Jenksismyhero

my gf has the iphone and i've messed with it a lot. make sure you test out the touch screen keypad. some people love it, some people hate it. realize that it takes a little bit of getting used to, but there's a noticeable delay and for some people it's unbearable.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 27, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) I don't think it's so much that, but that foreign policy was McCain's strength, and Obama had his work cut out for him keeping pace. and he did that by not talking about foreign policy

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 27, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) The response was stupid, but it was appropriate to what it was responding to. Basically, Obama said "So? And?" That's what he meant yes, but it came off like a kid vying for attention. "Teacher, teacher, look at me! I can shoot the ball too!!"

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 27, 2008 -> 11:12 AM) The reason Obama needed to just hold his own is really threefold. He's seen as the weaker debater, so doing well enough is considered winning. That's kind of what happened with Bush in 2000 and 2004. And frankly, if Palin can hold it together next week, it is what will happen to her. Performance tends to be evaluated relative to your perceived ability to debate. Secondly, this is McCain's "home turf." International Relations is supposed to be McCain's strength. His ability to not stand head and shoulders above Obama's positions in the debate is a bad sign for McCain because it differentiates him less in the good ways from Obama. And finally, the reason why holding your own is enough for Obama is that in the case of Obama, you have a base that's voting FOR him - and by and large the Republican base is voting AGAINST Obama and not for McCain. When your campaign is running hard against someone else instead of running for yourself, and your opponent "holds his own," he just neutralized another thing you can use against him. I guess I didn't expect him to be the weaker debater (ala Bush). He's a very intelligent guy and can certainly hold his own when speaking publicly. Though I find it funny that people give McCain a hard time about not staring into the camera (really? do you feel more connected if he's staring into the camera?) Obama can't complete sentences. Everything is interrupted with an "and" an "umm" or an "also." Personally I think those are issues that are for people that haven't followed the issues and the policies of the respective candidates. It's akin to "I like his haircut. It makes him look young. I'll vote for him." Second, I didn't see Obama even touching McCain on international relations - he brought up taxes and energy and healthcare everytime he was asked a question. He stuck to his political points that he loves the average american whereas big scary republican wants to kill them. Obama had nothing to compare to McCain saying "i've been here, i've spoken with these people, I had to make decisions during crisis X, Y and Z and I have an actual record on how and why I made my vote - you haven't." I thought he was made a fool in his that face-to-face portion (he can mischaracterize his and Kissinger's own words all he wants but when you say "I will..." that means you, not your people.) and really, he really upset me with the surge/future iraq strategy issue (which he continues to simply answer by saying Bush III got us into the war). I'm like 60/40 for McCain at this point and I really wanted Obama to speak to me about that, but instead, like I posted this morning, he just went back to that stupid and illogical democratic strategy of paint the other guy as Bush and blame the war on him. I also thought McCain had a great point when he said for as much as you speak about Iraq and as much as you think the strategy has been wrong, you haven't been to Iraq and you've never spoken with anyone in charge. I don't think your third point is true. There are equal numbers of people that are voting against having an old white republican in office again as there are people afraid of a black socialist. I don't think McCain schooled him or anything, I'm more inclined to say it was a draw. But that's because the debate wasn't about international relations - Obama brought up far too many other topics to make it a "McCain Debate" that he showed up for.

