KipWellsFan

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) I'm so angry. 75% of Americans are in favor of repeal. The defense secretary is in favor of repeal. A huge majority of both houses are in favor of repeal. The military is overwhelmingly in favor of repeal. The joint chiefs of staff are in favor of repeal. ...and yet it fails Country borken. I hear what you're saying, but whether the majority is comfortable or not minority rights should be protected!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) Here's something Obama should have learned from previous administrations. You can't assume that the Democrats will fall in line lockstep to anything its leadership asks. Especially if you decide to try to force through a "compromise" without inviting Democratic Congressional leadership. In the eyes of the Dem house caucus it is utterly disrespectful, especially given all the heavy lifting they've done over the past two years to Obama's legislative agenda. They feel punished for doing everything Obama has asked of them in the last two years, and if I was in the house leadership, I could see why I would want to do this too. This will pass, but the House Dems need their fingerprints on some of this too. You mean they'll want even more spending and larger deficits and debt?

I follow Rosenthal and Cowley. But is it just me or is Cowley a tool? I mean I thought he's supposed to be an objective reporter, but sometimes he's just as whiny as half of soxtalk.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2010 -> 03:52 PM) In his press conference today, a clearly frustrated Obama defended himself against a final question about how this would be viewed by folks on the left. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy I have no idea how this will all work out politically for him, but watching him handle questions like this proves his intellect. Can you imagine how a Bush or Palin would butcher the response to that?

Gotta agree with Tex, this seems mostly like increasing government spending and reducing revenue. Sounds pretty crazy. But on the estate tax thing, would it have been zero without this deal?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 6, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) He'll win that debate if his argument is still that the richest 1% needs to pay a little more. If not, then it won't resonate with voters. This deal isn't as bad as the liberal Dems want to believe it is. They did get a lot of what they wanted out of it. But it's also not a great deal either. Unless the Senate plans on changing the rules of debate in that chamber, compromises like this are going to be the only way things will get done going forward. A lot more satisfying if he can also get START and or DADT.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 6, 2010 -> 07:54 PM) Perfect! Now when the Presidency is up in 2 years he'll be beaten over the head for wanting to "raise taxes" when they're expiring. Great! You're already admitting defeat on that debate...

Sec. Gates not optimistic about possibility of repeal. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...3535acf07f3a24c Seriously, wtf...

Of course the real question... is the Defence Appropriations bill including an end to DADT going to pass soon?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) They might be able to get a deal where START gets through the Senate, and possibly an unemployment benefits extension, in exchange for the tax cuts. One can hope. Okay but how does that help address deficit crisis in any way?

Seems meaningless to me still. The Senate won't agree, and they'll eventually vote for a bill in the Senate that extends tax cut for the richest for at least one more year. After which this whole thing will come up again, when Democrats have even less power and the tax cut for the richest will be extended again. Am I wrong?

For the record Joe Biden is awesome.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) Brilliant my ass!! Joe Biden would have just jumped over.

Saw Monsters tonight. Definitely enjoyed it. But the title is misleading, and don't expect a big action movie a la War of the Worlds.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 10:47 PM) This is ridiculously disrespectful. There is nothing extremist about the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI. The Imam at this mosque works endlessly for religious reconciliation and understanding. His teachings have ecumenical underpinnings and is a prime example of moderate Islamic religion. So much so that George W recognized him for it. Stop being politically correct.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) I'm just baffled how seemingly intelligent people can actually defend her and want her to lead our nation. She is a mean spirited person that thrives on negative attacks, polarizes, frowns upon being well read/educated, and seems to lie about things for no particular reason. Sure I'm as liberal as they get but I can at least respect politicians across the aisle that I differ in policy who act civil. Well in defense of soxtalk, I don't think anyone on here defends Sarah. As far as my pick goes I think it the Republican nominee will be a white male. Odds of that are good. If I have to pick now I think the nomination goes to Haley Barbour, John Thune, or Rick Perry. Picking the VP is impossible considering how random that choice seems to be most of the time. Who knows.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 09:32 PM) I can't believe you went to a Blockbuster I knew someone was going to make a smart comment about blockbuster. Netflix sucks in Canada.

My God, I just watched Antichrist. I don't even know what to say. Fascinating, but absolutely obscene. I can't believe Blockbuster even carries this.

This looks pretty sick. Looks like it'll put Skyline to shame.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 08:51 AM) via D'uh.

Meh.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) So we are now trusting the government to spend efficiently? Interesting concept? Regardless of the cost, it still begs the question why are we having so many more people their. And I don't believe for one minute this 4.5 million number either. That is way too small of a number and taking the rupee exchange rate as some of you are doing is actually hypocritical since you were the same people discounting the fact that he could not possible know that information. Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people. Are you really surprised that Democrats and sane people get upset when the rightwing punditocracy smears Obama over some crap all Presidents do? This is the video of Obama's motorcade in Canada. Now put them in a more dangerous country, that's a lot farther away. Just relax everyone. I'm sure the cost is so completely insignificant in the larger picture... I mean everyone's gotta do belt tightening but this debate is a lot of bollocks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:43 PM) The Gores got rich off of oil. It is what put his dad into the Senate and put Al Gore in the position that anyone gave a s*** what he thought in the first place. It is also an undeniable fact that he has gotten massively rich by pushing green companies. Good for him. There's worse things.

I'm just surprised me and Kap aren't involved in this tilt!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:41 PM) Isn't that why businesses use video conferencing a lot more in general. It is because it is a major cost and time savings versus flying everywhere. Sometimes you need to fly, sometimes you don't. I wonder if the oval office will eventually re-evaluate this stance and travel less or if in general the president is a figure that needs to always be flying places for pure appearance standpiont? And I am ok with him flying within the US and to big sumitts. Also, at this point I'm speaking more generally, not just in terms of Obama but more just the president position in general. It is an interesting debate if it costs that much to send him places, imo. With all due respect India is going to be kind of an important country for like the next thousand years. The White House probably uses teleconferencing everyday, with people all over the world. But the President can't get cooped up in Washington, because leaders of other countries sure won't. And the cost of this travel or the contribution to greenhouse gases is probably insignificant. I get the whole message thing, but come on.