kapkomet

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 02:36 PM) Except he is not. He was against the war in Iraq before that position was vogue, and that position was incredibly risky (politically speaking). So that's the only thing that he's "different" on? He's no different.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 09:05 AM) And seriously hurting ours in the process, no? The difference is, we can take it (even though it hurts in the short term), they can't.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 07:44 AM) I'd expect a lot of the crap we import from China to start shifting back to US manufactured goods. Transportation costs are soaring. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Its all a part of the master plan... We are taking down China's economy, and we are all witnesses to it. I wonder if we caught China at our game, greed. We gave them a taste, and now we're driving them right out of the market. However, they still hold all of our debt - so I wonder how that all balances out?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 06:57 AM) Usually a tasty one. moooooooo-yah.

Publicity.Stunt. Tootles.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) I'm not trying to be a troll or anything. Just have a strong anti-gun belief system. There's really nothing else I can add to that. I respect all of your opinions on the matter. Troll. Actually, BS, you're being very respectful in your disagreements, and it's appreciated.

QUOTE (mreye @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) You get there your way, we'll get there ours. You goof.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 07:36 AM) Bouwmeester's a guy who I would HEAVILY target. He's a #1 d-man even though his best is in front of him. But Florida would ask for the farm for him. I'd imagine at least 2 stud prospects and a 2009 first rounder as a minimum. Something like Beach + Skille for example. Unless he's a RFA, and you signed him to an offer sheet, then you'd have to give up 3 future 1st rounders or something. Bouwmeester might be worth it. This guy is a #1 defenseman in this league, if he's brought in the right system.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) It makes sense. It takes all power away from the unions, and it would pretty much mean Ford could do the samething. I've been waiting for one of the "big 2" to jump in. And GM is more likely then Ford at this point because of the other investments GM has.

QUOTE (mreye @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) Understood. Al Gore, Sr was one of those Democrats blocking civil rights laws in the 60s. His son is still a Democrat. I just disagree that the parties are all that different now. To me, welfare is slavery and that's exacly where many Democratic lawmakers want to keep blacks and the poor. It's just in a different package now: Dem: "Let us help you (Since you're not good enough to help yourself)." GOP: "You're good enough. Pick your damned self up!" I agree with the GOP approach - it's means less government. Now, if we could only find some Republicans with some backbone to really implement it... QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) ^^That's where Kap and me started going. There is still the perception, for whatever reason, that Democrats are the party "for" black people. As far as the attitudes towards social classes and effectiveness of policies and whatnot that's another argument. You guys got to exactly what I was trying to say.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 08:55 AM) All of that completely changed after the Civil Rights movement. The people who would be Republicans for racial reasons are now Democrats and vice versa. The Southern Democrats that supported the KKK and blocked the amendments etc. moved over to the Republican party and that has yet to change. That's where a lot of it started, and boy, that makes me really sad. However, I think that the entitlements offered by Democrats in general, and the fighting of those by Republicans - (and here's the important part) combined with the Democrat's policies of "you are entitiled to those entitlements from your government" gives the impression that Democrats are the better party for the little guy. In reality, I think neither party cares, but the message over the last 30-50 years has been exactly that, and minorites in this country buy that line more often then their "majority" counterparts.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 07:45 AM) Relevant to whom? The Republican party is 95% white. If it mattered to minorities then why aren't they jumping over to the GOP? You really want me to get into that? I call it brainwashing, but that's neither here nor there. Now, on that point, I don't think it's "racial" but I think it's "policy".

