StrangeSox

Wow. Thanks for the link, ss. I'm not sure that our current economic and governmental structures are actually sustainable. Sometimes I get strongly in favor of the band-aid approach.

So Obama's threatened to veto a pretty terrible bill that allows for indefinite military detention of anyone anywhere in the world, including US citizens in the US. Hopefully he follows through.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) It makes him less bad for two reasons. One, he understands what he actually can accomplish, and focuses on those things, instead of beating his head against a wall. Second, all else equal, I'd always prefer the smarter guy to the dumber one, which should be pretty obvious. If the smarter guy is going to be more effective at bringing terrible policy to fruition... I'm also not sure that newt should get points over anyone for political pragmatism

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) Yes I know it was Energy, I just couldn't resist the joke. And you are missing my point. I didn't say the result is good. I am saying that Rick Perry is thinking people are gullible, and that they'll actually believe it is even possible for him to get rid of entire agencies of government like that. It plays well short run, but then falls apart. Gingrich is smarter than that. That's what I'm saying. I'll grant you that gingrich is smarter than perry. I guess I don't understand why you are bringing that up, though. Is it supposed to make gingrich less bad because he would be more effective at implementing his terrible policies?

SOX compliance is not cheap.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 07:42 AM) Of course he wants to kill it - but he recognizes he can't practically do so. So unlike Perry, not only does Gingrich actually remember which agency, he also makes it a policy to try to put a big old leash on it. Make it do less. Why does this make Newt different than, say, Perry? It says that Newt has a better grip on reality. I may not agree with either one on this particular issue, but Newt is a lot less scary because he isn't completely ignorant. This is a subtle but important difference. Not really, because the end result is still heavily gutted environmental regulations. edit: the EPA wasn't the agency Perry forgot, it was the DOE. Someone else shouted out EPA when he was caught in the headlights. What Perry's flub says to me is that they were just talking points and he wouldn't actually eliminate these huge departments with pretty diverse functions. If he actually cared that much about it, if it was a real issue, he'd remember pretty easily.

Gingrich thinks that the CBO is some sort of socialist plot from the devil. Why on Earth would you give him the benefit of the doubt over the EPA?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:07 PM) Ah come on, its called being a fan. Duke is gay. you know I'm giving you a hard time. f*** duke.

My rooting interests are torn between my dislike of duke and my dislike of rock's rampant osu homerism

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 08:38 PM) I actually like Martz. I think our offense has taken major strides this year, and I'd like to continue to see some of the guys work at it. Yes, he outsmarts himself at times, and he is slow to adjust when Jay is getting creamed, but he has been awfully good this year IMO, outside of the Saints game. As for the Forte love...HE CANNOT RUN BETWEEN THE TACKLES...teams know this and are defending the edges better. He is a great runner when he has a dominant run-blocking OLine, and he is an outstanding pass receiver, but running Matt Forte 25 times a game, with Chris Williams out for the year, is not going to do much of anything other than average about 2 yards a carry. Hasn't this been obvious the past 3 games? We need to throw more screens to Forte and use Barber as our between the tackles runner, and mix it up just enough so that they can't identify the play based on the personnel in the huddle. Didn't both forte and barber average over 5 ypc sunday?

This is a thread created to discuss the GOP nomination. People are containing relevant posts to this thread and not littering threads with it. Seems perfectly in line with the rules. And it's pretty funny that you're whining about it being a violation of the rules because of supposedly posting every little news item while also whining that people didn't post about Newt getting a newspaper endorsement.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) Or not reading it and moving on to another thread? Well, it is intended to be a catch-all for the GOP nomination, positive and negative. But no one is stopping him, kap, alpha and others from discussing what candidates they like.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) That isn't true at all. The biggest issue in the 2008 Dem election discussions was Kaps insistence that Hillary was going to catch Obama. And as to the discussion, if this is the thread that we are going to have, and I am apparently the only one who feels that way, the Dems can have it. Just at least do the decency of renaming it to reflect the discussion, or at least deleting the forums rules to reflect the changes in the filibuster. What forums rules are being violated by posting and discussing major news stories wrt GOP candidates? What is stopping you or anyone else from posting whatever you want to post in this thread and others?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Please. Tell me if I trolled the Dems thread on a daily basis, I wouldn't get the same exact response. And as to the bolded, THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM. That is entirely what this thread is about, and why it was created. This thread is about whatever people who post in the thread make it about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Case in point. So am I not supposed to post things in here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) To suggest that I, or seemingly anyone else, have to atone for the behavior of others is just silly, and it misses the point entirely. This thread has never been about an honest discussion of the GOP candidates here. Even the replies to this argument mainly have been about what idiots the GOP is, like that is an accepted fact, and therefore OK, even though it violates all of the supposed forum rules. That has been my point since the day this thread started. This is a thread to discuss the GOP nomination. That includes negative things. There have been many negative things because this field is a joke. No one has stopped you or Alpha or kap or anyone else from posting things you find interesting. Instead you sit back, contribute nothing positive and then whine when the liberal posters on this site use a thread about the GOP nomination to point out negative stories about the GOP nomination.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Sure. If people stop pretending that this thread ever actually was intended to discuss the GOP Nomination. Pointing out ridiculous and crazy things that are forming the core of the GOP nomination process is discussing the GOP Nomination.

Stop whining and post stories that interest you.

idgi. Are you really complaining that one of the few active liberal posters didn't rush to this thread after a long holiday weekend to post relatively minor news about a newspaper endorsing Gingrich?

They changed the focus of the political discussion from the necessity of substantial austerity cuts back to job creation and wealth/income inequality. I don't know how much more successful they hope to be at this point.

It's true. Republicans are all dirty tricksters.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 27, 2011 -> 06:27 PM) lolz ending

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 27, 2011 -> 06:02 PM) It was from the spot of the foul. That doesnt make sense

Why did they show only a 5 yard penalty on the hold?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 27, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) Well its a disaster half and the Bears are only down a score. Three picks giving them great field position and taking points off the board for the bears and they are only down 5.