lostfan

That's not at all unusual, it's just that it's worded even more stupidly than normal.

He probably spells it "Cominski" because that's Soviet-sounding

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 11:47 AM) Well Newt recently reiterated the growing threat from the radical islamofascist secularists, lending more credibility to my hypothesis! that's like 2 or 3 oxymorons in one.

http://www.alternet.org/election2012/15389..._far%29/?page=1

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 06:06 PM) This is the early phase of the establishment Republicans lining up against Newt. I'm traveling, but apparently there's been a lot of it today. Newt doesn't really need the Republican establishment though. At least not now.

If the team is unwatchable, KW.

Bob Dole trending on Twitter, he says a Gingrich nomination would be a landslide for Obama, and that Newt cost him in '96. Dole would know something about landslides though

I've never dissed Peavy for trying to be tough, but listening to him talk about it again without ever having done anything significant in a Sox uniform reminds me of that time whezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) I think you are all missing the point here. First, no one is saying those numbers mean that that many people actually favor his policies in the long run. Second, when your results are better, relatively, than the year before, then yes, it of course means something. Third, do you seriously think I am not familiar with emotion and politics? The fact that the speech went over better than the last one definitely has meaning. Its like turning a car. Any given move with the steering wheel has an effect, which may or may not cause the car to do what you want it to do, but from that point on you have a different starting point. And your idea that "80% of those same voters" won't favor his policies in a month is ridiculous, since even at bottom he was still getting around 40% favorable on that (or in that ballpark). The numbers move around, but not THAT much. I don't think that's what shack was saying. It's not that 80% will disapprove, it's that later, 80% won't still approve (i.e. the number will be different/lower, not reversed).

b****ing about a large company on Twitter sometimes will get their attention too.

Can't wait for Mass Effect 3 in a few weeks...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) That Mars line was not SOTU, I believe, and importantly, even if they never put any funding behind it, they forced NASA to pretend it would actually happen until Obama came in and said that it was BS without money. What speech was that from? I was overseas and I don't remember.

I don't really like auto-debits except for the big ones. I only physically paid my car note twice, I think. But everything else I would rather pay. Even though I make the exact same amount of money every month I'd rather have a pair of hands on my cash flow. Just feels like I'm more in control.

a) that interactive graph embed is pretty cool b) those favorables are really f***ing horrible and what really stands out is that his unfavorables actually went UP when he gained momentum and eventually won SC, not down.

The actual content of the SOTU speeches isn't empty. Those are real policy ideas... that the presidents know full well will not actually happen. Did anyone take Bush seriously when he talked about going to Mars? It sounded cool though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Why do you believe he'd crush Obama in a debate? He's been very successful at channeling Republican base anger thus far, but he appeared pretty weak when he couldn't do that at the latest one. SC Republicans love when he attacks the moderators and the liberal media, but I don't see that as an effective debate strategy in the general. Obama's not a fantastic debater himself, but he did well in 2008 and showed he has strong potential when he went to that GOP retreat in 2010. I still see a lot of jokes on conservative sites re: TelePrompters; do conservatives really believe he's an idiot who can't speak without one? What about Gingrich's favorability ratings? This is like people who say Jay Cutler throws a lot of interceptions, it's pretty easy to tell they haven't actually watched him play in 2 years or looked at a stat sheet and they just repeat something they heard someone else say. Yeah Obama uses a teleprompter a lot but he is fully capable of speaking without it... and he has to all the time. Seriously has anyone who says this actually watched him answer a question? It's not like it's a rare occasion.

Gingrich talking about stuff like food stamps (which is such an insignificant part of the federal budget as to be irrelevant, and the alternative is to essentially let kids starve to death) isn't going to play in the general election, it's really easy to flip that s*** around.

Well-said. This is exactly how I feel about Ozzie. I used to LOVE him until he bought a pass to ride the short bus some time about a year ago.

Every SOTU speech is like that. Every. Last. One. In terms of real value you won't get anything out of the SOTU, but in an election year the president's job is to basically kick his election year campaign into gear without sounding too slick about it (they said last year's SOTU was doing this, but that's just the chattering class who doesn't really have s*** else to do than talk about an election that's almost 2 years away).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 07:35 AM) Go check out his returns and see what percentage he donated to charity. And then compare that to Obama's percentage donated to charity. Or to any other Democratic politician that wants to be generous with other people's money, but not their own. Obama is rich but not actually that rich. I bet you Romney's net worth is a couple orders of magnitude higher than Obama's.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) $6 MILLION. Do you think he gets $6 million in benefit for his tax dollars? $6 million bucks he paid. That's a lot, no matter who you are. But everyone glosses over that because the percentage isn't high enough. but when it comes to the lower 45%, percentage doesn't seem to matter. ‎"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith, noted socialist

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 07:27 AM) That's more in taxes than the entire OWS movement probably EARNED, combined. Yeah that's kinda the point actually

With one of LeBron, Bosh, or Wade out, the other 2 have their usage go up

Generally the state of the union speeches are meaningless pomp and circumstance but you don't usually see Obama be that aggressive. Like, ever.

Carlos Boozer a couple of nights ago: “Everybody asks me about my numbers,” Boozer said. “Who cares about numbers? Are you kidding me? We’re (15-3). That’s the number that matters. A lot of us could be averaging 25 points on another team if we got to shoot 25 times a night. But we’re balanced. And all that matters is our record. Our leaders are unselfish. Derrick could shoot any time he wanted to. He could be Allen Iverson and shoot 30 times a night. He doesn’t. That trickles down to the entire team.” Just posting this because people seem to flip out when Boozer has 8 points on 7 attempts (in a win) like that actually means anything.