StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) Well, technically, it was a sub-machine gun, if I'm write that it was an MP5. Still though, does seem like overkill. Usually it's more associated with drug busts than someone calling a break-in, but there's certainly been a trend lately of cops using a lot more hardware than they need, thinking they're paramilitary or something.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) Here is the rest of that quote that seems to be missing..... Is that supposed to make it any better?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 11:22 AM) Our site owner doesn't like "Clutter" and he doesn't like pinned threads. TDC has briefly closed for the winter, and all baseball talk has been combined into a single forum. Which, at least imo, has left everything dumped together and cluttered.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 01:51 AM) The Road was a great movie but horribly depressing. Definitely gets you thinking though. Highly recommended. Great acting all around. QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 06:24 AM) I agree. I read the book first, and I found that the movie follows it almost exactly. Extremely depressing, but fantastic. Read the book alone and in a dimly lit room during the dead of winter. Doesn't get much more depressing than that, but couldn't put it down.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) Because of the stopping initiated by the states? Not sure, just know that a lot of banks have stopped the process until next year and are having lawyers review it all. They expect a flood come Jan. 1st.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2010 -> 10:20 AM) That I won't defend. Ok - here's how the per diem stuff works on a couple of different levels. I'll try to simplify and use examples that I've run into. Each city/region has their own per diem rates as established by the us government. There's foreign allowances (http://aoprals.state.gov/) and US allowances (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21287). For example, because I work for an aerospace company, our rates cannot exceed established per diem guidelines. We get audited by government people all the time in this. However, there's a couple of instances where per diems go out the window. One is if there's no facilities within a certain perimeter of where you're staying - you get stuck with the rates charged - and most of the time it's full up pricing and no discounts received, and two, if there's ANY type of security risks, you have to stay in a pre-approved facility which exceeds the per diem guidelines. What I find funny about this is they tell you where you have to stay, and they know you're going to exceed per diem rates. So, it's an exception right away if people want to make a stink about it. What I cannot tell you about Gov. Christie specifically is if this stuff falls in category one or category two... people know that these expenses are tracked and they don't stay at places without one of the two being the case 99.9% of the time. They're not going to "rip off the tax payor" or stay somewhere extremely excessive because everyone knows these are scrutinzed, let alone scrutinized because said person is running for political office. I just don't think there's much of a story here because of these reasons - honestly, much like I don't think there's a story of $200 million per day being spent on Obama overseas - it's too easy to inflate these type of numbers to make a story that's not a story... i.e. said hotel costs $499 per room per night gross, but on a discount it's $199 per night typically. Oops, it cost $499 because you're the US government! Cha-ching! Talk about inflation. Hopefully that makes sense. Good post. Even if he was splurging, it's not really a big sum we're talking about. One thing, though, usually government employees get discount rates at hotels. At least for people traveling to national labs and nuclear facilities.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) It would be extremely predictable. The big difference between the two threads would be the complete handjob given to Obama over anything he writes. There was none of that here. Obama's been pretty mediocre so far. I didn't go searching for any reviews of the book. I relayed the only review I happened to hear while in the car, and one news article I saw on another site. Other than that, I really couldn't care less about Bush's, or Clinton's, or Obama's memoirs. The backlash to saying his book is just sort of "meh" from the review I heard has been 1) predictable and 2) sad.

My friend works for a company that issues foreclosure notices (among other things like summons), and they have definitely slowed down the last few weeks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 05:34 PM) I'm not going to read it, but then again, I don't think I have ever paid for the right to read about a politician slobbering all over their own knob. Which is, at least from my reading, the point the reviewer was making. There's nothing noteworthy about the book. But apparently that means I'm trying to paint Bush as an idiot because I hate him so much.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 05:56 PM) I wasn't commenting on your post, rather the first few posts, which are clearly intended to do one thing and one thing only, call Bush an idiot and hate on him. They might say its not hate, its fact, but whatever. mediocre book = idiot and hate now. Fantastic. It seems like you guys are being hyper-sensitive.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 04:58 PM) lol, LeBron is such a p****. He basically said the Heat lost because he played too much. I mean I figured the minutes would wear on him, but I didn't think he'd be "tired" by the 9th game of the season. When has he accepted responsibility for anything? Ever? The worst part is that he's just so damn oblivious. There's lots of assholes out there in sports who know they're assholes. Lebron has no clue why anyone is upset with him, or why whining about playing too many minutes might reflect poorly on him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) "Falling far short of what's considered good in the genre" - you mean not being equal with the "finest" memoir of a President? Pretty tall order there don't you think? Sure. And the review, in general, wasn't exactly kind in pointing out the differences and didn't exalt it's achievements. Which leads me to believe that the reviewer found the book to be mediocre. And, as I pointed out, you failed to read what I actually wrote. I did not pass judgement of the book myself, as you incorrectly tried to criticize me for, but instead relayed what I had heard in a review. You haven't made any case for considering that review to be positive.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) Yeah whatever. You're taking him saying that it doesn't compare to one other memoir (not "works") as him saying it's mediocre. Point out something else he says in there that would lead you to conclude that. He doesn't. It's a pretty neutral review. I read it as him saying "I wish he would have talked more about his personal life." But again, as if him writing 4 paragraphs about how God talks to him would change your opinion on him or the decisions he made. Just admit your bias towards him led you to conclude it was just a mediocre book, despite the fact that the review you base that opinion on doesn't say anything like that. That's what I'm getting at. "Hate" might be a strong word, but that's basically what it is. When you compare Thing 1 that's considered really good to another, similar Thing 2 and point out that it's lacking both important parts Thing 1 has, it's not a favorable review. Perhaps you missed the last 1/4 of the review, as well, where he claims Bush's presidency was a turning point and that history will judge him much more harshly than he judges himself. Which, again, is one of the two crucial points that Grant had but Bush lacked--honest self-assessment and reflection. I'll admit that a review that describes the book as falling far short of what's considered good in the genre and ends with condemnation of the author led me to describe it as mediocre. Also at mediocre is basically hate

