lostfan

You know what I think would be awesome, if Obama just nominated Petraeus to head the CIA again and said f*** this scandal, now we know he did something dumb, it's out there, grow up.

This guy would survive a nuclear holocaust.

I banned someone. Everyone guess who it is.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 09:45 PM) I think his point is someone still has to program it. Population can be manipulated, and the computer wouldn't know if it is or not. Just because a computer is involved doesn't mean it's unbiased/legit. Someone programmed the program itself, and then someone created the data set it used to come to it's conclusion, not to mention, what constitutes population? Only people living there? What about the people that work there on a daily basis but don't live there? I.E., trust me, it CAN be controlled and/or manipulated. And it would be. For now, the second part is a pipe dream. The first part is very realistic and a LOT of problems trace back to it. That is if enough people are aware that it can be done... We've got people currently in Congress who actively oppose it because it is in their political interest to do so (hint as to where most of them come from: look at which SCOTUS justices voted for citizens united, and against, and think which presidents they were appointed by)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) The problem with the computer-drawn congressional districts is, you have to tell the software how to draw them. Those conditions will be fought over in the same exact way the maps are fought over now. You would have to pass a law with a standardized set of criteria for the software to use, all the time - good luck getting agreement on that. Not really. Something close to geometric shapes based on population, redone every 10 years as people move around.

Repeat after me:CAMPAIGN. FINANCE. REFORM. Now continue: COMPUTER. DRAWN. CONGRESSIONAL. DISTRICTS

Sp Lawrence O'Donnell challenged Tagg Romney to a fight on the air for saying he thought about taking a swing on Obama, after a 5 minute rant where he called all the males in the Romney family cowards and chicken hawks. Jesus dude

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2012 -> 07:22 PM) Why do you think after the debates we were talking about Big Bird and Binders instead of what was actually important out of the debates? Liberals freaked the f*** out after the first debate. The reason for the Big Bird thing was mocking Romney like, THAT'S your plan, that's what's killing the deficit? You can't be serious? The binders full of women thing is just funny

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 18, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) i will give him credit this one time, he was hilarious. but now i will take back that compliment, as Romney obviously didn't write those jokes. He was funny, he just has that permanent smirk on his face and he looked like a robot

Generally everyone is funny at the Al Smith dinner, McCain was hilarious, Romney is coming off like a dick to me

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 18, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) You do realize this press conference was called in response to what happened in Libya...one day after the incident. Gee, I wonder what his vague and ambiguous mention of "act of terror" was referencing. He should have literally held our hands and spelled it out as it's obvious not a single conservative in America had any idea what he was talking about. My son threw a ball at my cat. I said DON'T MESS WITH THE CAT AGAIN. Somehow he didn't need me to explain that I was referring to him throwing the ball at the cat. I wonder why. Does my 5 year old son have superior comprehension ability to the entire conservative base?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 09:33 PM) I was explicitly referring to the dumb thing Romney said, where he falsely accused Obama of taking 14 days to call it an act of terror and looked like a god-damned fool when he kept going on it. He said it and was shocked that Obama would deny it. Why would his debate team prep him on this false information if they weren't stuck in the echo chamber? What the state department cables show, by the way, was not "the ambassador" requesting more information but the security officials in Libya requesting more security mainly for Tripoli. What's bulls*** is the attempt to call this some massive foreign policy/intelligence failure while at the same time characterizing what the intelligence community was telling the Iraq-obsessed Bush administration in your hilarious fashion. Was it a failure? Yes, absolutely. Has the conservative media echo chamber completely blown many things out of proportion and focused on the dumbest aspect instead of anything important, namely how quickly was it called terrorism? Yes, absolutely. Benghazi is totally not hundreds of miles from Tripoli, so really it's the same

However, I'm getting some kind of sadistic amusement out of watching the GOP try to pivot from that and portray the Obama administration as incompetent and unprepared which led to the deaths of 4 people. Umm. Shall I? Remember in 2001 when 3,000 people died? Who was in charge then? Who remembers the war in Iraq which was supposed to be over quickly and ended up lasting 8 years, and we were later to find all of the reasons for going were wrong? How'd that happen? Who led that effort? Which party was in power then? What about in 2005 when Katrina happened? The government's response was... lacking, wasn't it? Who was "responsible" for that one? Which party was running Congress? Contrary to popular belief, the economy did not collapse on January 20, 2009 by executive order of President Obama... so, given that that's not what happened when did it happen? Whose administration was in power at the time? (To be fair, the response wasn't incompetent, but if something like that happened under Obama, certain people would be apoplectic) These stones are shattering people's houses, they should be careful.

