NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) We've been talking about Ohio, PA, FL, ect. So, I thought I would flash back to 2004. RCP FL (Oct 22-26): Bush- 48.857 Kerry- 46.57 Final Result: Bush 52-47 RCP OH (Oct 22-27): Bush- 47.167 Kerry- 48.5 Final Results: Bush 51-49 (Bush took the lead in polls starting Oct 26th and never looked back) RCP PA (Oct 22-27): Bush- 47 Kerry- 49.25 Final Results: Kerry 51-49 Take from this what you want. But if Obama is +5 or more in OH and PA at this point in time, it looks very good for him. A 1 point lead in FL does NOT look good for Obama. OBVIOUSLY, this is a different election and Obama's ground game is strong. So, FL is still in play. But it's hard to poll "snow birds" who are just migrating south. Obama doesn't even need FL to win. If he takes OH along with the Kerry states, Obama wins. All those other toss-up states, like VA, NC, CO, NM, NV, etc., are just icing.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) I don't really understand this too well. Will OPEC cutting production drive prices up? Doesn't that suck? Maybe Probably, and sort of.

Like the idea of solar panels for your home, but can't stomach the upfront cost? Just lease them, for $75 a month. That's significantly less than the typcial electric bill, and the leasing company guarantees a base amount of power to cover your home's needs. Net basis, customers typically save 10 to 15%, right away. Also, a side note in the article that is of interest - one of the bank bailout bills included a removal of the $2000 cap on the 30% solar panel tax credit. So now, the 30% has no cap, if you do indeed want to buy your own panels. Solar is coming, folks.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) She gave a half-assed apology. She sounded almost like she was more sorry that Matthews asked the question than the response she gave (which was pretty undeniable, there was absolutely no doubting what she meant when she said it). Yeah I saw that, her defense is not really an apology - she blames Matthews and the internets for misinterpereting her.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) Michele Bachmann = Joseph McCarthy After Bachmann's comments, her opponent, Mr. Tinklenburg, got an absolute tidal wave of donations, totaling $1.3M since Friday, and still pouring in. They are getting so much money, they can't keep up. A race that looked like a GOP lock is suddenly in play for the Dems.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 09:09 AM) I have reservations about Quinnipiac 538 seems to think they are halfway decent. Big 10 maybe not. But with them both showing those numbers, I think it will be interesting to see other polls for OH in the next couple days.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 09:16 AM) Blago gets to appoint someone. I just saw this morning that Blago has a 13% approval rating, and only 10% of Illinoisans want to see him re-elected. Ouch. I thought W's 25 to 30% approval ratings were bad. 13% is horrific.

Still well over $3 in Chicago. Around $3 in the burbs I've seen. Oil prices are depressed on lower demand due to the tanking economy (the biggest factor), somewhat stronger dollar, and some relatively large leaps into non-oil energy use in the US.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) I dont think the "Big Ten Battleground Poll" is very legit, but they have Obama +10 in Indiana and +12 in Ohio. Public Policy Polling has Obama +2 in Indiana. Quinnipiac shows Obama +13 in Ohio as well. Seems less like an outlier now.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 06:03 PM) That guy was just irresponsible. I have 11 year old Boy Scouts with more common sense and outdoor skills to survive that experience. That. The message of the book, which may have been lost in the movie (which I did not see), is about stupidity. Kind of along the lines of Grizzly Man.

I will be voting for Barack Obama for President of the United States. I was on the fence for a while - both candidates have major policy stands I disagree with. While I truly believe that this is the best pair of candidates I've ever had to choose from, that doesn't mean it was an easy decision. I'll highlight three issues of great importance to me to illustrate my thinking... Issue 1 - financial and intergovernmental policy. In reality, neither candidate has a full policy set here that I agree with. But McCain is closer to what I'd like to see. Obama's tax policy ideas take progressive to a level far too high, and the increased taxations he suggests (his income tax rebalancing, profit penalty taxes and increases on cap gains rates) will only serve to harm the already-weak economy. I see a lot of danger in some of his suggestions. McCain's idea of relabalancing away from progressive isn't great either, but he's at least staying away from increasing cap gains and corporate taxes. McCain gets the win here by a significant, but not huge, amount. Issue 2 - the environment and energy policy. I applaud McCain's departure from the small-minded GOP platform on environmental and energy policy. But Obama's themes are much stronger, and will more substantially help not only our environment, but our national security, our economy and our health care costs. Obama sees alternative energy as the next moon shot, and I wholeheartedly agree. His support of non-fossil fuel energies, increased funding of mass transit and other key policies give Obama a big edge here. Issue 3 - leadership. This is a tough call. John McCain is a patriot and a civil servant at a level that few others can match, and his military and political contributions are a solid match for the Presidency. But if I had to pick the biggest overarching leadership style characteristics of the Bush Administration, they would be these: complete lack of desire to respectfully collaborate, the cowardly choice of the illusion of security over Constitutional freedoms, and decisionmaking without analysis or forethought. The first item, respectful collabortion, I'd call a split between these two; McCain has a greater history than Obama of "reaching across the aisle", but Obama is stronger in promoting respectful dialogue. The second item, fortunately, shows us two candidates who would be great improvements over the current corruption of the system - I'd give it a slight edge to McCain. McCain's stand against torture and his proven allegiance to the great American system give him strength here, and while Obama is certainly a great believer in freedoms, he also went backwards on the telecom vote. The final item, decisionmaking style, is an obvious win for Obama. McCain has shown recently a disturbing tendency to make flailing decisions off the cuff, whereas Obama has proven that his a considered man with a gift for high level analysis and open forum discussions. So all told, Issue 1 is a slight win for McCain, Issue 2 is a big win for Obama, and Issue three is a slight win for Obama. That gives it to Obama, for me.

