Rex Kickass

This is the London Times we're talking about btw.

Interesting graphic comparing Tax Plans http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 22, 2008 -> 11:21 AM) Wow. The snark level in the Buster seems to have dramatically increased in the last 24 hours. Probably indicative of the sudden wave of attack ads by the candidates. This is not good strategy by Obama. McCain had been doing nothing BUT going on about how bad Obama is, far more so than the other way around. And I think Obama should have kept it that way, as it seemed to work in his favor. Getting into a war of petty bulls*** (and I find these housing, class and richie-rich arguments just that) only helps McCain. Kerry thought the same thing in 2004. Unfortunately, that didn't get him very far. The truth is that negative campaigning does work, and you have to be ready to use it when the opportunity strikes. The trick for Obama, and any candidate who prides himself on positive campaigning is to not let the negative outweigh the positive.

Amtrak, by and large is running at capacity. Which is surprising given how poor their service is. And the food on Amtrak is only free if you're in a sleeper car.

Ain't no thing but a chicken wing on a string.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 21, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) McCain's "rich" and Obama wants him to pay more taxes. Or something. Saying RSO isn't ready for the job by raising his RSO status was clever, and had a little meaning to it. Investment of real estate certainly isn't something that's "shady", unless you get to mortgage things for under market rates because you're a Democrat senator. I personally love how you deride shady tactics and then in the same breath use a cheap shot that's already been debunked. Like an accusation that a senator with a wife who works for the University of Chicago gets an "under the table" discount that is consistent with someone with good credit would normally get on a mortgage.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 21, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) RSO is still not really talking specifics. He doesn't have to. He may have the best website EVA! for ideas and platforms, but he's certainly not going to talk to it all. He *IS* negative when he runs around talking about how bad our country is, from Iraq, to the economy, to gas prices, to so and so's too rich and we need to tax them more, to NAFTA sucks and get rid of it, etc. etc. etc. So, yea, I think RSO pretty much blows the lack of sunshine up our asses every chance he gets because he's going to "CHANGE" it all. So you answered my question, you're only going to vote for a Presidential candidate who says everything is sunshine and lollipops and ham and plaques, because clearly nothing needs change.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 21, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) But, there's where I have trouble... how does HE determine what needs fixing and what doesn't? And one of the McCain ads does do that better then he has been doing up until now. So does that mean every Presidential candidate need to always say that everything is sunshine and lollipops? Kap, I understand you dislike both candidates, but your objections at times feel like your grabbing for any straw you can. First its that he doesn't talk specifics, then its how does he have the gall to determine specific challenges? So if he's specific, he's being negative and if he's being vague, its smoke up our asses?

United hubs out of Chicago, San Francisco and Washington D.C. http://crankyflier.com/2008/08/20/uniteds-...-jackass-award/ Here's the scoop. Starting September 2: No more free snacks. That little bag of Pretzels? Over. Now you can buy snacks instead. No more free meals for overseas flights. It may not have been a lot, but if you're stuck on a plane for 10 hours, having some complimentary service would be nice. That's done for out of Washington D.C. and probably soon done for passengers flying internationally out of Chicago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_...mMdClBid39g.3QA

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 01:13 PM) Actually, the Iraqi invasion of Iran began in September of 1980. The Iran/Iraq war itself dragged on until 1988. Exactly, if I recall correctly, the same doctrine of preemptive warfare that we used in 2003 was used by Iraq to invade Iran. Hussein wanted to create a buffer zone inside Iran which was looking alternately between being an aggressor and a failed state at the time. In fact, a few border skirmishes were used as a justification that Iran was planning a full scale invasion.

I think she's probably the best "newsy" talent to have ever come from Air America.

Ron Karkovice

I can honestly say I voted for my candidate in 2004. You say the system is broken, but until you stop supporting candidates you don't like, these kinds of candidates will keep perpetuating the system.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) Vote. Please vote. Vote for whomever you think is the best available (which I realize may not be great), but still vote. Look at 3rd party candidates. Actually, no. Please don't vote. If you can't vote for your guy and are voting for someone to vote against someone else, please do the world a favor and don't fill out the ballot at all. Because our system will only fix itself when people support the candidates that are running rather than voting against someone else.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) See that is from the Dem perspective. A lot of G.W. Bush voters were voting for him, as Democrats were basically voting anyone but him. So I would say the reason you think this election is so much different is because you personally really like the Dem candidate. Obama voters hear the slogans and think "yea, i like that. change." However, I just hear a bunch of marketing slogans and not much substance. Eye of the beholder I suppose. I went door to door for Kerry and spoke with a lot of Republican voters. The most common objection - "Yeah, he's been a mess but Kerry would be worse." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Very little.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) No one is surprised. I'm just pointing out that the Obama campaign hasn't been any more substantive than McCain's. But you see, it is still fairly early, there hasn't even been a debate yet. Policy differences will be shown. Actually, you don't hear Obama talking about his opponent as much as the reverse is true. There was a good month where I didn't hear McCain talk about himself without mentioning his running mate. Obama talks about change - and although his speeches do tend to be rather vague, its not like McCain is much more specific. This election looks far different to me than any election in the last 12 years because we actually have a candidate that people are voting for. That energy always trumps the people who are voting against the other guy. I don't hear about many people voting FOR McCain these days. Even if they are punching his name on the ballot.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 06:58 AM) I guess he hasn't been looking at the movement of Hispanics towards the GOP. Idiot. That movement had a sudden about face in 2006. The GOP will be lucky to get more than 33% of the Hispanic vote this year, instead of the 40% they got in 04.

Yesterday at the game during the 4th inning introduction of Ken Griffey Jr, the intro music was the "Soul Glow" jingle from "Coming to America."

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 01:55 AM) Yup, that's my ENTIRE reason for not voting for Rock Star Obama. Sadly, though, there will be a few people like that... and even sadder, most don't know why they ARE voting for him, other then he'll "CHANGE" things. I for one, don't want a hell of a lot of change, but apparently, most want "change" (i.e. government running everything for me since I am not smart enough to do anything for myself). At least you know what Obama stands for, by and large, if you actually take the time to look. His positions have for the most part been pretty consistent. I have no idea what McCain stands for because he only seems to be against what Obama is for. Even if that contradicts what he stood for two weeks earlier.

If the US was smart, they would be fast tracking NATO membership for Ukraine about right now.

So who wants to go to the GOP Convention this year? Not Republicans.... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12476.html The juicy bits: That part on page two of the story is the best. Republicans don't want to go Minneapolis because it isn't New York or LA. I guess they only care about the middle of the country when they don't have to spend any time there.

When you stretch yourself out in campaign after campaign that is really unnecessary you leave opportunities for smaller regional powers to flex their muscle without any real power to make change. A lot of people are comparing this to the Sudetenland invasion of 1938 and I think its really apt here. Putin makes me uneasy. With oil at the price it is, he's able to do these things without too much worry, because there isn't the kind of western investment need as there was for them five years ago.

I have been paying mild attention to the election and I will say that over the last couple weeks, I have not seen or heard a single thing from McCain that wasn't about how bad Obama's ideas are. Even in his "weekly radio address to the nation," he never seems to say anything worth saying about himself, instead resorting on attacking Obama.