kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 14, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) Out of curiosity would you hate the possibility of Obama getting elected any less? Possibly, if Powell can convince him that there are conservative values that need to be held - but honestly, I don't see that happening. And that's one of the bigger reasons why Powell wouldn't accept. I don't think he wants a bloated government as big as RSO wants it to be.

If RSO picks Powell and he accepts, GAME.SET.MATCH, period. They might as well cancel the GOP convention, and I'm being serious.

You know, at this point, it wouldn't surprise me, but then - he said "never" because IIRC his family thinks he'd be dead... (which is pathetic about our country).

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 11:37 PM) you can't argue with that, so you deal with the d-bags. Still, I have a feeling this team doesn't make the playoffs with Savard as coach, and although were taking in more money... i'm not thrilled with Tallon's handling of the cap... after awhile, the buzz will die down and they'll be expected to WIN, not just put games on television. I think Rocky, and McDonough understand this... which is satisfying. There's more that's going to be done... Tallon's just biding his time.

Age shouldn't be an issue here... just my opinion.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 14, 2008 -> 07:14 AM) Not typical? I've been engaged twice (only married once), and in both instances, there were long discussions about marriage beforehand. Well... it sometimes is all about the raging hormones and then it's supposed to be marriage after that. Hopefully not, but sometimes people make that decision based on things they shouldn't. Marriage is not what young people think it is, that's for sure. Damn, I'm old.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 14, 2008 -> 07:12 AM) 1994. Started being a rally cry for the rebuilt, socially focused GOP that had its mini-revolution in '94. But actually, that's been subsiding significantly the last few years. They can thank W for that, in great part. The social conservatives don't have the kind of power they had for that 10 year stretch. Now, conservative is starting to look like a bad word in more circles. The funny thing is (believe it or not) I tend to be more of a "social liberal" or that is to say "libertarian", which all the social conservatives go apepoopoo over. My stance on that is people can do what they want and the government needs to stay out of it. That drives social conservatives batty because they want government to dictate, say marriage, and I think it should be left alone and the states deal with it.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 10:42 PM) So when did liberal turn into a bad word? When "liberal" means "I want a nanny state". That's when. Not all "liberals" do, but a lot of them do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) Its always different. Why the green? It is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) Fine. That shouldn't prevent anything. I was just passing on what I heard, I didn't mean that as some sort of position.

I knew someone was going to bring up this comparison sooner rather then later. I think it's totally different, but you libs out there of course will view it one and the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) I'll ask the same question...why is some event in the Ukraine or some restive minority along the Ukraine/Russian border worth a full scale war between the U.S. and the Russians? We've seen political instability in that country as recently as 3 years ago, in no small part driven by Russia and a large minority of the people in that country that are pro-Russian. Before bringing that nation in to NATO I want to know why they're worth having me fighting and dying for them. Why don't we all just become socialist or even better, communist forms of government, and all become robots, no freedoms, etc. Yes, Balta, this is another one of those Kaperbole ™ posts that are over the top, but at the same time, isn't defending freedom of choices rather then government autocracy worth anything?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 02:06 PM) That won't necessarily last. I'd rather see this country be out in front of the technology, than behind it. Much better for us economically. I agree, but then I heard on the news at lunch time saying that even with $4 gas, Americans don't want little cars, they want hybrids with some room.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) If China and India are smarter and more forward-thinking than we were, they won't all go rushing out to buy gas-guzzling cars and they will have a better transportation infrastructure that isn't so dependent on oil. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) This is why it is so critical that we push alternatives here, NOW. If we don't, we are basically telling other countries, go ahead... be market leaders... we dont' need growing industries and new jobs. Timing is critical here for all sorts of reasons. There have already been studies showing that they're buying the gaz guzzlers while we're over here trying to downsize everything.

I generally agree, but I can't help but wonder if China's demand will go down.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government. Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “raise and support” military forces to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Where does Congress get the power to “raise and support” our military? Federal dollars. Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation’s defense. No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) Companies create more revenues for the US tax base than anyone or anything else in the country. They must be the greatest patriots ever! By the way dodging taxes has a connotation of being illegal. If there is an illegal activity here, that is very different than following existing laws. If you have a problem with the laws, you need to start calling the Congress traitors, because they are the ones who wrote the tax code. Thank you. Maybe you ought to think a little before you type... because everyone works for some type of structure that is by your definition, a traitor. There's a difference between tax avoidance (within the law) and tax dodging (not within the law).

