NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 10:13 PM) Can anyone really blame Obama looking at his wife? classy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 06:55 AM) I'm not talking about his legislation. I'm talking about the high energy prices that everyone blames on him. That has been the single biggest factor BY FAR to push people towards making smarter energy choices. That is when this whole snowball got really rolling. The vast majority of the country really didn't care before, because it didn't affect them. Once it did, they changed their tunes. Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, true.

Interesting - Palin has 2 votes, McCain has none, so far. Do people actually like Palin better than McCain? I admit, that would be a surprise to me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 07:56 PM) And I'm reading that the difference in OPS between those 2 players isn't as big as we'd expect. Well, no. He's saying its bigger than expected, but not so big as to be well out of the realm of current trends. Its certainly not smaller than expected. Its on the outside edge of the bias+error in favor range.

I normally don't like posting national polls, because they miss the point. But they can sometimes show a few interesting trends. And once in a while, a poll might be so interesting that I just can't pass it up. CBS: Obama +14 Among independents, where McCain had a slight lead last week, Obama now leads by 18 points. ETA: The money graf:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:45 PM) Here's my question in reply...does saying that "Barack Obama has a different view of America than most of us" or "Barack Obama used to pal around with domestic terrorists" count as an inciting remark? It's sort of that really coded rhetoric that if you put it in the right audience, they hear certain things, like Barack is a Muslim Terrorist because he hangs around with terrorists, etc. The first sentence, no, I don't find that inciting or even offensive in any way. I think its typical campaign stuff, and no big deal. The second one is on the fence. If they say he used to "pal around" with Bill Ayers, that makes sense. Its a stretch of the truth, a little bit, but still no biggie. But the blanket statement of hanging around with terrorists bothers me. Its one of the reasons I've been saying McCain has clearly run a much dirtier campaign to date. But I am still not sure I'd call it inciting.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:50 PM) Is that implying a third party candidates runningmate? Yes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) That would be a fine idea if there was nothing being done by the institutions or the candidates to egg them on. I personally think that the campaigns have mostly avoided that. I think the egging on is going on mostly among the media, with a little help from the occasional idiot political office-holder, and a few low level staffers here and there that were acting beyond the campaign's wishes.

Expectations-based... STARTING POSITION PLAYERS (starters at various points): Konerko: D Alexei: A- O-Cab: C+ Uribe: C+ Dye: B+ Swisher: D+ TCQ: A- Griffey: C- Thome: B Crede: INC BENCH: Hall: D Wise: B- Anderson: C+ STARTERS: Danks: A Floyd: A- Contreras: C- or INC Buehrle: B Vazquez: D+ BULLPEN AND FILL-IN STARTERS: Jenks: B Thornton: A- Linebrink: B+, then INC, then D- Dotel: B Carrasco: B Logan: D- MacDougal: D- Wassermann: D- Russell: C Richard: B Broadway: INC H Ramirez: C

If you could vote SEPERATELY for the Presidency, with the VP vote being its own thing... which Presidential candidate would you vote for?

Tex brought this up, and I thought it would be a fun little poll. I will also open up a new Prez poll as if it were JUST Prez, so that we can compare them in the same period. Which VP candidate would you vote for, if you could vote for that office seperately?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 04:50 PM) Ok, so now McCain is to be guilty by association for a few idiots that show up to his rallies? Since day one the Democrats have been pumping race into thsi election, constantly 'warning us' that the evil Republicans are going to try and scare you, remind you that Obama is 'different' that the Presidents on the currency. Up until a few idiots recently at a few events (idiots who COULD be Democrat plants, not a huge stretch), the only mentions of race have come from Dems. QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) You think the sudden nasty turn has happened on its own AD? You think there is no connection between the suddenly nasty crowds and the campaign the last 3 weeks. It could also just be the idiot fringe getting panicked on both sides. Just a thought.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 01:58 PM) "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream." "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody Its not that I want to punish your success, I just want to give more of your money to people who pay no income taxes. If McCain does not mention this tomorrow night, he deserves to lose. And if he does and gets no traction from it, I think he may need to realize he is the 2008 version of Bob Dole. Where is this from, BTW?

Just keep your eyes open. McCain will beat the polls by a significant number of points. Obama will still probably win, IMO. But its not in the bag yet.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) I'm starting to wonder if we should stop talking about Obama v McCain and move onto the senate and house races. This Prez race is not over by a long shot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) He didn't get it enacted...but I'd like to nominate this guy for the title of history's greatest monster the winner. Speech Action