Considering he said his name about 10 times, he made one mistake - that's pretty good in my book. I thought it was funnier that Obama called McCain Jim and Joe-er-n. I honestly think McCain won slightly. I give him a 55-45. I was expecting Obama to make McCain look like a tired old man, but really he came off as very intelligent and knowledgable. He dropped a lot of names and a lot of stories about his experience. If you were truly on the fence, you'd have to say that you learned more about McCain than Obama. Obama basically rehashed his convention speech (as did McCain, but some of the detailed experience he talked about was new). My big thing is that the media seems to think that Obama merely had to show up and prove he could belong. What does that mean? He did nothing to show the country HOW he would lead or HOW he would make decisions - he gave a bunch of generic political talk. Did the media expect him to completely fail? I didn't understand what they meant. Weakest moment: Obama's "i have a bracelet too!" line. Really? Was that necessary? McCain spent too much time rehashing what he had just said. If I were him, next time I'd make my point once or twice and then just stop talking. Also, can a liberal please explain to me this stupid democractic strategy of bringing up the fact that in 2003 we went to war? How does that help Obama at all? "Sen. Obama, can you explain why you still don't think the surge was effective? Sure Jim, but lets talk about a more important issue. Why did we need the surge in the first place?" "Sen. Obama, if you were president, what would you do in Iraq? Well Jim, I'll refuse to answer the question and again mention the fact that McCain is actually Bush III and its his fault that we're in this war." (1) Why refuse to answer a legitimate question about how you came to your decision that the surge was a bad idea and a sure failure (as thats one of a few, if not the only, actual issues that both parties have been able to give opinions on prior to it occuring)? and (2) why continue to pretend like McCain was responsible for managing the war. Ok, we get it, he backed a stupid war and you didn't. Kudos to you. Stop refusing to answer questions about how you would lead the country in this war FROM THIS POINT FORWARD simply by reminding everyone that you didn't agree with the war in the first place. Also, kudos to Lehrer for at least TRYING to get those guys to talk about the economy - clearly neither of them want to talk specifics. And I liked that he got them to, ya know, debate.

Not only do USC fans think they are the best, but because USC is the only relevant team in the LA area (sorry UCLA fans), all the national pundits have to say that stuff too. Are any of them going to eat crow today? No. They'll blame it on an off day or some other BS reason. And when USC wins the Pac 10 (because the rest of the league sucks, and always will suck) and goes to the Rose Bowl, are we going to hear more crap about them being the best team that SHOULD have been in the national championship game? I hate Ohio State as much as the next guy, but losing to USC AT USC is a much better loss than Oregon State (or Stanford). And I don't buy that Penn State is the best team in the Big Ten, not yet anyway. They haven't played anyone yet. If they totally pwn Illinois this weekend, then I'll believe it. If it's a shootout win, I'll still consider Wisconsin the best (since its a home game they should win), as they have the best win by anyone in the conference (at F.S.)

bwha ha ha ha ha ha ha "USC is by far the greatest team in college football" - every college football analyst. OOPS! Still a half to go, but does any serious national title contender have such a terrible half against a not so good team (a team that was losing 28-0 after one half to Penn St?) And when do the talks of Pete Carroll = overrated start? With 25 future nfl players on his roster year after year, yet he loses to Oregon St two years ago, Stanford last year, Oregon St again this year??

So are you guys still into this show? I gotta say it has WAY too much X-Files in it. Every episode wrapping up in a nice neat little package. The 3rd episode might have been the nail in the coffin for me.

agree, that was one of the better episodes in a LONG time. Piven was hilarious.

What I wouldn't give to see what the reaction would have been if Obama had done this. I believe it'd be along the lines of "the Messiah shows he's great yet again!" Seriously, I give props to McCain for this. Yes, he'll use it to his political advantage, but so what? Isn't that what each candidate has done 99.9% of the time the last 3-4 years? GMAFB. Everything they do is for political gain.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Sep 18, 2008 -> 10:10 AM) Its already over(M&H are 6-10). But the interview is archived lol, I forgot my schedule of getting to work at 10 is not the norm. Anything interesting? Did M and H actually ask pertinent questions like "why are you such a douche?"

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Sep 18, 2008 -> 07:00 AM) Mariotti is supposed to be on Mully and Hanley this morning. He may be on right now, they were announcing it when I was driving to work Thanks for the heads up. I'll be ignoring that show this morning!

http://consumerist.com/5051343/verizon-ref...n-for-four-days Hmm, dunno what to say about this. Pretty classy move, especially bringing the lawyers.

As far as the test, if I remember right from my labor law class a couple years ago it's some mix of reasonableness, duration, and relationship between the parties.

Isn't baldness determined by your grandfather and great grandfather on your mothers side?

