kapkomet

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 11:29 AM) No. But Wise will resolve this... By playing worse... And getting DFA'd when Quentin returns. Dweezy can just play like he has his whole career and hopefully that will suffice for the DFA.

Soooo... "America is one of the largest muslim countries in the world"... and during the campaign, Obama's dad was "agnostic or atheist" but now he's muslim, along with Obama's grandmother? Funny how the story changes when he goes over there to give a major speech to the Muslim world. And, for the record, religion doesn't matter to me, but it's funny how the story's changing now to benefit his circumstances. How many apologies for the United States are we going to have in the speech tommorow?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 07:53 PM) Do we read the same poster? BigSqwert is from the Huffpo/Kos, dyed-in-the-wool-progressive mold where they b**** at Obama for not prosecuting the Bush administration, leaving troops in Iraq until further notice, holding back the Abu Gharib photos, re-opening tribunals for terrorists, and other things where Obama is at odds with the base. Is Obama really against those things, or does he know that he will get his balls plastered on a wall somewhere down the road for it? What is interesting is that he puts little trial balloons out there to appease these "Huffpo/Kos, dyed-in-the-wool-progressive mold" types until he realizes he can't pull off the prosecuting of the Bush administration, leaving troops in Iraq until further notice, holding back the Abu Gharib photos, re-opening tribunals for terrorists, etc. and then he quietly pulls the "progressive stance" back off the table when he realizes that in reality appeasing these folks on their stances will get him in deep s***. And still, all that s*** is the previous administration's fault, which we hear over and over and over and over and over (I could type this to infinity) from Obama himself, which is classless in and of itself. Whatever. I guess this is all the same posts over and over and there's nothing to be learned from it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 06:31 PM) Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't understand it the first 97,000 you've mentioned it. I mentioned it? I am only repeating the ideas of almost every one of your posts.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. I actually respect Kucinich because he doesn't sugar coat what he believes in, unlike the other 99% of the bulls*** politicians out there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 04:41 PM) There are plenty of things to critique a President for including Obama. But this? GMAFB. No - he's perfect though. The right man at the right time to fix all that ails our country. Everything that's f***ed up is about the past administration; everything about today and tomorrow will be fixed by "the best president ever".

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) Precisely. There is no issue just opponents grasping at straws. We know - Obama really is the Messiah.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) No, actually. But, kap, I'm impressed. I didn't know you had direct access to data that my eyes pick up and could read and recall the same things I read. I don't recall seeing any unusual amount of coverage actually. When Bush would fly home to Crawford it'd get reported. When Obama travels, it gets reported. Pretty normal. He's the president. I didn't mean what you read, I mean that there shouldn't be any outrage about it at all - other then the fawning about every fart he has. FYI, the story was on all the headline tickers Sunday night/Monday morning, which is just stupid.

The "outrage" isn't about him going "on a date". It's the fawning coverage... AWWWWW... OBAMA GOES OUT ON A DATE! DROOOOLZZZZZ! :wub: :wub: It's stupid and didn't need reported on at all.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 1, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) Chrysler filed for bankruptcy once, in 2009. Ok, Rex. Funny.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 29, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) I'd like to hear you back it up. The New Haven case.

Forget the David Duke comments, however, she does base in part her opinions on "reverse-discrimination" (it's bad term - too cliche but I get why it's being used). You can't deny it. However, if I'm a betting person, and I don't know because I don't listen, I bet Limbaugh was saying that if she were a Republican, she would get painted like David Duke, which is true.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 28, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Even if she is pro-life, that doesn't mean she's gonna vote in that direction. Nancy Pelosi is "pro-life" after all. However, it'd be nice if Sotomayor became like the anti-Souter. She has too many feelings to be anything like an anti-Souter.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) It explains why liberal judicial folks think that they can interpret laws by "living and breathing" versus what the constitution really says. They bastardize that amendment, among others. I'll try to explain - but I'm going out of town so I may not get the chance. I didn't explain myself very well, lf. This is actually something I would like to expand on so that I can tie the point together. Maybe when I get back, unless I get some time while in Houston, but somehow I doubt it.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 27, 2009 -> 11:04 PM) Guys, Beckham and Lillibridge are now playing side by side. CRAP. or

