lostfan

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) To be fair, he explains that he has watched/listened to NBC/CBS, NY Times, etc. He's speaking of those who have never listened to Limbaugh who claim they "have heard him", when they haven't. He's not telling liberals who actually have listened to Limbaugh to take the challenge, he's asking those who never even bother, yet believe everything told to them to take the challenge. Which they won't do. For example, I'm a O'Reilly guy, and liberals hate him -- but at the same time have never seen him other than mostly out of context clips. I, on the other hand, have watched hours of Olberman, who is basically the same guy, but on the other side of the spectrum. I don't agree with Olberman very often (I have on very few occasions), but at least I give him his chance rather than just taking someone's word for it because they played some incomplete clip or out of context clip. You are the exception, not the norm on the bolded. Nobody really does that on either end but it feels good to bash the other group of people and pretend like you're different, like he's doing. When he talks about people who say "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate" I feel like he's talking about me, basically because he is. The way he talks to the reader is like "If you don't think Rush Limbaugh makes sense, then you're stupid" in so many words. No, no, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh in the past, and while his point of him being painted out of context is well-taken, I have heard plenty enough to know whether I want to listen to him or not (I don't, which is something that's addressed in that opinion as an example of hypocrisy) and I really don't have to re-confirm this constantly. I know that I don't ever want to hear Sean Hannity speak again, and if Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin both disappeared from the Earth the moment after I hit "Add Reply" I wouldn't care. O'Reilly is actually pretty ok, he's just really opinionated and I think he's misunderstood. I used to listen to Glenn Beck. It's not that I choose not to listen to conservatives, it's which ones, which I feel like is my choice, and it is. Same with liberal hosts. I take Rachel Maddow much more seriously than I do Keith Olbermann, for what that's worth. How many conservatives actually really pay attention to Michael Moore instead of joining the chorus when others accuse him of treason?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) I'm wondering why anyone would subject themselves to hours of Olberman. Because he's such an over-the-top liberal windbag that it's funny. Only in small doses though.

The problem with that "challenge" is that the writer seems to assume that when other people perceive things differently from him, and therefore their reality/opinion varies from his, that they are ignorant and/or insulated. The exact same thing he accuses liberals of doing. And round, and round, and round we go, this is just another part of how political discussions go in this country. This same logic gets used after debates, that Candidate A "won" over Candidate B not because of their technical performance, but because Candidate A said more things that you agree with than Canidate B (regardless of how valid Candidate B's points may/may not have been).

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) it said wise won the job and will leadoff. god i hope he sux *angry* I hope he doesn't suck, but I know he will.

I thought Owens had a lot more potential after 2007, he just completely fell off though. BearSox is gonna jizz his pants when he sees this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) He's borderline awesome if he has any semblance of control. Borderline? I'd say flat out dominant. I can't remember the last time I actually saw that in him though.

Every story I hear about Anderson makes him sound like a womanizer

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) yeah i know that some guys have bad days or whatever. just a small sample size from the 2 games I went too. I'd say worst would be those guys who blow past fans screaming their names without even acknowledging their prescence. not a wave, smile or anything. Randy Moss is like that.

What puts the worst into the worst category?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) I wouldn't think so. It might actually be cheaper in the long run. I really think GM has a better chance at paying off loans when their cost structure has been dramatically reduced, versus with the same albatrosses hanging over them that got them there in the first place. The loans up front might be bigger, but the US auto industry would be much healthier in the long run. Burn those contracts, and get rid of that debt. Its going to happen sooner or later, we might as well not waste all of the payer money we are throwing into this hole right now before we get it done. Which contracts are we talking about burning here? The UAW legacy costs for retirees or something I didn't know about?

Seriously though like I said in my first post, literally the only thing here that I didn't already know was that the Obama administration was considering criminalizing piracy. But as far as international bodies trying to enforce digital piracy laws, that's nothing new... but again, add in Obama's name and you get the usual suspects smelling blood in the water. It would be the same for Bush, just the opposite crowd doing it. Also, has anyone besides me noticed this is an English-language Russian news station interviewing random people?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) The same government that is loaning them money now would be the same government that would finance them through a bankruptcy. In this case the problems that are actually plaguing the automakers would be fixed, instead of acting like just the CEO is the problem at GM. Yeah, but wouldn't that end up costing a LOT more? In another type of economy where the government wasn't financing everything, bankruptcy would be higher on the list as an option because the government wouldn't be absorbing so much of the blow.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) I'll just go back to Obama worshipping now. our Messiah!!!! You could at least be a little less predictable once in a while.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) I agree, sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory to me, and if it ever did come to light, the supreme court would probably strike it down. I think it's the part about "secret negotiations" that has people spun up. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, things like that are always negotiated in secret, and for good reason. But the final thing, that can't be hidden.

QUOTE (Chicken Little @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) This has nothing to do with MP3's, people. Sure it doesn't. Carry on.

Really, I haven't found anywhere that says any of these tinfoil hat scenarios is actually going to happen officially. Pure speculation so far - to include the video in the OP - and it seems like legions of lemmings are following into panic mode for no reason. The government doesn't have so much power where they can just arbitrarily and unilaterally do something like this without it being made into national law, or without being struck down by the SCOTUS.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) They need a bankruptcy to fix their problems. The boat is sunk, its just a matter of how long it takes to get to the bottom. The reason they aren't moving forward is Obama knows if they go under, the unions get screwed, and he doesn't want to lose votes from one of his strongest groups of supporters. They could have just of easily pushed them into a government financed bankruptcy and done what they have needed to do for years and get rid of debts and costs. Instead they threw money into a pit. Well surprise, suprise, it wasn't enough. If they went into bankruptcy though, who would finance it, who would be on the hook for that money? Sounds to me like it was a matter of "do you want to waste 15 billion, or 150 billion?"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 11:22 AM) I like the idea on paper, but the fact is, the "taxpayers" didn't make these decisions, Obama's administration did. Electing someone into office doesn't mean, "now you do whatever you want without asking the people". While I'm sure a lot of people are happy with this type of thing considering how angry they are about the economy and these types of leaders ruining companies, I'm not sure government control is the right way to go. These guys can't run a country without a trillion+ dollar deficit and they're going to tell a business how to run itself now?! LOL. This is a republic, not a direct democracy. The will of the people does matter in terms of the big picture, but that's not how decisions get made. If it did, oh my god would our government be making some horrible decisions.

You know, judging from the way I heard GM execs saying last year about how it doesn't make sense for them to make fuel-efficient cars, and the only reason people are not buying big cars is because the credit is frozen up, I felt like this was inevitable. I was facepalming.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 10:12 AM) Wow that was a great attempt at rationalization! Far reaching, but I give you an A for effort anyway. Because, you know...you're right, you need to be as big and strong as Arnold to carry around an 1800 page book/document! It's not like it can be on a laptop, or a cart with wheels you push. You fail. I do fail, at seeing how the ability to carry a document has anything to do with anything.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) To those who believe, no explanation is necessary, to those who do not, no explanation will do. IMO, needing someone else to carry things like "papers" means you cannot do everything you need to do, it means others were doing them. Meh, her constituents didn't elect her based on her ability to carry her own papers. IMO there is a difference between physical capacity and mental capacity, as someone said in this thread. She was elected based on the latter and she didn't allow her physical shortcomings, however temporarily crippling, to affect her on the job. She has my admiration.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) From the article, there was many things she couldn't even do, such as holding things -- Jobs never had these issues where he couldn't perform his duties, he simply stepped down because he couldn't concentrate on both at the same time anymore...sounds like she should have done the same. Also, shes works for the taxpayers, Jobs does not. Everything she needed to be able to do, she did.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 02:03 AM) While I have no doubt the recording industry and film industry have lobbied extensively for something like this, and while I'm sure the government has put in money to the feasibility of the program, i'd bet a wager of one billion dollars that this does not go through. yes, the government is to prosecute tens (if not hundreds) of millions of citizens, right. Besides, probably wouldn't hold, "unreasonable search and seizure", this applies. Much ado about nothin. Cool though. Nice video. Back to blaming Obama for being worse than bush though, continue session. This whole process isn't even new. Except for the addition of the phrase "Obama administration," which, well, you know what happens after that.

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 29, 2009 -> 07:47 PM) I tried to find it but the search isn't working or I can't figure out how to use it. I've always though the consensus on Alexei was that he was athletic and made flashy plays and has a nice arm, but he was too erratic to be called elite.

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 29, 2009 -> 07:23 PM) Actually this is one of your better threads Cubano. That side of the infield is going to be VERY raw this season. I remember early in the offseason I rated Alexei as a below average defensive shortstop; and I really got ripped a new one for it. So much so that even I started to believe I was wrong. But so far Alexei hasn't shown me anything that would lead me to believe he will be an above average SS in '09. Sure, he'll make a few plays others wouldn't, but he is really going to rack up the errors. If I hear Hawk refer to Alexei's arm like it is legendary one more time this spring I am going to puke. Sure he had an big time cannon for a second baseman, and even at shortstop it is impressive, but c'mon now Hawk. Also, don't forget that Ozzie is destined to find plenty of starts for Betemit in the infield; that certaintly won't help keep the error total down. Really? There's lots of posters on this board who aren't sold on Alexei being a solid defensive SS, myself included. If you started a thread along the lines of "Do you think Alexei will be a below average defensive SS?" you'd probably get quite a few in that camp.