lostfan

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) Right. So is it better to get money from causes you naturally support or ones you naturally oppose? Irrelevant. That doesn't have anything to do with who gets money

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) You are missing the point. If you were Senator, who will you get campaign money from, people you agree with, or people you disagree with? To turn around later and say they are voting a certain way because of the contribution is unfair. You'll get money from people who try to influence you.

I love Dye and all, and appreciate what he's done for the organization, but his collapse after the All-Star break was pretty thorough. Also factor in the stretch in '08 where he disappeared in September when we badly needed him.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) An example of him truly breaking a promise is on the "no lobbyists in the administration" thing. Another one was the telecom immunity. He's been pretty full of s*** on the "transparency" thing too. yes he's made a few token steps but nothing really meaningful.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) Am I the only one who remembers that people weren't going to be able to buy access to the White House? No but you're making up your own definition of what that means and going with your own expectations of what could be reasonably accomplished (which, somewhat predictably, is an impossible standard). There is absolutely no way possible for any politician to completely ignore their donors, and example the article I mentioned brought up is 100% legal. As long as we're not talking about a flat-out quid pro quo, which is probably illegal, there really isn't a problem. I'm not going to waste my time getting indignant about it and I'll save that for when Obama actually does f*** up or tell a bald-faced lie and in the meantime I'm going mock people who contribute to irrelevant arguments.

...

k, nothing to do with my point though. They watch movies, bowl, and play golf with the president. The horrors of our corrupt system of democracy!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) He might want to update his campaign promises then... I wasn't aware that Obama promised to not accept campaign contributions and was going to seek re-election without doing so. Politicians have to raise money. Period. Even Obama said this during the campaign. If you don't raise money you won't stay in office unless you're an extreme anomaly. People need to stop acting surprised about this, yes we have a terrible system and in most European countries a lot of these things would probably count as electoral fraud but we already knew this and it's not about to change. Frankly, pretending to be shocked is f***ing stupid. Changing this fact would require a constitutional amendment.

lol at the Washington Times article with the shocking revelation that the White House gives out perks to people who have given Obama a lot of money. Noooooooooo! Also at some point today it's going to be 3 pm, I wonder if there will be an article on that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 11:10 PM) Sun Times is reporting Omiyale to the bench, Beekman taking over. Best news of the season.

That almost looked real until the end. It's really not that far off from how they've been acting.

lol Mitch McConnell was on CNN like an hour ago.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 05:42 PM) Williams isnt the problem, and BOTH tackles are crappy run blockers, which isnt ideal. Pile on top of that the hole at LG and the aging C and the non-pass blocking RG and you have a ton of issues. If we have a good run blocking RT our running game would be alot better, and thats where I think people are confused about Williams. Its not that he is bad, its just he's in a bad spot. IMO, poor run blocking hurts worse on the interior than it does for the tackles. Garza's actually still a decent run blocker. Kreutz is meh. Omiyale gets blown way off the line, sometimes into the RB and sometimes into Pace's back which is a hopeless situation. However if you did have a OT that was a better run blocker then he goes on the right, since more running plays go to the right. And you're right, we really don't have one. Pace USED to be a good run blocker, not so much now.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 08:36 AM) I really wish I would've bought the box set. Being poor sucks. http://www.amazon.com/Chicago-White-Sox-Wo...8312&sr=8-1

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:41 PM) The term strawman is overused on Soxtalk and has become a crutch. That is all. You're just mad cuz 80% of the time it's being applied to you

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) What is Kap's avatar? "strawman" in other words he's saying he never said/doesn't believe that.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Im confused? Read the "sentence" the left column makes from the first letter of each line.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Yeah, but who is TI??

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) I see nothing in any left column. What did I miss? L o o k A t I t C l o s e r

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB11...eto_Message.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 09:39 AM) Then they need to fix the system. In the meantime, how pissed can you get about people doing exactly what is available to do. People do it all of the time. Heck our own President was going to take the government funding for his Presidential race, but as soon as he saw he would have a significant advantage by not doing so. He went back on his word, and something according to him, felt was broken about the system, and did it anyway. Fine and dandy but like I said earlier, when he whined his way back into this seat in 2006 he pretended to be in favor of healthcare reform and now he's against it for no apparent reason. In fact this is probably a clever ploy to draw some campaign financing for when he has to go up for re-election, since he knows he's probably going to lose for real this time otherwise.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 09:02 AM) When you are talking about procedure, it is a technicality. Congress needs to address this, but until then, those are the rules. Are you honestly telling me that people should vote for a technicality when they know doing so will result in something they don't believe in? It wasn't intended to be that way. Bills are supposed to pass with a simple majority and a filibuster is only supposed to happen rarely. The threat of a filibuster alone is not supposed to kill a bill. It's not just a technicality, it's a full-blown broken system.

I've seen ripping of Chris Williams in this thread, but Williams' scouting reports said that he was quick and athletic but not overpowering, a good pass blocker, but mediocre run blocker. Meaning he should be a LT, not an RT. Pace is playing LT mostly because of his name but Williams never profiled very well to be a RT. Square peg, round hole.

So what do you mean by "they"? This is not about "inclusiveness," it's really not that complicated. If "they" is Democratic voters, "they" are b****ing because Lieberman (among others) is holding something up they want to see passed. Lieberman in particular gets singled out because he's done this before, not everything he does makes much sense (if you look at his history of statements he appears to support the Dems' version of healthcare reform) and frankly he's a bit of an attention whore.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:33 PM) Then they probably should quit b****ing about it, or quit acting like inclusiveness actually is true. I didn't know Balta, jasonxctf, BigSqwert, and bmags were U.S. Senators.