we can only talk through written letters. I went off and said about as many swears as I could think of in 60 seconds. Then he said that I should expect to hear from their lawyers and hung up. Now, I'm not afraid to take this guy on. I don't think he has the balls to do it, but I have the balls to take him on. I didn't do a damn thing wrong. Every mistake was on their end. But I don't want the hassle. Does anyone have any advice to get this thing over with without bringing lawyers in? I'm not going to let him pick up the items unless he gives me my stuff first. I know I'm not getting that $250 back, but it further illustrates what was happening. I've already reported negative comments to the better business bureau but that hardly does any good. I'm in Oregon and won't be in Chicago until Christmas time so I can't get to these guys face to face at the moment. Financially, this is penny ante stuff. I'd take him to small claims court - no need for lawyers there. Sue him in small claims for your $250 plus the cost of the table. When he gets the subpoena, he or his lawyers will probably call you to settle - offer to settle for the amount you are suing for, and you'll let them pick up the other stuff.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) I'm just telling you what their side is trying to say. They would also argue that persons marry multiple persons would be the next step in the degredation of marriage after same sex persons marrying same sex persons. So calm down, it's not even my view of the situation. someone asked what their whole point is and I'm am merely responding to that question. Sorry mr g, I wasn't meaning to snap at you. My CAPS were meant to show the key words involved, not to denote volume. My bad.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) I believe the argument to vote yes on this proposition is that the fundamental structure of our society would be adversely effected by gay marriage. I don't agree with this assessment, but I think that is the logic behind the proposition. I think they are concerned that all kinds of crazy people will be demanding to marry an assortment of crazy things; like some nerd that wants to marry his Super Nintendo wins a court case stating his civil rights were impeded by him not having a legal marriage. So I guess if the institution of marriage was completely degraded into joke status, yea maybe that could change our societal structure in a negative way. A Nintendo? We're dealing in PERSONS here, as in PERSONAL relationships. No one has a personal relationship with their Nintendo, at least in the eyes of the law.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) I figure if two women next door to my house are homosexual how will it make a difference in my life whether they are married or not? It doesn't, unless you are a homophobe who gets off on telling other people what to do.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) You and me have talked about this before. The bottom line is that the actual distance between 2 candidates on certain issues can be pretty small but it gets exaggerated during a campaign. Take the Democratic primaries for example. Obama and Hillary may as well have been the exact same candidate, but you'd never guess that from what their supporters were talking like. Policy-wise, its true, Clinton and Obama are very similar. 95% on issues, I'd guess. Its the leadership and management style that were key there. And yes, McCain and Obama aren't so terribly distant as some think.

I find the idea of specifically banning how given pairs of people can socialize to be small-minded and hateful. And this idea that whether or not some random strangers get married effects YOUR marriage is a joke. If your marriage is so weak that it is effected by the personal relationship of two random citizens, then you might as well get the divorce now. Ideally, government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. Just make it all civil unions with equal protections, and let marriage be a privately held belief.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) Here is a question that has concerned me. What exactly does Obama mean by his constant comments about lifting tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I have worked for a few multi-national based companies headquartered in the US. All of them have had production in the regions, some plants in China and in India and other parts of the world. Now is he going to go hogwild on taxes for multinational corporations because they are not all home grown. If thats the case, that should deck the economy because every single large international company has operations overseas. Some for regional legal requirements, some for cost, and some to have a competitive advantage with having local people speaking the local language. Now because a plant that services a client in say Indiana closes because the company were were supplying raw material for goes out of businesss the area, and one opens up in Shanghai because of a large contract with a Chinese vendor. Does that count as shipping jobs overseas. Its not black and white. It certainly isn't black and white, I agree. There are some gaping holes in the tax code that do in fact encourage offshoring, and that's bad. But its not as simple as Obama says it is. BTW, McCain has made claims of wanting to do similar things.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) BUt again, with races as tight as they are in some places, couldn't a swing of just 200 votes be pretty important? Especially in Ohio. And polls be damned, there WILL be a few places where the counts are just that close. The odds of a state coming down to 200 votes are extremely low. But it is possible. Again, I agree that things need to be investigated. But you should also add to that list, things like voting machine error problems, and the embarrassingly bad poll situations where there aren't enough machines, especially in poor areas.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) What programs would you cut today to elimitate a $500 billion deficit? That's why we will never have a balaned budget. Agree. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) DEA to start, then gut the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bare bones. Simpify tax code, and cut IRS in half. And agree.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) That's actually more of an analysis piece. Either way, its not appropriate for AP newswire, IMO.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) Once again, any criticsm of The one or his actions is considered racist. I think he was in fact agreeing with you - stating what the radical Obamatrons have been saying.

Holy crap - major markets up 11% TODAY. I'm getting whiplash over here. Glad I made a couple new ETF buys yesterday - nice quick profit.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) And here's the Associated Press' reply to the 2001 interview. Emphasis mine. While I'd agree that McCain and the GOP are taking this speech well out of context... that is an obviously biased and poorly written "news" article that come off more like an editorial. The author should be embarrassed.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:57 PM) The last week of political campaigns are generally patently ridiculous. And this fake controversy is pretty much a classic example of why. Last ditch attacks replace substantive discussions. There's very little about any candidate that actually matters anymore. Look at this discussion. It's about the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as it was used in a constitutional law discussion regarding historical decisions in civil rights on public radio seven years ago. It's being used to prove that Obama is supposedly a socialist, or a marxist, or a communist or whatever label that's trying to be attached to him today. The truth is, he's no more a socialist than John McCain is. I tried very hard to remain detached this year from the Presidential campaign. I care about politics, so as the date gets closer its harder to stay so uninvested. But its this stupid pointless ugliness that is the reason that I dread getting emotionally involved. Yesterday, a sitting senator was convicted of seven felonies. But we were focused on a radio interview on a show cancelled soon after for low ratings on public radio from 2001. Great post, other than perhaps the bolded. Neither Obama or McCain are socialists of course, but Obama is closer to it than McCain is.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) With such small victory totals in Ohio and Florida last time, why do you assume that they can't make or break an election? And I like how you point out that these charges were leveled at the repubs last cycle. Sort of like saying 'see, they did it too', without really saying it. My point is quite the opposite. "They did it too" is a defense of behavior by saying someone else did it too. I am saying, I think its OVERBLOWN in BOTH cases, not OK in both cases. These sorts of things result in very few actual bad votes. So unless we get another Florida circa 2000, its not going to be a gamebreaker. That's what I am saying.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) I give anyone a pass in 2000, what I'm still trying to figure out is how he got a second term?! That one you can't blame me for. But the short answer is: 9/11 + wartime + Kerry was an awful candidate

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) The range of reactions by Obama supporters hasn't been as broad. It ranged from disgusted to mobilizing the Digital brown Shirt brigade. OK, I've seen this reference twice now. WTF is the Digital Brown Shirt Brigade?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Oct 25, 2008 -> 07:00 PM) I like Eastwoods new grumpy old badass roles New?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) I really wish McCain had won the nomination in 2000 and was retiring and Obama taking over. McCain, and the country, got screwed in 2000 and we elected the guy who did the screwing. I agree, and I'll take my responsibility for my vote for Bush in 2000. Big mistake.