Ok so here's my read on the whole conservative freakout over Obama in the best way I can explain it. I haven't read the last several pages so I'm breaking a message board etiquette rule. Basically, the Obama Administration doesn't like to throw around the word "terrorism" and it's a deliberate break from the way the Bush Administration used to use it, and they only will use it in specific circumstances. It's a deliberate strategy for counterterrorism policy that conservatives fundamentally disagree with and hate. That's the whole context of this, to begin with. Conservatives want Obama to immediately call just about every incident of violence by Muslims or Arabs a terrorist attack, and forcefully. To not do so is being weak at best, and complicit at worst. So Obama did actually say it was an act of terror, but in muted terms. (Sidenote: I'm not sure why people are even attempting to spin this like it's not what he said. If one of my kids hits the other, and I turn to the kid and say "hitting is wrong, don't do it again" it's pretty obvious what I was talking about even if I didn't say it. In a speech ABOUT attacks in Benghazi he mentions "acts of terror" then like 3 sentences later, mentions "attacks" and the dead Americans, it only means something else if you have the comprehension of a 6 year old, or if you want it to mean something else.) The day after that he said "Those who bring us harm, we'll bring them to justice, no act of terror..." But then in the following days the administration officials are evasive, I really don't know why but they were very deliberate in what they said and waited a long time before they came out and more forcefully said "terrorists attacked our consulate" or some words to that effect. Then different facts come out and the intelligence picture gets clearer about what happened and eventually they finally do come out and say unequivocally "this was a terrorist attack" as part of the official White House position. From here comes the narrative "they took 14 days to finally call it a terrorist attack." Fast forward to last night and that question comes up. Obama gives 2 minutes of bulls***ting because he knows he's at a disadvantage on this question, then Romney responds and Obama responds back with indignation and anger (he was actually pissed off for real. you can tell when he is, because he's almost never pissed off.) Then Romney sees an opening and comes the following exchange, paraphrased: Romney: This administration took 14 days to call this an act of terror. Obama: I said that? (recognizing Romney just said the phrase "act of terror" which he knows full well in his speech because he used specific phrasing, on purpose). Romney: I just want to make sure you're on the record, because you didn't say it was an act of terror- Obama: Please proceed. Romney: I.. uhhhummm seewhathadummm Obama: Please proceed, Governor. Romney: I wanna make sure that's on the record because it took 14 days... Obama: Get the transcript. Crowley: Yeah actually he said that Obama: Can you say that louder? Crowley: He said it was an act of terror, however you're right about your more general point (this is being spun today as Crowley "admitted she was wrong" but she actually said basically the same thing) Obama recognized that Romney stumbled, and pounced. Romney was supposed to score major points and ended up looking like a total lightweight. Trying to argue about the semantics or un-muddle it and re-muddle it doesn't mean anything... that's what everyone SAW.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 30, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) I know. It's pathetic all these people talk so much s*** yet won't give us what they've earned. I mean, WTF? That was my reaction to Romney's 47% comments. Where's all the free s*** I'm supposed to be getting? I voted for Obama, I no longer want responsibility, i want free s***. Am I doing something wrong? Is it because my dad is white?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) So when does Joe Biden quit getting let out in public? He accidentally endorsed Romney. This is why nobody lets you talk, Joe.

I got tickets to the Orioles game on Thursday from a co-worker, at season ticket prices. In other words, $54 to sit behind home plate in row 16. SCORE

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 2, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) Cutler is 9-1 in his last 10 starts I believe... Edit: Sorry, that is 8-1 in his last 9 starts. In this season he's 3-1 Going back to 2011 he's 10-4 To 2010, he's 21-9 Even including the disaster of 2009 he's 28-18. Has he been perfect along the way... no of course not, there's a few different reasons for that, some having nothing to do with him, some his fault, but really without him that 28-18 is probably looking more like 23-21.

It's usually this time of year the Bears get hot and go on a streak. I know you take nothing for granted but they have 4 relatively soft games coming up before having 2 really rough games vs. Houston and @SF. 7-1 is realistic.

Has this been posted? Www.wtfu2012.com

Chicago media is so god damn lazy, it's like they bring up the attendance shaming because they don't know how to do anything else

Oh and BTW Loria is an awful owner, but Ozzie created that situation for himself. If he hadn't gone all short bus in Chicago he might still be here where he never realized how good he had it.

Man, the luster of 2005 is completely gone now... Ozzie is just a flaming bag of s*** these days. He'd never have openly disrespected Reinsdorf the way he has Loria

This "unskewedpolls" thing is funny. It's the Republicans trying hard to create their very own reality. Supposedly ALL the polls, including Rasmussen and Fox News, are biased and over sample Democrats. For s***s and giggles... In states that ask for a party on registration forms, there are 41.5 million democrats and 28.9 Republicans. Republicans just call themselves "independent" and go vote a straight republican ticket every 2 years.