Texsox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) Because: Political Reason 1. He's trying out for a higher job and has scheduled events, most notably the debate. Fair, but he has a vote like everyone else 2. He's not a key guy in any of the negotiations there Political Reason 3. His presence dictates a timetable Specifically...let's hypothesize that this is an incredibly complex decision, which it should be for that kind of money. John McCain comes barreling in to town to try to save things. Now 98 other Senators are working to pass a bill on John McCain's timetable which says he can't spend the next 2 or 3 months in Washington holding hearings, he needs to be on the campaign trail. So suddenly now we have to have a bill written ASAP for $700 billion dollars. Political Reason 4. His presence instantly makes the possibility of a bipartisan agreement on the bailout impossible, because now the Dems are going to respond by saying "Look, we don't want to put something out there that the other guy is going to claim credit for just because he's in the same city". I think #3 is the most important in my book. You want time to study the bill or hold hearings? John McCain just took that time away from you. Seems like you asked for a non political reason then shot it down with a bunch of political reasons. So give me a non political reason that the Senior Member from Arizona should not be in Washington for this, but some Jr. member from Idaho should?

Sorry I thought up a non political reason. Find someone else to play with

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 05:28 PM) So, in reply, let me take up Senator Obama's perspective...as President, it's sort of expected that you'll be able to deal with more than one thing at once. 2 planes crash in to the WTC, and the next week you're trying to worry about the deep decline in the stock market. I can understand heading back to Washington if there's going to be an imminent vote, but that doesn't involve canceling appearances or the debate. In terms of studying the bill...if the bill is that complex that it needs a significant amount of study, then it shouldn't be written up and passed within a week. I'm sorry Tex, I just don't buy that explanation. No one seems to have a problem when the Patriot Act is pulled off the shelf, presented to people in the morning, and is passed with a 99-1 vote later in the day. If it's that important of a bill that it takes hours of study, and that it can only be done in Washington rather than through all of the various communications devices we have right now, when at the same time you have a fairly large taxpayer funded staff who's job it is to make these sorts of bills the things you can understand, studying the bill for days is the best you can give me? You asked for a non political reason why a Senator should be in Washington. If there are no valid reasons why a Senator should be in Washington, then why for over 200 years have we had "sessions" at every level of government? Let's turn it around, why shouldn't he be in Washington? Finally, like any decision, the are reasons for and reasons against. You balance all those reasons and make a decision. That doesn't mean a reason that does not support your action is wrong, it just means there are more compelling reasons for a different course of action.

Lincoln Park morning

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) In all seriousness...can someone explain to me a non-political reason why any of McCain's suggestions, suspending his campaign or cutting the debate, are good ideas and will actually help with the financial industry problems? How does bringing a Presidential campaign and its associated staff back to Washington along with 1 Senator who's not in charge of the negotiations or any key committees really help? That's easy. The premise has to be that this is potentially a decision for the Senate to make. If there is going to be a vote on this issue, there will be many facets that need to be understood. For the Senator, any Senator, to be fully up to speed will take much time between now and the vote. The only way to have that amount of time is to suspend campaigning and start studying. Since his staff and advisers, and all the resources, are in Washington, he should be there. Further, while in reality it shouldn't't take 100 Senators to do this, Illinois and Arizona only send two Senators to Washington. Since we are the United States, each state should have equal representation in this matter. That only happens when they are all there.

In golf the total doesn't count, you are not responsible for the math, only the correct hole by hole score. I know that doesn't help, just thought I'd toss that out. I called a friend who owns a restaurant and he was told by the credit card companies and somewhat confirmed by his attorney that the bottom amount is trump. But, which kind of sucks for the server, if a customer makes a math error the other way, and adds higher, they can put the charges through as signed for, but if the customer disputes the charges, they will get reversed and the correct math is used. So it sucks to be a server in this, you lose both ways.

that flowed like

Good luck Steff. It wasn't that long ago that a cake and family at the house was enough for a one year old.

After reading the onslaught of pro Obama analysis I was hoping to write something in McCain's defense, but, I must say I am disappointed in McCain. Presidents and Candidates have have run for office under difficult situations throughout our history. I'm not fooled that he, or Obama, are so indispensable they just have to be in Washington, especially when the votes will be solidly down party lines. This doesn't seem like the McCain I thought was great in 2000 before getting screw over. It's starting to feel like Bob Dole. Thank you good and faithful servant, you can have the nomination. I was 51-49 McCain, but I'm losing confidence. I'm wondering if McCain is taking any leadership in his campaign, this just doesn't seem like McCain, or my image was not reality.

on the newspaper

and the cat

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) There i$ $ome perfectly good rea$on$ to i$ue thi$ at the movie$ with a whole new ca$t! Hollywood is filled with remakes. Some movies are worth remaking, some are not. IIRC There was a stage play done back in the late 80s

Time for a new game.

This game is a three word story. Your reply has to be exactly three words and build on the previous post and kindof tell a story The rain fell

10,000 Maniacs Hey Jack Kerouac

If I cannot synch to my desktop, it has zero value. Always a deal killer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 07:39 AM) I hope so, but I get the feeling it will be a bomb with Dukes of Hazard proportions. One person I thought would be perfect was Cindy Lauper as Magenta. She even has the perfect voice for the part. nice

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) There is a precedent, an example would be the S&L bailout. They know the government is going to bail them out. If they don't want government regulation, then they shouldn't be coming to the government open palmed (gimme gimme 700 billion) when they fail. I am going to ask you the same question I asked Balta. What are you getting at? Is this an argument over whether or not bailouts encourage risky business practices? Is this an argument over if the bailout is warranted? Is this an argument about what the correct course of action is? Is this an argument just for arguments sake ? I think we probably agree that these banks need more regulation, especially seeing that we are on the hook for their actions. I was trying to follow your points. I was not aware that these loans were guaranteed and it seemed as if that was what you were implying. I'm going to go back and reread your post based on the premise that based on previous bailouts the banks knew they would be bailed out, and therefor that every bank should be expecting a bailout when they make massive mistakes.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) My assertion that the fact that these banks knew they could make huge risks because they would get bailed out did add to their risky lending behavior. You can ignore this fact, and that is fine with me. I guess I am missing something in this, how did these banks know they would be bailed out? At best the knew there was a possibility of getting bailed out, but I fail to see where it was a fact they would be bailed out.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 01:31 PM) I may have missed it, but can someone name a large commercial bank that has failed. http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html Not certain what you believe is big.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 03:13 PM) So no feelings on which actors/resses would make the perfect [insertfavoritecharacterhere]? Even though a couple of the actors turned out to have stellar careers, I think the movie will again be cast with relative unknowns.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) But such a pain in the ass to bring all those props... I carried them in my arms . . .

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) Jay wasn't exactly making chump change doing the exact samethings in Chicago. There is money in it, that's for certain.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) If there is a 269-269 tie the winning ticket in the popular vote will get elected. Congressmen aren't just going to piss off their constituents and lose their jobs over something like this. In a heart beat, and they should. When the system was designed, this scenario, with the predictable resulting party line voting, was understood. Just like Dem Governor when given a chance, would nominate a Dem to replace an outgoing Rep (and vice versa). They would lose their jobs if as a Dem they voted Rep. Their district elected a Dem and they will vote Dem.

It is a very good read, and he's Captain Obvious, but still people will not listen.