southsider2k5

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 06:10 AM) Just an interesting tidbit, the guy who asked Romney the question about hiring Muslims may have had a motive for asking that question. Seems he used to be a bundler for Clinton. Was he trying to help torpedo a potention Hilary challenger? http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.or...t_doc_wp0429.mv LOL. Another Clinton plant. Now I really do believe that the quote was either butchered or taken out of context completely.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) I would say yes. I would agree. The only way I see NY potentially coming into play for the R's is if Rudy wins the nomination, and someone other than Hill wins it for the D's.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) Why? because its down 10%? Where did that stat come from and who says that is the official CORRECTION? Historically 10% down has always been the definition of a correction. The 10% figure starts at the highest point of the bullmarket that was going on at the time. The high of the current bull was 14164.53 meaning the 10% correction mark was a little bit under 12750. A bull market would be declared with a 10% rally from the lowest close during this correction.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) In other words, he went off message in an interview, and the next time the issue came up his campaign made sure to get the soundbite right, because he can't sound like he's endorsing quotas. Don't see how that's surprising at all, as far as I can tell every campaign takes that pattern with most things that you could classify as slip-ups. Makes sense to me. These candidates are so fake, this might as well be running for a Mrs America pagent.

I think whoever ends up with Prior next, gets a bargain. I think once he gets out of the Cubs spotlight, he bounces back.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) Mitt Romney: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jhkMThmMGY2MzQ= It is starting to sound like these were taken out of context... That sounds more like an arch-conservative.

The latest national polls... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) Oh, come on. It clearly hurt our offseason. Hunter was our staple, and he even made the deal for Cabrera in large part because he told Hunter he would. Sure, Kenny's probably operating on multiple fronts but asking someone, "Hey, what would it take to sign you?" or "What do you want for X?" isn't really much. I am having trouble imagining what we're going to be able to get and where from. Kenny has his work cut out for him. When everything that comes out of the organization and the players dealing with that organization saids one thing, and the media saids another, it takes a special kind of narrowmindedly focused grudge to ignore the obvious.

This is pathetic, even for a politician http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...ted_in_nh/8203/ BTW, since UPI forgot to include it, Dodds is a Dem.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 09:38 AM) Very few. Because most people aren't thinking long term, or alternately, can only afford to think short term. Thing is, I think you'll see $4 next year anyway, so $5 is not so out there. It has to be a real price shock to get people to change their behavior. A straightline increase over a period of years doesn't have the same effect. The 1973 oil embargo was a real good example.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) I would be. Realistically, what percentage of the population would say that?

I was happy to see that article for a couple of reasons, but the big one was that it puts the stupid myths that the Sox are cheap, and that the Sox are unprofessional somehow when chasing after free agents. There was a lot of praise for Williams and the Sox in there.

Why is it that when the media focuses on one guy, they just assume the Sox are operating the same way? The first thing Kenny said after Hunter signed with LAA was that this shouldn't hurt them too much because they have already been operating on mulitple fronts at the sametime. The whole article is faulty.

These are the cases that the death penalty exsists for, not to mention every method of torture ever invented. I hope these two both get really familiar with Huntsville Texas.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) www.270towin.com its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons. 1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004. 2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be) 3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson. 4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate. Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. That puts her exactly at 270. Hill is really slipping hard in the polls, even against the dreaded R's, while even Edwards and Obama hold theoretical leads. Don't underestimate the hatred of Hillary on the right. Clinton as the nominee is akin to runnign Jeb Bush on the right. It would be brutal. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

Mitt Romney is an idiot. According to his own system, he shouldn't be President because he wouldn't be representative of the entire country. I hate to say it, but I would rather see Guiliani nominated than Mitt. Even as a Clintonesque scumbag, he at least holds some moderate social positions. I guess anymore we just assume our Presidents have no morals or ethics, or none of the leaders of the races would even be mentioned as Presidential material.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) great info. So if a politician was able to stand up and say, for our public interest and national security that we reduce crude oil imports from 10.1 million per day to 9.6 million by 2010 and here's how we do it... wouldn't the public be behind it? So the public would be behind $5 a gallon gasoline? Interesting.

A rate correction is already factored into this market for at least the Dec meeting.

For those keeping score at home, the Dow was down about 240 today, and has now entered official correction territory.

The baby is beautiful Congrats Jim, Steff and Briana! Now the fun really begins

Its not a matter of "if" its a matter of who they get for Santana. Minnesota has to make a deal during the winter when his value is at its highest. They can' t lose their two biggest franchise stars for nothing in back to back years.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 09:27 AM) What you said. Positive steps would be supporting large quick increase in CAFE standards. Removing the truck/SUV exemption from them. I love the idea of energy independence, but we need to find a better way to do it, beyond corn subsidies and rhetoric. I am going to go against the flow here, and actually say that CAFE hurts oil independence, and actually makes us more dependant. CAFE actually artifically reduces demand, which keeps prices lower than they should be. By keeping prices lower, it lets people afford more gas than they would have before. It also prevents wilder price shocks which tend to exsaserbate demand movements like we saw in the early 70's. I think CAFE is helpful for the enviornment, but it is not a step towards energy independence.

I would be much more interested in some actual changes in policy versus some hyperbole and rhetoric towards a friendly government.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 09:13 PM) That's not a forum, that's high tea for liberals. I'd be pretty pissed too. And people wonder where they right gets the idea that college is a left wing haven. Way to fuel the fire...