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 01:54 AM) Well, at least it wasn't another ass-waxing video... ^^^^^^^

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 17, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) My wife is a labor/employment lawyer. She has said in the past most non competes are unenforceable. I think it's more that it's difficult to enforce, not unenforceable. Courts enforce them under the right circumstances. I would have to think that this would be one of them, especially since he resigned. Like everything though, depends on the language of the agreement. If all the terms are reasonable (say, "you can't work for the Trib for 2 years) it'll be enforced, if not ("you can never work for another chicago paper ever again), it won't. I can't imagine an organization like the Sun-Times not having really good lawyers who know what will and will not be enforced.

ya know, i'd have to say we should wait and see. I mean, no doubt this guy shouldn't have been texting while on the job, but even the NSTB said not to rush and make wrong conclusions about the actual cause. Especially if they're just using the fact that someone recieved a text a minute before the crash. My texts, both recieved and sent, come and go at various times. It's not always instantaneous.

I think McCain will ulitmately pull it out. GOP grassroots is simply better than the DEMS, even if Obama has revitalized the DEM base. I think it'll be really close though. I just can't get over the fact that even after Obama had 3-4 months of nearly sole coverage in the media, McCain still leads or is at least even with him. There's not much more Obama can do at this point.

I was going to reply to this thread yesterday and say that the day had lost a little bit of feeling and meaning these last few years. But last night I watched a terrific documentary on the History Channel that had footage from 8 or 9 seperate people in various parts of the city - some as close as one block that morning. Needless to say, I sat for an hour and half with my mouth open in awe, pretty much like I was that morning. I'll never forget exactly where I was and what I was doing. I was at work at my universities library when the first plane hit. I remember thinking "oh that sucks, there's been an accident." Then the news came that the plane had been hijacked. The library put up a tv and we watched the 2nd plane hit and then of course both towers falling. I'll also remember that day because my parents were on a flight from San Fran back to Chicago that morning. They were forced to land in Colorado. I'll never forget my dad calling me as soon as the plane landed being pissed that they couldn't go any farther. No one had told them what happened. He thought I was kidding when I told him. We ended up going to NYC in March or April of '02. Visiting that small church with the fence covered in pictures and memorials and letters, and then going up that ramp to the site was easily one of the coolest and most memorable things I've ever done. I walked up with my family and a couple of strangers. When we got to the edge where you could see over the site this guy next to me says, "I used to work in the north tower. After the bombing in '93 I quit. Smartest decision I ever made."

I've been within a couple miles of a tornado on a few occasions now. The latest was this summer while camping in Indiana. Nothing like laying in a tent during a torrential downpour with wind so strong that the top of the tent was pushed down far enough to touch my chest. That was cool.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) And to be clear on something else, McCain's camp wasn't doing this dishonest crap originally. Its a recent phenomenon. I had in fact commended both campaigns a while back for avoiding that s***. McCain decided to go over the line (between stretching/contextually dissonant and just plain lying) recently, and multiple times. I was the same way, but it seems like after the conventions it's time for the gloves to come off and the mudslinging crap to begin. Here's a good blog write up from Newsweek I always read that kinda hit home with what I've been talking about with friends. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arc...-stupidity.aspx

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) Obama using that line was classless IMO, though typical for a campaign. And it wasn't a lie, because it was in fact the manifest truth - he said that. It was out of context to be certain, but not outright false. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...00year_war.html That's a lie. Tell me how, in any way, McCain says he'd CONTINUE a WAR in Iraq for 100 years. There's no difference to me between that tactic and Palin taking the credit for that bridge not being built. (I'm not excusing it, I'm just saying this is typical political speech. To act like Palin is any different than Obama in this respect is laughable to me.)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) If you want to roll up verbal fumblings - like McCain's 100 year line or Obama saying we had 57 states - in with actual lies like Palin stopping the bridge (out and out lie), then I guess that might make you feel better about the person lying. Feel free. But to me and most others, there is a difference there. All campaigns exaggerate and push the envelope, no doubt. But one of the reasons I prefer Obama is that I have yet to see him be outright false about something. IF someone can show me an example of him doing that, please provide it. I'd like to see it. He probably has, but I haven't seen it. Verbal fumblings?! Obama lied to people for over a month of campaigning by saying McCain wanted to be in Iraq for 100 years, even though that's not at all what McCain said or what McCain meant. I consider that the same - blatantly misquoting/misrepresentuing the situation for political gain.

You guys are cracking me up over this political speech. Every candidate does it, even Obama Christ himself. Remember when he kept saying that McCain wanted to wage war for another 100 years? What a liar he was! :rollseyes: