bmags

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Buh? How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that. Few votes will be close enough to need every senator. If they can't get enough senators for cloture, then it signals to come back, which they most always will. But during campaigning it doesn't matter if they are in Washington for voting, because, as said, most bills will pass overwhelmingly. Hence, it doesn't matter.

So glad it looks like this war is really going to end in the next 4 years.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:01 PM) Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those. From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there.

There is no one else who talks about Obama's similar activities...right. Not one of us was interested in FISA, not one of us commented on public finance, nobody talked about Rev. Wright. That didn't happen. All that happens is McCain bashing. You are the lone fighter to show up Obama.

good lord, this is off topic, but this kid I went to High School with, Mike Bowden, his stats at AA are unreal. I remember he was in trade talks for Mark Buerhle last year. Damn, do the Red Sox have a steady team for a while or what.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices. You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention. Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless. Obama is a progressive candidate. And what a silly thing to ask of an article. It's frame was to show how silly and dumb those rankings are, misleading and shallow. They have no even pseudo-scientific way of qualifying what their rankings are. They can choose any number of ways to decide whether a bill is liberal or not. It doesn't have to take on the fight over whether Obama is a liberal, which he is, but the most liberal senator, which he's not, because, they are two different topics - and articles have this thing called 'framing'. I'm saying it would be much easier had Obama been in office in 2000-04, when Bush actually used COngress, for his multiple major bills he passed. As it stands, there is no major GOP issue that has been in pushed since 2004 to test your method on, therefore it's a stupid rank anyways. Most of those bills, as the author said, are questionable whether of not either party can claim them exclusively. As I said, most bills pass overwhelmingly, considering they've gone through multiple committees of both Democrats and Republicans. And per the fuel economy thing, so reaching across party lines to get Republicans to sponsor the bill as well, is somehow not a good example. And maybe an example of how fuel efficiency shouldn't be a party issue, but a necessity. My point is the label, as they handed to Kerry (and his they admit was misleading), is damaging. And if they are going to give a rank that is, one, unprovable, and two, as they even have it grossly unscientific. (I'm thinking of ways to this, and think of Schlesinger's popular presidential rankings), then it should be qualified as such if people are to claim it. Especially today as McCain calls Obama an extremist and an "I don't know? wink" socialist, with these rankings as the qualifiers, it is good to debunk this 'most liberal myth'. He isn't the most liberal, many of his plans were less liberal than Clinton's, yet these arbitrary rankings justify it how? Because a journal competing for recognition says so?

batman 1 and 2 were alright, but boy, batman and robin was a piece of s***, that's for sure. Typical Joel Schumacher trash

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) I am glad he is a whole 3.4 percentage points better. Those are both just sad. They both should be embarassed with those kind of numbers, I don't care about campaigning, they do have a job to do. They both seem to have forgotten that. Besides the main point of the article is a joke. Before he started his Presidential run, what was the biggest issue Obama has ever taken a predominantly GOP stance on? but you have to ask yourself since 2004 how many big GOP bills did Bush try and get through? Social Security reform never left committee after he went public right away. Bush's entire second term has been him on foreign policy and little else. So what you have is a large amount of bills that can be owned up to either party. And most bills actually pass with overwhelming #'s. But as for whether Obama has reached across party lines, he's worked with Tom Cobourn (R-OK) to increase government transparency.(link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/s3077.html ). And he's worked with bills across both party lines with fuel efficiency: Obama, Biden Sponsor Bill With Tax Breaks for Auto Fuel Gains Monday, March 5, 2007 Printable Format By Gopal Ratnam March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Automakers in the U.S. would get tax breaks for raising fuel economy 4 percent a year under a bill whose sponsors include Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The proposal includes ``generous tax incentives'' to retool parts and U.S. plants to meet the tougher standards, Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement today. The legislation would allow different standards for different types of vehicles, rather than an average for an automaker's entire fleet of models. The bill proposes ``a better system that combines protection for U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs with predictable increases in fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in the statement. The proposal joins others in Congress to boost auto fuel efficiency. President George W. Bush, a Republican, called for a similar 4 percent increase in his State of the Union speech in January. A bill similar to what Obama and Biden proposed failed to get through Congress last year. Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, and 10 other lawmakers are seeking to raise the standard for cars to 29.5 miles per gallon by 2010, from 27.5 mpg now. U.S. Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering a climate-change bill that would also address fuel economy. The other sponsors of the bill backed by Obama and Biden are Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican; Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican; Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican; Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican; and Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. Changes adopted last year for light trucks, which include pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles, will boost their required fuel economy to an average 24 miles a gallon starting with 2011 models. The current standard is 21.6 mpg. To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at [email protected] So what's the big GOP issue he should stand with them on? The War? Making the tax breaks permanent? If he did I wouldn't vote for him.

per thecarpetbaggerreport.com (a few months old) "Yesterday, while exploring whether a center-left presidential candidate can win with a progressive policy agenda, the NYT noted: To achieve the change the country wants, [Obama] says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.” But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year? […] “When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. And that came shortly after James Dobson issued an alert to his religious right membership: Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama — not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history. And that came shortly after Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster and strategist, repeated the right’s talking point. “Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator.” I’d hoped previous efforts to highlight how foolish this might have had an effect, but it appears some highly misleading talking points are harder to knock down than others. Media Matters’ take was especially helpful. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him the Journal’s “most liberal senator” label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage. Obama himself criticized the Journal’s methodology by noting that it considered “liberal” his vote for “an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress.” Media Matters has also previously noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication’s previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the “most liberal senator” in 2003. This really isn’t complicated. National Journal argues that some senators weren’t given scores if they missed too many votes. Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings, but that wasn’t enough to disqualify him from the rankings. Why not? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so. National Journal argues that Obama took the “liberal” approach on 65 out of 66 key votes. There were other senators who cast more liberal votes on more liberal bills, and senators who voted the party line more often than Obama, but that doesn’t matter. Why? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so. When considering votes, the labels themselves are arbitrary. Why is, for example, requiring 100% inspections of shipping containers for national security threats a “liberal” position? How is establishing English as the official language a “conservative” position? Is a position “conservative” or “liberal” for cutting subsidies to private business to offer student loans? This study says it is “liberal” to do so, although that position is practically of no difference from Ron Paul’s! Any rankings system that insists, right off the bat, that Joe Biden is more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders is automatically suspect, but the closer one looks at the process, the more flawed it appears. That National Journal is willing to acknowledge that its John Kerry ranking in 2004 was bogus is hardly reassuring — if the magazine was wrong then, perhaps it’s not quite reliable now? I still think Brian Beutler’s observation is the right one: “[T]his is philistinism masquerading as social science — it’s the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics. Journalists ought to understand that. And those of conscience ought to ignore it, or lay it bare, but certainly not feed into it.” That was true when Brian said it in January, and the rankings look no better now." http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15015.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 03:02 AM) The price of eggs has jumped nearly 50% in the last year. They're one of the fastest increasing priced foods. haha, I was just about to say that. I can't afford eggs. toast and jam.

lol at danks letting this go to his head "Danks just hasn't been the same since the President name-dropped him"

I'm going to the Sunday Matinee...because I'm what you'd call a 'starving college student'. Peanut butter and crackers for dinner tonight, wooo!

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) You should pm bmags, we call him 'the king of pop' around here. He's a huge RHCP fan, Hootie and the Blowfish too. . Yes, I've had a few tonight. you know, Los, I went out of my way not to reply to that damn post...and you have to go and I guess I would go and see Brian Wilson, Rex, but it is close. ted Leo live is how he should be heard, his songs are stripped and raw and he has more aggression. But, I wouldn't be able to turn up seeing someone like Wilson, but when you are there yell obscene comments about mike and kevin love.

I never get tired of Ichiro rumors. I traded for him in MLB 2k5 and he was a totally awesome addition.

what's everyones names on tpm? Mines the same. Rarely do I post unless I see something stupid.

yeah, lets make our poor areas military zones!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) I guess he is the only one allowed to make blatantly partisian posts and have no one speak up about them? It doesn't surprise me at all. I'll be honest, about two people have really made me just dispise Barack Obama anytime he on TV. Being constantly innudated with the constant barrage of garbage attacks has made me actually look for stuff to refute some of the stuff that gets posted here. In that process I have really grown to lose all respect for Obama the candidate and person that I used to have. I never agreed with the guy, but I at least respected what he was trying to do. Because of the ridiculous level of attacks against McCain and pro-Obama postings, I have looked to even things out a little bit, just because the level of one-sidedness here had gotten to ESPN-level proportions, about hearing how great the Yankees and Red Sox are. Anymore I try not to waste my time replying to the inane nature of off-cuff jokes from 20 years ago being pointless anyway. Usually I stick to the GOP thread unless I get stalked there too. Its like being harassed downtown everyday by the damned Greenpeace and EnviornmentIllinois people. It makes me want to empty my gas tank on a baby seal. I probably should just leave the cult-like Obama love mentality alone, but I am weak, what can I say. The forum is plenty active on its own. I'd actually argue that it has been less active as more people have quit posting because of the nature of the beast here lately. yeah it's like an election year or something.

What a great update thread! Thanks letsgoarow.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 02:01 AM) I'm not altogether opposed to drilling, but I'm just afraid that if we keep drilling more they'll have no incentive to do anything else, and there'll just be more talk. T. Boone Pickens, as much as I think he's a douche, is running energy ads that I think are right on the money and I hope people start listening. Indeed. Although I would like the justification for the drilling to stop including lies such as there were no oil spills during Katrina and that the Chinese are drilling off of Cuba. Honestly, that is one thing I worry about with offshore drilling. With the amount of Hurricanes hitting that area, how much of an effect will that have in that ecosystem/can that be prevented easily.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 10:25 PM) JMO, but I would hope that by the time we actually were getting production out of those new oil fields, that we'd have made a fair amount of progress in alternative energy development and not relying so heavily on foreign oil. A total pipe dream, I know. For real, the fact that drilling has become the number one issue to change gas prices goes to show we still don't have the correct mindset to become more energy secure.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 01:29 AM) I haven't read it yet, but I bet it's not a spambot of Obama attacks like one certain poster likes to post. By the way, I don't see the moniker "Dem only" or "GOP only". I don't think that we need to change this into a free for all bashing back and forth, either. However, the point does remain that the constant spam is pretty silly, especially this early in the cycle. Someone's head might blow off if they fart too forcefully. nonetheless, athomeboy is going to post every bit of news on mccain or obama during the day, and has been for 3 months, yet you and ss2k5 feel the need to respond after many of his posts with "OH BUT OBAMA IS ALWAYS RIGHT" blah blah. You clearly know what he's going to post, so why does it shock you still so much. We're all adults here and can personally disseminate which news is important and which is frivilous, no need to consistently attack athomeboy. I personally enjoy that he keeps this forum at least very active.

COnsidering how Obama's hit back recently, it seems pretty clear that the previous four weeks he was in reaction mode because the bulk of their time was setting up their General Election strategies.

and so also chuck schumer is the only one to blame for our banking collapse, now, right? Before in here it was the consumers fault for taking on loans they'd never be able to pay back, but now, that a democratic senator can be blamed, it is his fault then, oi?

maybe the doctor wanted to get x'd?

the gorilla joke? Me either. Must be 80s humor.