I'm in Guitierrez' 4th. He's pretty much elected for life there.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 12:30 PM) Bear Stearns. Ah, OK. Thanks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) They know that they have more money than they can possibly spend. And that because they have such a money advantage, and a substantial lead in the important polls, the best strategy for them right now is an all-out blitz.

Steve Lyons

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) The only question I would ask him at his confirmation hearing: How much BSC counter-party risk were you(JPM) exposed to at the time of their demise? BSC? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Free Willy. I was bout 6 or 7 though. You were 6 when Free Willy came out? Now I'm crying.

Saving Private Ryan Schindler's List

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) Oh please thats ridiculous, your comparing apples and oranges. (That remark is toward the Obama racism comment.) The comment was not sexist, it may have been demeaning, it may have been crass, it may have been bad taste (not saying it was any of those things, just saying may have been.) But I sincerely doubt that it was in anyway espousing the idea that women are not as smart as men, that women cant be as smart as men, that women shouldnt be taken seriously, that women dont deserve the same respect as men, and so on and so forth. Now maybe it was portraying her as a sexual object, but really it was just a joke. And Soxy you have to realize that for the most part these boards are like a locker room, jokes that are said here are things that many people would not repeat in public because the reality of the board is its like 99% male to 1% female (I can almost count the females who have posted here). So some of the jokes may be in bad taste, but thats generally because these boards are seen as more male dominated and thus people can say things that they would otherwise censor. I think you are probably right about it not originally being meant as sexist. But, it kinda was. Your last graf there bothers me though. I'd rather you thought of each forum as its own club, and each thread as its own lockerroom. If someone wants to start a thread about hot chicks in the SLaM, hey, go ahead. People who are offended won't go in that room. But this is a political discussion. There are women who read and post here, and we expect that the level of respect should assume that the room could have anyone who might follow politics. Men and women, black and white, Christian and Muslim, gay and straight. You follow me? It may be 90% men, but that doesn't mean we treat the 10% any differently. Not trying to make a huge deal of this, as I don't think it is one. Just want to take the opportunity to lay out our expectations.

Most recent poll in Alaska shows McCain with only an 11 point lead. Given that Alaska has been a red state in all the last 10 elections, and that Bush won Alaska by 27 in 2004 (63-36), and their governor is on the GOP ticket, this is pretty amazing. Also, it appears that Obama has actually been gaining significant ground since Palin was added to the ticket - it was McCain +19 in September, now its McCain +11. Weird.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 07:31 AM) I don't know really...not too many people are asked to hold the highest office in the land without having any experience to do so. I don't think his categorical denial was due to him being asked before he was ready to announce it. I think it was because he had no business being asked that question in the first place and he knew it. But once the masses fell in love with his ability to read a teleprompter in 2004, the campaign was on. 1. Unless they are an incumbent, no candidate for the Presidency has fully complete experience to hold the office. 2. Experience is certainly a key factor to consider - no doubt about it. But if you feel that Obama is inexperienced, then you really have to see Palin as the same or even lower in experience level. She's the VP so its not quite as important, but its still important, given how much McCain says he will lean on her. 3. To say that Obama, or Palin or Biden or McCain, has NO experience, is just not true. Obama has been a US Senator for 4 years, and was a 2 term state senator before that. Palin has been a Governor, though only for a couple years. They both lack experience, but are not entirely without it. 4. Open question - what is the "right" experience to have, to be qualified? Certainly, John McCain, or as a Dem example Bill Richardson, have a lot more political leadership experience than Obama does. But since no one is experienced at being President, how much importance do those experiences have? How much is Senatorial experience, or governorship, really akin to the job they are running for?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 06:45 AM) Again, this issue happened at the Congressional level with Nancy Pelosi flying her family in pretty regularly from California for no "official" reason. It wasn't even a gray area then. It was allowed. I wondered if that was the case. How do we feel about that? In the grand scheme, its not a huge added cost. Then again, most of us don't get that privilege, even if we do travel all the time, so why should they?

As a little update to this... a report is out now that shows details of Palin's travel expenses. More specifically, this article looks at the money she charged the state for her children to travel with her. It appears that many times, they served no purpose, other than to be with their mother. In fact oddly, it looks like Palin would just bring her kids to events they weren't invite to. I am not bringing this up to say "She's EVIL!" or anything like that. In fact, I consider this somewhat of a grey area. I think its commendable for Palin to have her kids see those machinations, and to be near their parents. Its just a question of, should the state (the taxpayers) be covering that expense. Consider these questions... --If the Governor is travelling far and wide away from the family, should the state be paying for the kids to travel too? Even if they aren't part of the functions? --Should the kids ever, really, BE part of those functions? --Are the Palins actually "that family", the ones who bring a platoon of children to a wedding that is specifically a no-kids event?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) OMFG. You and I totally agree. Like 100%. I couldn't have said that better myself. I'm going to go be sick now And because liberals, conservatives and moderates all think its a bad idea... guess what Congress will do?

A healthy Lucy would be a huge defensive improvement over Hall or AJ. He has an injury-shortened season this year (threw out 4 of 9 attempted base stealers), but in 2007 he threw out 39%, 45% after his first couple weeks. He's also got some speed. His bat was always the question, but Hall has spent 2 seasons being a substandard hitter anyway. The real question now is his health. If anyone has any info on his injury rehab and expected return, I'd love to see it.