lostfan

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) The label's stupid if you don't have anything to substantiate it with. However, IMO, I think the way I described it, he is an eliteist. At least I have a definition. I give you that. More often than not, actually damn near all the time, it's just thrown arbitrarily and doesn't mean anything at all.

Ok so I just read something that made me laugh out loud. Lynn Forester de Rothschild (former Clinton supporter) said she doesn't like Obama because he is an elitist. ROFL. Isn't she one of the richest people in the world? Who is she to be calling someone "elitist"? Man, that label is f***ing stupid.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) The difference between the cubs and the Sox is that the cubs beat the piss out of s*** pitchers and are shut down by good pitching. We've also had problems from average, mediocre, and just plain bad pitchers too. If I was able to throw 70 mph with my left hand and get it within a few inches of the strike zone, and then either throw a curveball or a 60 mph changeup, I could 2-hit the Sox. But yeah it does help the Cubs a whole lot that they get to face garbage ass NL pitching.

Yeah I think that's pretty stupid too, and I'm one of the bigger smoker-bashers and "cry me a f***ing river, waaaah I can't smoke" guys you'll find.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 12:07 AM) I'm the 3rd. My dad, grandfather and I have the same first, middle name and of course last name. My dad has always been very proud of our name especially after my grandfather passed. When I was younger he'd ask me if I was gonna pass the name along to my son and I'd always say of course. When I got older I decided I would want my son to have his own name and his own identity. Luckily, I don't have any kids. It would kill my Dad if I didn't pass the name along. I did that too but we don't use the whole name, just the first name (Richard) although I use my middle name. That's my dad's name, was my grandfather's name, my name, and I gave it to my son too. The middle names come from family members. For my wife and her daughter, starting with her mother, their first names start with "Sh-" and their middle names start with K.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 04:29 PM) I feel the same way. When I was younger I hated having an unusual name. Days with substitute teachers were dreaded. As I got older I began to like it though. I was able to go through life being easily associated with only three letters so that helps with people knowing and remembering you. Beyonce hated her name growing up.