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) You don't know how this works at all, do you? And I'm not trying to mock you, I'm asking you a question. Are you willing to learn why this story is a non-story, or are you just going to dismiss what is factual here? I'm curious as well. I know I'd get my ass chewed for staying at hotels far above typical expenses (we don't follow GSA per diem for lodging) without providing justification.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) I guess I don't see it. He says it's not as good as Grant's. Ok fine. He's basically saying he didn't include enough information about his personal life but isntead focuses on his years as President (as if that would make it better to someone who doesn't like him already). He also says "As a justification for his actions, Bush's memoir succeeds admirably. The former president revisits nearly all the controversial decisions of his tenure, and defends them with vigor." He described why Grant's writings are considered good with two main points, and then he says Bush's book differs in both regards. You're quote-mining here, and removing the bit of text that puts what you quoted into context, where the reviewer criticizes Bush's lack of addressing any larger mistakes or some of the major issues during his presidency. The review wasn't an attack on Bush, but you're certainly reading it that way. It was a review of a book, and in comparison with the highly-regarded works in the same category, it falls short. That doesn't make it bad, just pretty mediocre. Nothing special. But, apparently, that's BLIND RAVENOUS HATRED!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) Did you read the review? He says he admitted mistakes. He didn't admit THE mistakes the author (and presumably strangesox since he said it was just an apologia) wanted him to admit. My mistake was arguing this too early. I'm sure given another day or two others would have chimed in to say how awful the book was (without actually reading it of course). From the tone of the initial posts - that he didn't write every word himself and that it was "mediocre" based on a review that said nothing of the sort - I sensed the same blind hate that's been going on for the better part of the decade. You must be reading a different review, or selectively ignoring where the reviewer points out the book's shortcomings.

No, not like you said. Did you miss why he brings that up? The comparison to Grant? I also didn't directly attribute the word mediocre to the reviewer, but that is certainly the message I took away from his review. Just re-read his first two paragraphs. Explains why Grant is considered so good, and then says Bush's differs on both critical points.

Here's the review. And since when is "mediocre" "HATE HATE HATE"?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:14 PM) What I've heard is that it's just apologia for his Presidency, mostly, and doesn't offer any insight to who George W. Bush the person is. Very mediocre overall. Oh, and then there's the ACLU (and others) calling for investigations based on Bush admitting he directly authorized waterboarding. Nothing will ever come of that, but that's because the Executive seems pretty much immune from the law. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) Because you haven't read it, so how would you know? Your clear (ridiculous) bias just extends to anything he does/will do. And honestly what did you expect? Did you really expect him to write a book that said "i'll bow to my haters and just apologize profusely for everything I ever did." Sorry, the review I heard said it was mediocre. They began by describing why Grant's memoirs are considered so good, and then contrasted with what Bush wrote.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT." A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB. So why am I ridiculous, as you put it, or pathetic, as cknolls said, for saying it's a mediocre book that doesn't offer much insight, just defenses for his policies?

FYI Miller is challenging votes such as "Murkowski, Lisa" as illegitimate. You can argue that he's doing it because he's desperate and it's his only chance, but it's still pretty dishonorable to democratic elections.

What I've heard is that it's just apologia for his Presidency, mostly, and doesn't offer any insight to who George W. Bush the person is. Very mediocre overall. Oh, and then there's the ACLU (and others) calling for investigations based on Bush admitting he directly authorized waterboarding. Nothing will ever come of that, but that's because the Executive seems pretty much immune from the law.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/o...f-the-hook.html I thought China's reaction, b****ing about US currency manipulation, was pretty ironic.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 08:35 PM) Either way you are calling out a Republican, and I applaud that. Most people here are slow to criticize a politician from their own party. Sorry for the top quote dfamn firefox He's "calling out" the Republican who lost a primary to an even-farther-right Republican but, by all indications, won the election. That's not exactly a non-partisan stance.

John Bolton and John Yoo are synonyms for "everything wrong with the Bush administration"