lostfan

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) which category? worth while or not? There was a very subtle insult of some peoples' intelligence in that post that doesn't even engage the conversation that was going on. "the Not worthwhile" category, btw.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) Oh wow, there is no one I'm reading through this thread. at least 14 pages of snark and meaningless posts. Not really, there is some worthwhile discussion here. However, your second post in this thread falls into that category fwiw.

"Watching this is like watching a monkey f*** a football"

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) If that news quote is true that is pretty rough for McCain...Romney has got to be really pissed It's not like they liked each other to begin with.

I didn't realize that I never actually posted in this thread. That's probably because I was irritated that a guy started a positive thread for a specific purpose and everybody still wanted to jump in to get their b****ing out of the way. But hey, the thread worked!

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) Who in their right mind would feel comfortable with Obama as our leader if something were to happen to old man Biden? What a disastrous choice. Huh?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) Add to the overused list 'grassroots', 'progressive', 'neocon' and 'change'. I agree "Grassroots" is overused but it has a place in politics. But it's always overplayed. "Progressive" is a euphemism for "liberal." But only because "liberal" has become a perjorative. "Neocon" is a perjorative to describe a certain type of Republican, it kind of unfairly gets applied to all Republicans sometimes though. "Change" will go away after this election fortunately. But even Republicans were using it a little until Obama started gaining momentum with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) If that is the meaning of bipartisian, then every single member of congress falls under this umbrella and we should seriously stop using the word, because it is meaningless. Overused, yes. Meaningless, no. An example of a "meaningless" word/phrase would be "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench." This almost literally means "liberal ruling I didn't agree with" if you're a conservative or "conservative ruling I didn't agree with" if you're a liberal.

QUOTE (quickman @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) well for 12 million a year I wouldn't be happy about playing well for a month. he is suppose to be a superstar. I am not happy with a 240 hitter. Paul Konerko has never been a superstar, except in the minds of White Sox superhomer fans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) I don't see "bipartisian" meaing that I will work with you as long as you agree with what my party believes. If people disagree that is too bad, but if that isn't the case, we really aren't going to see anything change in Washington with an Obama Presidency. One way or another, being bipartisan means you have to work with the other party to get legislation passed. Usually you either have to compromise (like Obama's thinly veiled attempt to demonstrate that with the telecom immunity thing) or you're acting in the interests of both parties already. It doesn't matter what your starting point is, the general principle of finding common ground is the same.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) Universal insurance=Democratic issue. Lugar-Obama: Is keeping weapons away from terrorists something the Democrats don't believe in? Coburn-Obama transparency bill: you might have one here... I don't know much about where the party's lay on this one. Sorry to be me being bipartisian means that you can breakaway from your party and work for a bill that isn't something your party wants to see happen. It doesn't mean co-sponsoring bills with the opposite party. You're stating your opinion as a hard, unnegotiable fact here.

I'm happy he's turned it around and I was rooting for him to do so, and didn't bash him. However, I will not eat crow for wanting him to be benched. He sucked for an extended period of time and it was killing the team both offensively and defensively. It's totally understandable why so many people were upset. But from here through the rest of the season, none of that matters.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) Does an adult use "lol"? People who are on the internet too much use lol.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) Still she could be the President, he would be the President. There is a big difference there. It's only a theory until it becomes reality.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) I can say this: before the speech, MSNBC was talking about how crazy a move this was and how she could blow it. After the speech, suddenly they talking like it might work in their favor. Her speech at the convention will be highly anticipated, but I think she stepped up today. What did she talk about?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) dude not even close. Obama has tons more "experience" and most importantly, relevant experience than Palin does. On top of it, how much does Alaska represent the national landscape. I'd say that Illinois has a little bit of everything in it. Big Cities, Rural Farmlands, Manufacturing, Financial, etc. It's kind of irrelevant really.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) Some of the same people here who laughed at the concerns over the lack of experience for Obama, are the same one hammering it home here. How can it be worse to be #2 and inexperienced, versus #1 and inexperienced??? Anyways, with the amount of advisors and cabinets and the like, experience is pretty overrated anymore. In this day and age, the President is pretty much a figurehead anyway. I'm not hammering it home at all... I'm just kind of puzzled, because it really dampens the effectiveness of the "experience" card if the VP you pick is even more "inexperienced" than the one you're calling out.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) I don't even mind if Gates stays on for Obama, and from what I hear he'd be game for that too. Apparently back before Clinton took over he reauditioned. Actually the "tradition" of getting rid of otherwise qualified appointees nominated by the previous party in power started with Carter, who replaced Bush as DCI simply because he was a Republican. So if Obama did win, and kept Gates on, it would not be unprecedented, in fact I'd applaud it loudly. That is a mold that really needs to be broken.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:08 AM) considering Bush's cabinet was one of the worst parts about him, I agree the cabinet is very important. Why I'm not worried about Obama's cabinet? He's surrounded himself with a hell of a campaign staff and picked a great VP, and frankly the Democrats have more exciting good names out there to choose from than McCain does. Who'll be in his cabinet? More Bush people? I wouldn't mind if Gates stayed but please no more of this crap. No more Mukasey. I think Gates is awesome, and reading history books lately has reinforced that belief. Infinitely better than the cranky old arrogant bastard he replaced.

If Obama wins I hope he has people in his Cabinet with strong intelligence community credentials.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) McCain/Romne or McCain/Palin nothing changes. This is what his strategists are thinking, obviously. Inexperience angle obviously doesn't mean much to voters. These people know what their doing. My second cousin worked for Clinton (I don't recall his exact title), and these decisions aren't made lightly. They probably put countless hours into analyzing battleground areas and their demographics, how strong the support for Hillary was within these areas, and whether undecided voters may change their vote on the basis of Palin's VP nomination. I still have a belief McCain is going to win, though. I was utterly shocked to hear a few days ago how close the overall numbers were. Even with the overnight shift with Obama now taking the lead, if you listen to the media and their love affair with Obama you'd believe the separation would be greater. Pay attention to the state polls, not the national polls.

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) So my big question is...Who here who has been watching the DNC is going to pay as much attention to the RNC? The DNC had a stupendious lineup which kept me watchin, and I was in the middle of it so it was that much more exciting. I may tune in to the RNC for the Bush speech on Monday (for laughs and giggles) and probably the McCain speech on Thurs...there is really nothing else that excites me. I watched the prime-time speeches passively while I was writing a paper, but the only speeches I watched intently were the Clintons and then Obama's. Originally I wasn't going to watch Obama speak because I've seen enough of his speeches by now and they're pretty predictable, but this one was historic, so I tuned in anyway. I try to watch McCain but he's really boring. I would watch Giuliani but I hate his guts. If Romney or somebody speaks and I'm not busy doing class work I will tune in.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 10:46 AM) what? she's good looking. Is it wrong to say that? I dont like her politics, but she is attractive. Well. I posted a pic implying she was attractive... you flat-out said she was a MILF. There's a little bit of a difference there, doncha think?

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 10:44 AM) we do, but we don't attack people...even though sometimes we want to It got a little out of control during the primary season. I can honestly say though, among the regular posters in here that I disagree with routinely, I like them all and feel like I can hold an intelligent discussion at any given time.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) NO, WE DO NOT!!! Bulls***!