Could you imagine the media frenzy that would happen if one of the candidates DID actually rip one while they were talking or something?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) I'd like to see ONE of these candidates promote a program or policy set that would actually make government less wasteful and more efficient. As of now, both candidates, and for the most part both parties, have stances on the issue that are mildly delusional. The Democrats see a problem - need for alternative energy, lousy schools, etc. - and their reaction is to throw money at government agencies to solve the problem. This is incredibly flawed. Most government agencies are hugely wasteful, and don't contribute as much to the economy as the private sector. Why they think this is the answer is beyond me. Then you have the Republicans, who think that if you simply cut budgets by X%, you will magically make government more efficient. Have any of these guys and gals ever actually functioned in the business world? If you take an already inefficient agency or department, and simply cut their budget by some amount of money, what do you think the result will be? It won't be more efficient government. It will be less efficient, with less services delivered (probably even more of a drop than the spending reduction), because the people left are all lifers who are just protecting their jobs. This is an assinine method for reducing government waste. How about a real program. How about we get some non-government business fire teams (consultants) to analyze these agencies and departments as businesses, and follow their recommendations. That may mean spending more in some places (where they are relatively efficient, or where staffing shortages are decimating their services), and spending less in other places (where money is being wasted). Put actual, real performance standards in place, and here's a novel idea... reward good performance. Look at outsourcing to private industry. Use the money saved from the spending cuts (which are now targeted in an intelligent way) to cut taxes, or fund areas that need more help, or pay off some debt, or hire more competent people at higher salaries (since you will have fewer people doing the work). Or heck, all the above. Please, someone in power, be serious about cutting government waste. I'm tired of this grade school campaign trail garbage that won't do a damn thing. Give this guy a standing ovation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) I look back at the loads of BS that we have been fed during campaigns and I really believe it is better to go off of their body's of work prior to electing to run versus anything they say on the campaign trail. If you are to this point in a campaign, you pretty much will say anything it takes to get elected. Even if I have to look at something as short as the period of time that Obama has served, I think it is a better indicator of what he will do in office. Bush and Clinton both campaigned as being uniters yet resided over two of the most polarizing White Houses in decades, and their histories showed that they didn't really stray too far from what they had done in their days before the Presidency. I don't disagree with that point. All I'm saying is the whole "most liberal in the Senate" tag he has is abstract, and too small a sample to be of value. Granted, it's in comparison with others during the same time period, but so is a player who is batting .428 or .131 for a month. Congressmen and Senators tend to vote in lock step with their party, so when they swing to the right or left, the difference is only a couple of votes.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 11:42 AM) Actually I would be upset if the Sox didn't accept a Konerko/Texeira offer if it was on the table. It would give the Sox an improved bat for this season (Tex) and clear additional payroll to get a legit, impact, star type of player on the roster (or a couple. In addition, the Sox would be getting two first round picks as compensation for when Tex walks. That would be the biggest no brainers in the history of trades (Tex for Paulie). That of course is from the White Sox perspective and if I'm the Braves I wouldn't even consider it unless you were getting some good prospects in return or a significant amount of cash (and on top of that, Paulie would have to be playing productive for them to consider such). That trade would be so one-sided it wouldn't be worth considering. It's like trading Brain Anderson to the Orioles for Adam Jones.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) All of those have changed since he beat Hillary and he has tried to move back to the center. I don't put much weight into that, just like I don't put much weight into McCain's new found rightwingedness. I am more looking at Obama's time in Congress than anything. I'd say that is analogous to looking at Brian Anderson's batting average through May. It's not really enough to go off of, or to fully gauge. This is where the legit claims of inexperience come into play.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 12:23 PM) The Obama phenomenon to me is not necessarily media manufactured. For example, I don't need hounded on what language I should or should not speak. I don't need hounded on whether or not we need (insert special programs here) from the government. I don't need to be told NAFTA or China sucks because the unions are paying his campaigh BILLIONS, probably TRILLIONS, to tell me that the economy sucks because out jobs went elsewhere. These are all eliteist stances, and the media doesn't have to tell me that. Kaperbole™ aside, I'm not really talking about the Obama phenomenon. I'm talking about all the constant over-analysis of absolutely nothing on both candidates from the news networks. It gets tiring after a while. Much of this is just standard campaign BS.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) Kerry versus Obama is a tough one for me. I think I might prefer Kerry. It sounds crazy to say this, but I think he might be more moderate than Barack. I really can't think back to one spot where Obama has crossed over to a predominantly republican stance, or opposed his party on anything meaningful. Telecom immunity Also, he was with the conservative SCOTUS opinion on child rape not too long ago, for whatever that counts. Before that, he'd been painted as anti-death penalty because he voted against it in Illinois a few times for other reasons.

I don't really think this is the "worst election we've ever had." I am not enamored with either McCain or Obama, or any other standard Democrat or Republican, but I see it like this - McCain would be an improvement over Bush, and Obama is definitely an improvement over Kerry. The 2004 election was pathetic and disheartening, IMO. I've started tuning the media out now. One too many manufactured controversies.

