kapkomet

Let's keep cherry picking on all these arguments. Government IS the answer for everything! I'm finally convinced. I guess I no longer need to post here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) Thought I'd fire off this bit from former labor secretary Robert Reich. Our new economy is our government. Come on, everyone knows this.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 11:11 AM) So, what you're saying is that soxtalk is home to a disproportionate amount of smart educated liberals. But in general, most liberals are uninformed/ignorant. So, if you gave a civics test to a big group and asked them to identify their political ideology, people who claimed to be conservative would do better. (With the exceptions of the freakishly informed liberal posters here.) So, by that theory, most of the people who have been CEOs of banks and companies that have gone under have been liberals. That would be an interesting study. That gets into a whole different thing. I mean, what are you going to test them on? I don't know that they would do "better".

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) I will set the department of law on your for such libel! Nicely played.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Liberals want the government to do everything for them and they hate freedom because they are stupid, conservatives are enlightened, clear thinkers and therefore they're the intelligent ones. (Liberals) do, but that doesn't make them "stupid", IMO, it makes them uninformed, perhaps lazy, depending on the individual. But that's not what Tex was talking about. (Note: ETA - most of the "liberals" around here are informed and understand their decisions. As a whole, I don't think many do. Just throwing that out there).

Seriously, good thing that ball wasn't two inches higher - that would suck to have teeth knocked out.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) Really, kap? Cmon. You're refining the conservative narrative and doing the exact opposite for the liberal one and turning it into a caricature. No, I'm not. Read what I said again.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) Or why people who work for the government are stupid, lazy, inefficient, etc. but private sector employees are innovative, hard working, effective, etc. Who says that? People who work for the government aren't any of these things, but as an ENTITY, they are all of those things.

lol wut?

Dan Quayle was VERY intelligent, potato, potatoe aside. His casting as "stupid" was done very well by the media. Don't forget, Reagan was "stupid" too. All "conservatives" are "stupid" as defined by the MSM, whether they are or not. Liberals, on the other hand, are the most intelligent people on earth. I have never understood the paradigm as to why people who want less of everything from our government are considered "stupid". Yet, those who want to give up their own freedoms to do what they want are considered the most intelligent. It seems to me that the opposite would be true - those of you who want everything to be done by our government are honestly drones. You don't want to think for yourself, you want the thinking to be done for you. That's "stupid".

Now what's even funnier - you can tell Obama is just trying to walk around to pose for the pictures. But look at Sarkozy. He's starting at that lady.

I need to. I'd have a better chance of winning the damn lottery then finding a job right now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) I'd buy a solid gold rocket car and a solid gold server for the site. Oh and I'd still be a penny pincher. What, you don't have one now?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 08:51 PM) We're a celebrity-obsessed culture. American culture in this decade (people famous for being famous, reality TV, American Idol running past its peak) really blows, I'd like the 90s back. Yea, except we would have to go through all this crap again.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 08:45 PM) Michael Jackson is probably big ratings for them I guess. You know that commercial they like to run about how they are 'totally news, total integrity, bla bla'? they actually played that a few times in between the wall to wall Jackson coverage when I was watching. That was pretty funny. TMZ > CNN for this kind of s***. But TMZ has higher ratings then CNN lately, so maybe they're trying to emulate.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 07:58 PM) This is why agency heads are political appointees. It's mostly bulls***. There is honestly no difference whatsoever between Republicans and Democrats in this regard. Exactly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) There have been signs that its been building for about 2 months now, but it looks almost certain that we're going to have a major El Nino event this year. Amongst the things this means are: 1. A weak hurricane season 2. Potentially catastrophic weather everywhere else. 3. Possibly a new global surface temperature record (passing 1998). 4. Possible breaking of some of the drought in California/Western U.S. 5. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. #5, of course, is the most important.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) Wasn't the original START something that was formally ratified by the Senate? (START = Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) Right, which is why I automatically thought the answer was "yes" to Thunderbolt's question. Again, not mocking Obama (this time, ) - I just thought it was something that Congress had to ratify because it was in the form of a treaty.

Of course. They had better come up with something to collaborate the "story". It took them a month?!?

First off, 50% of the posts have nothing to do with Sarah Palin (welcome to the filibuster) Second, STOP IT. Seriously. It's f***ing annoying.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 08:24 AM) Why would he need Congressional approval to change military equipment allocation? He doesn't. If he and the ruskies want to bring down weapons levels simultaneously, they can both do that executively. If its an official treaty, then Congress does need to approve it. The treaty gives it legal binding. But if its just the two executives saying "yeah, I'll do this, if you do that", then no Congressional approval is required. You're right - I was thinking it was some sort of treaty.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) There's no way anyone associated with the "R," even a moderate, was going to win this election against Obama. The country had pissed on Bush and Republicans for the previous 6-7 years (some deserved, most not), and the country was going into the tank. People wanted to try something entirely different. They bought into the message of change. It remains to be seen if that change is making us any better. Being anti-global warming makes no sense. There's nothing conservative about not backing the fight against crapping in our own water supply. Pro-life/pro-choice issue makes no sense, and as I've repeatedly stated, its the most overrated issue in the history of politics. There's nothing "conservative" about that issue either, unless "conservative" is attached to religious beliefs, which it's not. Ditto with the gay marriage issue. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be a person that's for cleaning up the environment without being a "global warming" person. CO2 emmissions is one of the most overrated bulls*** topics ever.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 08:04 AM) Not even close. Its yet another reduction treaty, both sides reducing. Considering the stockpiles both still have, this has basically no strategic capability impact whatsoever. So? He did it without Congressional approval. Now of course they will rubber stamp it, but technically, he did that. It doesn't matter what they "other side" does. That's not the point. And I don't care - I'm just pointing this out.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 07:32 PM) Did Obama really just give up a third of our nukes to Russia without running it by the Senate? Yep.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 03:01 PM) I think, truth be told despite the fact that we fight all the time in this forum, you and me are a lot closer philosophically (as far as actual actions) than it looks like. I still wouldn't call myself a conservative though and I'm not liberal enough to be a real liberal. I'm all over the map and I think there's a lot more people like me too. I don't have a baseline that pre-determines my logic on a particular issue like a true liberal or a true conservative would, but I still fall on the side with the libs at something like a 60/40 rate. I think you are more conservative then you think you are - throw the common definitions that the idiot liberals and idiot conservatives like to label the other side. I mean real conservative, not neo-con f***tards.