Coffee and TV

Just discovered this gem out of Hamilton, Ontario. http://radio3.cbc.ca/#/artists/Arkells

If you want Obama to stay in the White House, vote Newt in the primaries. You can quote this and keep it in your signature until election day.

The internet has ruined me.

Ok bro. If you say so. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, I just don't need anybody to be c-nty when I am.

Well look who's Mr Snarky now that I was off in one of my predictions. Need I go back through this thread to contrast all the times I was correct, and you weren't? I'll make sure to bring up the part of your quote that I bolded in a couple of weeks. A southern 'conservative' won a very southern conservative state against a more moderate candidate. A rejection of South Carolina would be a win in my book, personally.

Also, Romney staffers are apparently tapering down expectations for tonight. They'll be looking towards Florida where he's still doing very very well in the polls.

Still kinda tricky. Everyone sort of saw the Santorum surge (lulz) coming about a week before, whereas Newt's happened in the past few days after his debate performance Monday & Thursday. Seen some double digit leads in polls for Gingrich, but also seen some very close. The weather is awful upstate where the more evangelical base is, so that might tamper Newt & Santorum's numbers some. Still think Gingrich pulls it out. Gingrich 37% Romney 31% Paul 18% Santorum 14% Paul is not going anywhere, but Santorum might be soon.

I expected Newt to do better in South Carolina & the South, but this size of a surge is surprising. I wouldn't be surprised now if he won SC, but I don't think that'll translate necessarily to Florida. He'll have 10 days to open his big mouth between the two primaries, and when Newt is doing well he seems to shoot himself in the foot. Post-Florida Romney will have a great run, the states up for primaries really favor him. (Michigan, Arizona, Nevada)

My biggest issue is that the State Department hired a company that was in bed with TransCanada to do the environmental assessment. Until there's a more neutral study I think it should have been rejected. I think as long as there are measures in place to keep it environmentally sound like the Alaska pipeline is, it shouldn't present a problem there.

Billy Beane thought he was too fat to play too. Since then his OPS is over .900 and he dropped something like 50lbs by going vegan. I'd take a chance on Fielder for 5 years any day over a "31" year old Pujols.

Cougars is overused anyways. Get creative people.

See I don't know how you can just dismiss the $50mil part. Sure the contract itself ain't bad for a decent pitcher, but throw in that posting fee and its just outrageous. I'm not a believer in 'clutch', I think its personally wayyyy overrated. Having said that, why could CJ win in the playoffs? Why did he just absolutely collapse in October?

$110 million for a guy who has never pitched in the major leagues. Unless he wins 20 games, I don't see how this isn't a bust. And full disclosure, I'm a Padres fan, but I'm not anti-Rangers in any way. I just don't see the value in this move. And yes, they should shoot for Prince if the money's there. The fact that he hasn't been nailed down yet while Pujols got a 10 year deal is exactly what's wrong with baseball these days.

What? Either your reading comprehension is poor or you're being obtuse. My guess is the latter. War criminal? Some would say, but I think that's a bit extreme. His administration did openly admit to torture though. No, please give me more lectures on Intro to Psychology professor. If you're buying into the argument that its some sort of anti-Newt agenda then you'd have to explain the Romeny tax return issue. That has also been brought up recently by the press, a mere week before a critical primary. I don't really need to, the obvious answer was in my last post: ratings. Do you really wonder? Do you? Can you really not see the difference? Obama's a sitting president. If anything was there to dig up they would have found it in 2007 or 2008, like they did with Wright. There's nothing new to report in 2012.

It just looks like it drums up drama and ratings in an otherwise fairly boring primary season. I mean, the Republican Party apparently mismanaged the Iowa Caucus count and won't certify Santorum as the winner, ZOMG conspiracy!

That was two random days in March. Do I have to do all the work for you? People looked. There was no there, there. Tony Rezko - nothing. Bill Ayers - little to nothing. Jeremiah Wright - no different than anything Pat Robertson has ever said. There wasn't even much need for investigative journalism, Clinton's camp had scoured and scoured to find anything that would stick. Nothing did. For a politician, Obama was pretty squeaky clean. Same goes for Romney. And this whole "two days before a major primary" stuff is nonsense. This info has been known for 10 years. Nothing new will come of this interview. People have known for decades that Gingrich is a scumbag, they don't need his ex-wife to deliver this news.

That particular search of google news archives only covers 2 days in March 2008. http://news.google.c...ved=0CC4QqgIwAA You'll see links to CBS News, ABC news, Boston Globe, Washington Post, ect. Yeah. Sure.

The Great Southwestern Conference East UNT Houston Rice Tulsa ULL Arkansas State West UTEP New Mexico New Mexico State Colorado State Air Force TCU (more of a pipe dream) Play TCU every year in football at the Cotton Bowl, rotate the championship game between Cotton Bowl, Sun Bowl, and maybe Reliant.

Gingrich needs no help in making himself look foolish.

Rick Perry done. Most of his support had already slid Gingrich's way, so endorsing him won't matter much.

Who said anything about 100k jobs right out of college? I'm talking about people who have their master's degrees but make 30k as a secretary or a taxi cab driver.

Gotta take the money out of politics. It buys way too much power and influence. Publicly financed elections would be great, but its a pipe dream. But I will say this: Congressmen aren't always in Congress because they were rich, but a lot of them substantially grow their wealth while they're in Congress. They don't necessarily have to have insider trading info to buy or sell a stock. But for instance, if I'm a congressman who knows that a certain oil pipeline is being approved, I know to buy a crapton of stock in that company probably way before the general public does. Its not that its illegal or immoral, its simply that they're in the know.

I edited shortly after posting. It wasn't right of me to name call and I apologize for that. And yeah, you hit a nerve when you constantly try to beat me into an answer that you approve of in EVERY SINGLE THREAD I post in. Way to miss the point. Again. Let me spell it out for you: if Congress is full of millionaires then whose interests do you think they serve?

Maybe you will, and that's awesome, but statistically speaking that's not the norm. Especially if you and I are about the same age. Congress is in charge of 360 million people. I'm ok with them being a full-time job. I genuinely dislike that a state as large as ours has a legislature that can only work on policy for a few months every 2 years. I do think we need open primaries in Congress, and have every state use an independent board to draw districts. "To the victor go the spoils" is a big part of the reason we've lost the art of compromising.