kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) This is being talked about because it's on the front page of the Drudge Report. Another reason Matt Drudge is f***ing obnoxious. I'm surprised that AHB doesn't post a daily tracking poll - oh wait a minute.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) What am I missing here??? Daily Tracking- Gallup 50-44% http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup Various Opinion Polls taken since 11/1/09 + approval varies from +17% (CBS) to Neutral (Fox) http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm Not a thing. Polls are useless, stupid, don't exist, and something else or not that I'm forgetting.

Cool! I'm going to go kick Mrs. Kap out of the damn house right now.

I've spent a little time in Las Cruces. There's some ok places to eat there. Some of them are pretty over-rated though.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) If a Republican is going to win in 2012 it'll be someone we haven't talked about yet. In other words not Giuliani, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc. None of those guys would beat Obama. It's still really early in the game, and to be honest it's really annoying that we were already talking about 2012 in December 2008. Obama just got elected a year ago, we're just over 1/4 of the way to the next one... f***ing hell. The last cycle started this way too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) Well, no, I very specifically was segregating the lunatics and blind faithful, from the thinking people. I certainly HOPE that the Republican Party can get back to being a little more sane as a whole, but, right now, their identity is fractured a bit, and that is difficult for a party whose success in recent years has been greatly because of their unity. Ok, I agree with that. And Balta, I don't think "independent moderates" are going to vote for Obama again... I'm pretty sure the "are you better off then you were four years ago" will really mean something once again. But the Republicans will need a real conservative, not a moderate, and dismiss the f***ed up crazy lady back to Alaska.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) For everyone's sake - I hope I'm right. I love how Democrats keep defining what the Republican party should look like and how they keep painting "tea bagger" people as lunatics (i.e. conservatives) who shouldn't be given the time of day. But then again, Reagan was a lunatic as well. My larger point is that there's a lot of Democrats who love the McCain's of the world, and that got Republicans NOTHING.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:12 PM) (Faints). It needs to have its limitations, of course, but the concept is a dang good one.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 05:31 PM) The "Cash for Caulkers" stimulus idea. Have the government pay for a portion of the substantial cost of seriously upgrading the insulation in people's homes. Cut carbon emissions and wasted electricity, put people back to work at the same time. (A carbon pricing system could have the same effect, FWIW). Actually, this is a terrific idea.

Well, look at the bright side. If you can keep the economy f***ed up, and no jobs, there won't be inflation. I'm starting to realize that is their plan to keep the government spending and the printing presses going without the inflation spike.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) That really isn't an Obama Administration decision though (at least not in total), the SCOTUS made that ruling back in I think '06 and the Bush Administration never really developed anything after that to adjust. Besides reworking the tribunals this is really the first attempt by the government to actually move forward since then, at least how I understand it. Eric Holder isn't really making up procedures, he's trying to go with established law in a way he knows is going to succeed. In this case though torture really isn't that relevant. Yeah it won't be admissible in civilian court but I'm sure (as you started getting at) the government had enough evidence to prosecute him before they even captured him. The military tribunals could and should keep "jurisdiction" over this. It's precedence, SCOTUS decisions be damned - rewrite the law and get it set up the right way. Although, I can't remember exactly how all that went down right now and frankly I'm too lazy to look at it at 12:30 at night.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 07:52 PM) Right, those are hypotheticals, but one, Holder clearly would not have held a trial if he didn't believe he had a convictable amount of evidence that wasn't gathered through torture (and, as has been documented extensively, there was a while he wasn't tortured and information was gathered). As for the technicality part, that's fairly absurd. BUt I'll reference a couple posts http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/...f_people_--.php http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...nd-warriors.php There is not a chance in hell they get acquitted. But also, even if some charges they get off to on technical grounds, there are loads of charges they can be put on. That deferential to the gov't in terror cases is an understatement, cases with truly light evidence (liberty six, imo) still ended up in them getting substantial jail time. I agree in part, as I mentioned in my original post, that Holder knows what evidence is held. What I don't understand is, why even subject yourself to the chance that they get any new or substantial information via a trial, and also, the military tribunals are exactly for this sort of thing. Oh, but the people of NYC deserve to get to put these guys on trial? I don't think they give a s***, as long as they fry for it. Now, I'm not running around saying the world will be set on fire like Gu9l1an1, et. al. is, but I can see the point that it's absurd to put this in a very public display.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 11:19 AM) Think I´ll write this here, also, I can´t find apostrophes on a portuguese keyboard, so bear with me. When did Republicans start to think it´s okay to act completely terrified by the terrorists. What happened to bring it on? I get the they aren´t citizens therefore shouldn´t be held in civilian courts arguments, I get that. BUt the OMG THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING arguments? What the hell? Grow a f***ing pair. Well, I'll try to address this with some substance rather then the Kaperbolic ™ bulls***. The trials of the original World Trade Center bombings was an epic clusterf***. Osama bin Laden obtained the names that was on the witness list, how the names were obtained, the intelligence used, etc. and used that as a part of the planning for the 9-11 attacks. The problem with making these trials civilian trials in our country, as you partially alluded to, is that they aren't citizens, yet now, they're covered as citizens under our trial system. They can simply let him off because he didn't get his rights read (aka, technicality). That's horrible decision making on Eric Holder's part. I understand that he's seen all the evidence and made the decision based on it, but it's a poor decision, especially when earlier in the week he wanted others put in the military tribunal system. If KSM wants to act as his own attorney, he can and will be given all the evidence he wants or needs to defend himself. That would be opening up the entire playbook on everything we have on Al Queda, potentially. And that will go right back over to Pakistan. I know that Al Queda isn't what it once was, but they can attack if they get the means to do it. Now, since you Dems have screamed that this man was "tortured" - if I were KSM, I'd simply say that he was coerced into his admissions. Bad move - again, why would Eric Holder even put himself in this situation? It's stupid, at best, and damn dangerous at worst. Now, I didn't mock you or your opinion, and I'd appreciate you doing the same. I am curious to see your defense of the decisions.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) I hate her and the TMZification we're really starting to see in politics these days. My roommate watches Morning Joe on MSNBC (the other shows are no better, frankly) and within five minutes I found myself getting visibly angry. The stories aren't about what the issues are, the stories are about how popular the issues are or what Sarah Palin wrote on her facebook page. Her facebook page, for christsakes! When did the media become seventh grade homeroom? I find myself listening to NPR, occasionally reading a couple blogs and that's about it anymore. I'm actively trying to stay disengaged because I don't want any part of campaign 2012 when its only 2009. It makes me sad. You're right on, unfortunately.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 16, 2009 -> 09:22 AM) I looked up "rogue" on dictionary.reference.com out of curiosity. Which one of the following applies to Sarah Palin, the self-proclaimed "rogue?" lol. rogue  /roʊg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rohg] Show IPA noun, verb, rogued, ro⋅guing, adjective Use rogue in a Sentence See web results for rogue See images of rogue –noun 1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel. 2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues. 3. a tramp or vagabond. 4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition. 5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal. –verb (used without object) 6. to live or act as a rogue. –verb (used with object) 7. to cheat. 8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard). 9. to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field. –adjective 10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant. 11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: 1555–65; appar. short for obs. roger begging vagabond, orig. cant word Synonyms: 1. villain, trickster, swindler, cheat, mountebank, quack. See knave. She titled the book that because the McCain people called her that, not because she "self-proclaimed" that title.