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) Its sad, but George Bush's energy policy has been the best thing for green energy that the US has ever seen. Not sure I'd go that far. Its succeeding now more in spite of it, than because of it. And what incentives have been out there to date were enacted by Congress over the years, as part of larger legislation - and only a few have been at the behest of Dubya. Bush was all about Ethanol, which using corn, is not very helpful. BTW, not saying that any other President has been notably better. They've all been pretty useless. Its a tallest midget contest.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) Palin, who refuses to give a press conference, accuses the MSM on Limbaugh of trying to "shut me up." She's just a disaster. America should be proud of our two Prez candidates - best pair in some time. But the VP candidates leave something to be desired, and Palin in particular is just an embarassment.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) No, but he's not going to "get us out of Iraq" quite as easy as he says he is. Better yet, when he "brings them home" ON HIS WATCH he can claim "victory". You watch. It's exactly what this guy's going to do. Well sure. Its what either one will do. Frankly, as far as what we do from here with Iraq, I think what Obama and McCain would ultimately do would be very similar.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) Link. According to Senator Obama's energy plan, their goal is to have 10% of U.S. electricity coming from renewable sources by 2012. Thanks to the energy price spike, despite having an administration opposed to its growth, and subsidies that appeared to be disappearing until they were stuck in to the bailout bill...the U.S. has already passed that goal. Don't tell me we can't make an alternative energy system work. It's already happening, faster than predicted. The Obama campaign's goals now look laughable. Of course they can work. Market forces rule. Expensive oil and gas and decreasing costs of alternative tech means that more alternatives will be used. But we still need to push hard. 10% is all great and fine, but the ultimate goal should be that infrastructure energy - electricity - should eventually be 100% non-fossil-fuel. And, we need to make sure we support the nascent alternative energy industries in the US, so that the job creation and revenues growth can continue at a strong pace. This means changes to laws and regulations, tax structure, etc.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) not much of a ringing endorsement for Obama. So G.W. Bush is the new standard for spending? ouch. Just saying that what used to be an alternative, isn't.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) lower taxes for everyone and everything is free, can't beat that! This is basically what we've seen from BushCo and his Congress'. Lower taxes, higher spending. Bush and the GOP Congress of 2000 to 2006 walked away from the small government concept that used to be core to the Republican agenda. Now, instead, its spend and spend some more. Neither party now has any rightful claim to the concept of financial discipline.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) Being Arabic is a race. Actually, I believe being ARAB is a race. Arabic is a language, as well as a family of languages.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) But we have to have health care. And welfare. And bank support. And a war (the dirty little secret he's lying his ass off about). And social security. And medicaid. And medicare. And highways. And let's tax those evil corporations more. And whatever else the government can control. I love socialism. Now we're blaming Obama for the Iraq debacle?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 10:08 AM) So, is it time yet to admit that Secretary Paulson doesn't know any better than you or I do how to do his job? Let's just go over the last 2 or so key months. Paulson decides he's going to teach everyone a lesson and let Lehman Bros. fall. While this seems like a good idea on the surface, if you had any understanding at all of the Credit Default Swap interconnections between all of these firms, which you'd sort of expect maybe a SecTreas would learn something about, then you never let that happen because it will blow everyone else up. Suddenly, AIG blows up from these credit default swaps, and Merrill winds up in the hands of BofA. So you nationalize AIG, without having a clue how much they're worth or how over their head they are on those default swaps. They blow through $50 billion of the $60 billion bailout you give them in less than a month, and they embarrass you by holding fancy retreats on the public dollar. The market implodes suddenly after everyone realizes how over their heads they are on the Lehman bros. CDS linkages and how at risk they are over every other company they have them for. Paulson yanks a plan off the shelf for a gigantic bailout, 2 weeks after saying "no more bailouts for anyone" and pretends they intended to do that all along. Problem is, his bailout isn't targeting the new problem, it's pretending the CDS problem doesn't exist and trying to solve the mortgage problem. Oh, and his bailout package is so stupidly designed (no one gets authority but me!) that Congress scoffs at it and rejects the first attempt to pass it, with his own party leading the way on the rejection. Paulson goes before Congress and publicly says that everyone who thinks there's a better way of doing this bailout, buying equity in firms or using the money in different ways, simply doesn't understand the situation. He gets the bailout passed with an additional $200 billion in tax breaks thrown in as a sweetener, then sits around for another couple weeks trying to figure out what the Hell to do with the money he's been given. Meanwhile, the market tanks while he twiddles his thumbs trying to solve the mortgage mess, when it's not the mortgage mess that's driving the situation any more. Finally, Europe, led by Brown, figures out that Paulson isn't going to fix this, comes up with a trillion Euro bailout package of its own, the markets take a huge deep breath and say "Yay, someone is doing something right!" and then Paulson suddenly snaps to it and decides he's going to do exactly what he said he'd never do 2 weeks ago, again. Paulson wasn't a great choice for SecTreas, in terms of resume. Yes, he was a managing partner at GS. But look at his background - he got there via an English degree, an MBA, the Pentagon and then working for Nixon. This is not a true finance man - he was put in a finance position later on, probably because of his political credentials. This, by the way, has been a repeated theme with BushCo. Dubya has been REALLY bad at choosing who to surround himself with. Always chooses political obedience first, and screw the actual knowledge value. Every Prez wants loyal folks - but most have been smart enough to make sure they hire people who will be loyal AND know what they are doing.