Thanks Alex for getting this back up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) 1. If you actually bothered to read the whole article it comes to a very different conclusion than what you're claiming it does. 2. What exactly is your solution that prevents health care costs from consuming the entire economy in 20 years? If you're going to respond with any version of a market-based solution, you're advocating the exact same thing...denying people care. Except in that case, it falls overwhelmingly on the poor. 3. A lot of us are totally willing to work hard. But you know what? The world still screws an awful lot of people who work hard. You lose your job. You're a kid who gets born in to a family that can't afford to have the kid, or you wind up going to a school that just isn't as good as the one down the road where the rich people live in its property district. You get sick at a young age. Or you do everything right planning for retirement, and then suddenly when you hit age 64, the the stock market collapses and takes out the business that was funding your health care while at the same time taking out a ton of your investments. We call it a safety net. Do people exploit it by jumping off, just to let it catch them? Yes. But if its not there...then when things do bad, when bad things happen to good people...those good people wind up destroyed. And even beyond that...when people are trying to do the right thing...knowing that they have something backing them up is helpful...you don't exactly want to go out and risk working on that bridge if you know there's no net if you screw up. If there's no Social Security, I put virtually no money in the stock market; I keep everything in low risk accounts that are FDIC insured (the bank safety net). If I get a job with health coverage, I can't afford to look for a new job and risk losing that health coverage. Same deal. 1. I did. So what did I miss? I see exactly what they are saying. And I actually agree with it, but you have to have a middle ground. Case in point? I had the SAME issue come up, and my doc sent me home with some pain meds and a different diet. Whaddya know, it worked. Although I did have an extra set of tests to ensure nothing else was messed up. Why is there a problem with that? Maybe, maybe not an issue, depends on your take. 2. L.O.S.E.R P.A.Y.S. That would solve 50% of the problem right there. With that said, as has been asked over and over and over and over again on this site, tell me when the hell the government has EVER gotten anything like this right in the lowest cost estimates they give when they say they are going to take over anything? With tort reform, there's a whole lot that can be done. The $250K cap here is bulls***, but that's not the point. 3. You don't think I know? You act like I haven't been there (there right now). Guess what? I was smart enough to save. I didn't live beyond my means - I didn't have the government telling me through FHA programs that one Barneys Frank kept propping up until it fell through the s***ter, literally that it was ok to buy twice the house that I could have. You really honestly avoided my question. The very same people who want to create this "redistribution of wealth" scenario as Saul Alinksy and others advocate (now propogated by our president) - the "safety net" doesn't really apply to them - they honestly understand that it takes individual effort to get to where they are - and they are trying to take that away in some cases. As I've said other times - please - just hand me 50% of your paycheck. I need it more then you. Is that a fair statement (I'll answer for you - hell no...) - so what's wrong with my statement (this is a test... )?

So instead of "over testing", let's just deny people the care straightaway because it's not medically necessary - as determined by our government. Screw the middle ground, eh, eh? EH? Obviously, government handling everything in our lives is the only answer. I have a question. Why is it that you hear from liberals, like our friend that just got nominated, that it takes hard work and courage to get ahead in life? I mean, shouldn't these people have made it because of medicare (government health care), welfare (government assistance for the "downtrodden"), social security (since those funds provide everything we need in life, just ask our government)... I mean, if all these government programs are so damn wonderful, why don't the people running our country come from that very mold that the Democrat Party wants us to live in?

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:31 PM) Makes freed blacks full citizens, equal protection clause, due process, one of the Reconstruction amendments, etc, I know the 14th amendment. I don't know where you're going with this though. You seem to be arguing something completely different from what I am. It explains why liberal judicial folks think that they can interpret laws by "living and breathing" versus what the constitution really says. They bastardize that amendment, among others. I'll try to explain - but I'm going out of town so I may not get the chance.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) That's actually Nixon's. Woot! I drove the Dems to a suicide in their own thread! Seriously, that smilie is just funny.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ May 27, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) I agree with you about those firefighters. Many of those programs are problematic and need to be addressed. There was nobody more qualified than Sotomayor for the job though. She has already been appointed, confirmed, promoted, and confirmed over a 17 year span on the federal bench. I don't think any more qualified white males got screwed over by her nomination. But we'll never know because they weren't even considered for the job.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) brb going to shoot self in face Where's the smilie? We need that beauty in here.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) Yes. Thank you. You look at something that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, different people will interpret it in different ways. That's why there are 9 justices FFS. Go read the 14th amendment. Seriously. And I'll tell you why later if I get the chance. I have to go.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Dude. You're doing it right now. I don't like the bastardization of the cloture vote. The only way to make it go away is to use it against them because like I said, when they do it, it's "ok". As I said, liberals are ALWAYS "right". That's all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) Your legendary saying is "It's always different". My response in this case is that it is different, and I can demonstrate why with this graph. The reality is...the Filibuster was once a rarely used tool that required the person filibustering to actually stay on the floor of the Senate. Gradually over the years, the rules have changed, and now it is the group that wants to stop the filibuster that actually needs to keep its people on the floor of the Senate; in other words, you can filibuster a bill without filibustering it. This has basically changed the requirement for getting a bill out of the Senate from 50 votes to 60 votes...and in the last Congress, starting in 2007, it was essentially applied to everything that didn't involve naming a post office. It's actually different; the use of it has changed. Sure - and I don't care because it's not explicit - EXCEPT with judicial nominees. It's VERY explicit then. But again, it's always ok when Democrats do whatever the hell they want and those same actions are motherf***ing evil when the GOP does it.