Sign AGonz, trade PK to Anahiem, and a couple of prospects tossed in. Sound good? Oh wait,

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Nov 16, 2009 -> 11:44 PM) http://www.yardbarker.com/author/art...ternal/1577618 Someone close to the PADS says no deal. Dead link...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) Brady is just paddling the Colts. And he got his ass paddled in the end. I hate Tom f***ing Brady with a passion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits. Shocker. What does that mean? Time to raise taxes.

Indeed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) I don't think so. The Greens have been around a long time, have a sustained but very small support base. This thing is more likely to get a much bigger wave of initial support, then die off completely. I'm actually happy with new parties joining the fray, I think its healthy for the system. Heck, if someone had the balls to form a party of fiscal/business conservatives and social liberals, I'd be all over that. Kind of funny, but I think conservative (and I mean true conservatives, not just people screaming to scream) are pretty damn close to that. Why? We don't have to talk about the fiscal/business side of it but the social part - the conservative generally thinks that individuals have the path to their own ideals... as long as you're not interfering with the law (that is to say breaking socially unacceptable laws) you are free to do what it is you wish to do in your own way (aka, that's liberty). True conservatives don't care about gay marriage or abortion - they believe what they believe but the national government should have no say or jurisdiction in these matters. A true conservative has their belief system but doesn't want to push that agenda on others. Where it all crosses the line is when the belief system is pushed down your throat, and in my opinion, these aren't conservatives anymore - that's where they cross the line into the bat-s*** crazy people.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) Do you mean like Bush the Decider standing on a mound of rubble with a bull horn? Then I say yes! How it is spun is very important. Reagan's greatest legacy was as cheerleader. A bigger than life cowboy riding in to save the day after a decade of impotent b.s. When we feel strong as a nation good s*** happens. You know what made that moment for GWB special? It wasn't political, it wasn't crafted, it wasn't spun. It just was. And I can't hardly EVER remember a time that something like that wasn't a political spin of some sort. As for Obama, it's his duty to be there today, and I'm glad he's there. I just don't like the automatic spinning/yarning taking place before he even gets there by the media (no matter the political slant - Faux, or the other side). NOT Obama himself or his administration. He's done nothing wrong here...

AP Headline this morning: Obama is pressed into role as national healer. This is what I mean. STFU, media. Yes, I'm glad he's going and he should go. But now he's our "national healer"? This is why the politics of all this gets sick. It's not what he does, it's how it's spun.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Yea except "Throw the bums out" for the Tea Party is get rid of the federal government. They have some success right now because they're stuck in an echo chamber of each other and FOX news, but when you start putting people up for public office their message is going to be kind of exposed for its zaniness. Luckily for Democrats there's a lot of overlap between Conservative Republicans and the Tea Partiers, letting the Democrats win with a ~40% plurality if they control the base. That is of course if the Tea Party thing lasts another year, which it probably wont. MMMkay.

I'm waiting for a certain line of thinking to come out in this thread... let's see if it does. And I even have my pick as to who will post it first.