Go Canada. But I have an interest in Canadian baseball for a couple of reasons.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 11:08 AM) I would argue it's very different than what's in place today. It dramatically increases funding to alternative energy, increases taxes on oil, makes off-shore drilling "states rights", sets a goal of 85% non-oil based cars in 20 year (i think it was 20 years). It's a pretty drastic in my opinion. Alternative funding on alternative energy. Ok. Makes off shore drilling "states rights" in what, 4 states? And they still have a moritorium within 50 miles of the coast line, IIRC, so effectively, that leaves us where we are today. Big deal. It's all makeup on a pig. Taxes on oil. YEA! We need THAT right now. That tells me that RSO doesn't give a s*** about the average American. And goals don't mean s***. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and GWB all had goals of getting us off of oil. It hasn't happened yet.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) Politics at it's finest.... Party First When you read what's been leaked of the "compromise", it's no different then what's in place today, so let's (not you personally, the people who are trying to make it sound like this is some "breakthrough") just stop with the theatrics, huh?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) Got it. I suppose that makes his campaign the RSO Speedwagon. Maybe McCain should use a little Oingo Boingo for his campaign's theme music... Dead Man's Party? Nice, on both lines.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that the GOP is attacking Obama for having too many people liking him? Should he be trying to get as few people to like him as possible? WHO likes him? Europe? People who think they're going to get something out of it (when they won't... in fact, I would argue the people he's going to "help" will end up being worse off, but that's just me, I guess). And to NSS's point, McCain is ABSOLUTELY running a terrible campaign. But it's about what I expected from someone like him, which is why I don't like him.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 09:25 AM) THe GOP often forgets about oh say... Reagan and the Governator. It's ok for THEM to be a celebrity with little experience (especially in Arnold's case), but naaa.... not Obama. Arnold is a freaking idiot. He is not a GOP guy at all, so please don't label him in THEM. And I already said the difference between RSO and Reagan.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:53 AM) At least you know what Obama stands for, by and large, if you actually take the time to look. His positions have for the most part been pretty consistent. I have no idea what McCain stands for because he only seems to be against what Obama is for. Even if that contradicts what he stood for two weeks earlier. I know that you haven't read a lot, but I've long said McCain sucks donkey balls. I can't stand the man. He better get his head out of his ass, but quick.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Again, you are being melodramatic. After what many historians consider the worst president in history you think Obama would destroy the country? Come on now. Really? He's the worst president in history, why? Iraq? That's laughable. The environment? Really? How bad will Obama screw things? -National Healthcare -Windfall Taxation -Extreme modification on free trade agreements -Taxation as a whole - if he wants to tax pure profits of anyone in the private sector, where does it stop? "fair share" is pretty extreme and objective at best -Environmental agreements that don't mean a damn thing but in essence tax our corporations again and put us on an uneven playing field - I'm all for it if the rest of the world is bound to the same thing -whatever else is deemed necessary to be taken over by the government, since the private sector is too stupid to do it on their own (GIMME CONTROL, BABY!) That's just a start, but I'm sure that all these issues, RSO is "right on" from your point of view. He'll have the power to do things that many before him couldn't do.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:35 AM) I think you're being a little melodramatic about how out country will turn out with an Obama presidency. I was saying the same things in '04 about a 2nd Bush term. Granted things may happen that you may not be a fan of, not unlike what liberals just went through with GWB, but the world will continue to spin on its axis and the sun will still rise from the east. When you look at what this man wants to do, there's fundamental shifts away from what makes us a better country. There's going to be little in the way of ingenuity or wanting to do things better from a private sector standpoint, if he gets purely what he wants (and they never do, but I am just saying it will be much easier for RSO then anyone else in modern history if he gets the super majority). We might as well all join the government and work for them, which is exactly what they want because then they're in control.