So it's only in peoples' heads when they get laid off and their jobs don't come back?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 11:15 PM) D'OH! I find it obnoxious when people hide behind the "I'm a vet and you're not!" thing and avoid any criticism. It's a pet peeve of mine.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) I'm not so sure that Jessie really wants Obama to win. I see a petty man there, one who is jealous of Obama's campaign success, and who is all but ignored by Obama. I think on the surface he is pulling for him, but underneath, I bet he is very conflicted. I agree with you that I think Obama has been talking down to people, just not quite sure on Jessie's motivations. Jackson is definitely jealous. It's obvious. I mean, outside of black people, nobody likes him or even respects him. Not even black people really like him that much anymore. But now Obama is getting all the attention, and he is more or less trying to avoid Jackson and do his own thing. Jackson isn't in the spotlight, and he doesn't like it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 08:21 AM) Its pretty sad when even Jesse Jackson is whispering essentially that Barack Obama is full of it. I hate to be on the same side as one of the countries biggest enforcers of the nations racial divide, but I will go one step further and say that Obama has been talking down to the entire nation, especially since Hillary dropped out, and it was refreshing to see someone who has a vested interest in seeing him win call him out on it. (even if he didn't want anyone else to know about it) I don't get it. Obama's being criticized (by Jackson) for saying that black people, specifically black men, need to take responsibility for themselves and their community. How's that talking down to somebody? That actually is a pretty conservative thing to say, especially in contrast to what Jackson said after that, which was something about the government needing to take care of black people or something like that. Now, had Obama said THAT, I could see criticizing him. But here? No. Jackson is the one who's full of it, always has been. Not Obama. Not for this, anyway.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 10:26 PM) It's gonna be tough for Danksy to go any innings since Mark is pitching. What's the difference?

^^ By the way I think it's funny that Jackson implies that Obama is wrong for telling black people to accept responsibility for themselves, and suggests they rely on the government instead.

Jesse Jackson apologizes for saying he wants to cut Obama's nuts off. Seriously. No, I'm not joking. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/je...-obama-remarks/

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) How would that be any different then what would happen if we switched to a popular vote? In both cases, the strongholds get ignored. The difference is not in how strongholds are approached (I would think that would stay consistent no matter which system was involved), but in how much say different population centers in different areas with completely different concerns get. Most population centers tend to lean Democratic, but that doesn't mean there aren't Republicans in those cities. There's actually millions and millions of Republicans living in cities, and to ignore them and get weak turnout as a result of dismissing them would be a critical mistake. With a popular vote the idea is to maximize turnout and get as many people as possible to vote for you, not to worry about what party is going to carry a certain area.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 8, 2008 -> 03:52 PM) I just don't see a flip-flop here. He's said we'd stay as long as necessary, given the conditions on the ground. He has said that consistently. But, and here is the key, I think he'd be stupid to not take the Iraqi's desires into account. Its good policy for all sorts of reasons. So, that should be a mitigating factor in his decision. And that's what he's seeming to do. We've had 7 years now of a failed Presidency, in part because this President doesn't understand the concepts of compromise and adjustment. This is a key example where both these candidates are more willing to adjust to changing conditions in making their decisions. If the Iraqis suddenly stand up and say "we're ready, time to start getting you guys out of here", then any President with half a brain cell should take that heavily into account. Look, I'm still probably voting for Obama, for a number of reasons. And both these guys have shown some recent flip-flops (Obama on telecom immunity, McCain on some energy stuff, as examples) that bother me. But in this case, I think McCain's camp is handling it pretty well. To add to what you said, and chime in with my 2 cents - Obama's position on Iraq is based on the same exact principle McCain is using here. And God knows I've criticized McCain's position(s) and knowledge on Iraq before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Exactly, the population centers take on an even heavier weight than they do now. You could totally minimize your travel activity by consentrating on just the main big cities. You would never ever visit a rural anything. Think about it you could get more votes in New York City versus the entire state of Indiana. The flip side to that - aside from symbolic or purely strategic reasons (as with Obama spending money in TX) - under the current system, why would a Republican waste any time campaigning in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.? There are significant amounts of Republicans living in those places, but they more or less get ignored and left to the Democrats, and they become perpetual liberal strongholds (before I left Chicago I could count the number of Republicans I knew on one hand, thinking of the people I know in Chicago, still can). The same goes for the Democrats in places like TX, and much of the South. Why bother? You won't win the state. Basically, by shifting to population centers, it means a different group of people gets ignored. So it's the same thing either way.

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) Thornton really only has like 2 pitches....yes he is very effective when he comes in and throws strikes....I just don't think a closer should have only one strong pitch....Dotel for me... Doesn't Dotel almost exclusively throw fastballs and cutters? I follow him a lot on Gameday and it certainly seems that way.