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) Excellent reasons to vote republican in the year 2008. For a party who likes to play the race card, it's pretty relevant even today. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Ozzie had the quote about how they don't hit pitchers they haven't seen well. To me, that is a very basic scouting issue -or- they have some pretty pigheaded players that don't want to listen to scouting reports, or both. It's been a problem since I can't remember when with this team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Can't tell if you catch the reference or not, but if you don't, for shame. Um... yea, hence my response...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) I hear those things are awfully loud. WHaaaaa?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) You can't have the federal government spend 40x as much money on roads as it does on rails and be surprised that people use the heavily subsidized roads while the nearly unsubsidized rails fail to attract passengers. And that's the problem, IMO. There's no money or incentive to get alternative sources of infastructure in place. It's sort of like oil and alternative energy. No incentive to change.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) This type of system would be for longer distance travel such as DC to NY or Chicago to St Louis/Cleveland. It wouldn't replace the El or Metra. I just had a conversation a couple of days ago - for all the money talking about infastructure, they need to get on somehting like this. Japan does it, Europe (sort of ) does it... it's time for us to do it. And I don't buy the whole "it's too big" over here crap. Get this done.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) Like I said, it doesn't have to be complicated. AMT is complicated. Doing two very simple things - removing the SS cap and banning use of SS funds for general purposes - would be a clean, complete way to address the problem (at least for the next 75 years). It also provides something that this government is allergic to - SUNLIGHT. The deficit numbers will be closer to reality, if Congress isn't allowed to raid SS. Good post and good points to all of you that talk about raiding SS for the general fund. THAT is the problem, but, if they remove the caps, and some of that additional revenue goes toward the general fund, fine. I don't even care what they call it. Most of us will never even reach those caps anyway.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) There aren't many tax increases I'd support. In fact, I can think of only two that have been suggested that I'd be OK with. One of them is lifting the SS cap, because the tax is so regressive as it currently stands. That said, I cannot figure out why he's using a lateral on this. If you want to lift or remove the cap, then do that. Why move it over to the payroll tax, apply it to a different level, and raise the rate? Just a bizarre strategy if you ask me. I agree that this is one of the very few "tax increases" I'd be ok with. The interesting thing is that the whole point of the caps is that "wealthy people" would tend to invest that money after the cap. Ironic, if you think about it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) Or at least one that is constitutional... Exactly.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) The media charged everyone up over Katrina, and abandoned the story in Iowa. Its pretty amazing. We know why, we don't have to spell it out, do we? And, it's pathetic.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) If you hear only, Get out of Iraq, period, no matter what, right now, it's because you're only listening to the extremist House members, and you are wrong in assuming that to be a generally held Dem view. Obama certainly hasn't been saying that we should pull out immediately, no matter the consequences. Opposition to starting the war does not at all imply opposition to leaving Iraq a self-sufficient place given what's already been done and undone. The telecom immunity thing obviously was a capitulation on Obama's part, and noone's arguing that. But, first, let's not call any of this "corruption", as that's a much stronger word. It was a political calculation. And, no, this one thing does not make Obama worse than McCain, who has in such calculations abandoned everything that once made him compelling, nor Bush, who actually swore to uphold laws, then asked his AG to give him ways to ignore them. If you're arguing against the Obama personality cult, then make that clear. I'm well aware that he's just a politician, not to be trusted more than any other, and I dislike the rock start thing that's happened. But to claim that this one act makes the Dem party worse than what the Republican party has proved to be over the last many years is ridiculous. You're right, "corruption" is too strong of a word, although, at it's heart, these people (without regard to party) are the most corrupt bunch of imbeciles ever. Re: your point on a "generally held view" about Iraq, boy, if you listen to the MSM long enough, they sure want you to think that the "extreme left" is in control of the party and that's why the soundbytes get played over and over - then, Obama will all of a sudden decide we need to "stay the course" (aka a slow draw down) in Iraq... whoops... but that's not the soundbytes we get quite often. I've said over and over that I don't like McCain, and many of the reasons are for the exact point you bring forth in your post... we're on the same page there. And finally, at least YOU are clear that Obama is just like the rest of them. Bravo - seriously - I'm glad you at least see it. A lot of people, on this board included, like to think the guy's perfect. He's not, and he's just like the rest of them, except the man is eloquent and can deliver a speech. Big deal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 08:19 AM) I disagree on some things you are saying kapkomet. I think in a lot of ways support of the democrat is support in a Middle East foreign policy with no escalation unless a change in circumstances. With McCain there is a worry there will be another Iraq opened up on a country, with the democrats there is an assurance that these policies won't continue under them. On FISA, the scary thing was that they weren't supporting it that gung ho. There is no reason they should've compromised, I think they just pushed the issue to put the GOP in another scandal, but I don't think many democrats disagreed. They were acquiescing to the very influential left-wing bloggers like dailyKOS imo. For months, behind the scenes, Hoyer has been making this compromise. It's clear the dem's never had any interest in this. BUt, yes, I agree for the most part. They back down way to easily for fear of being 'soft'. I can understand, it's been their achilles heel for 25 years, but, I don't care for it. But, my support for Sen. Feingold couldn't have been higher. If he ever falls my political optimism will fall with him. Iraq, no doubt, is a cluster****. And yet, I don't think McCain is that stupid to escalate the issue (i.e. attacking Iran). I think Isreal is going to do it for us, but that's another debate entirely. Status quo in Iraq isn't acceptable, yet, in some ways it is, if you can get those people to take control of their own stuff. Do a slow drawdown, and let them take control of their destiny. But, the Democrats have ALWAYS been in this end game, they agree with it, yet the manufactured soundbytes are far from that policy (we need to get out, and I will do it as president!!!!) is ALWAYS what the Republicans have put forth anyway. So, it's a steaming pile of poop window dressing that the Dems want you to believe, when in reality, their policy is not that different then the Republican's policy.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 07:29 AM) Wrong. There's always been vacillation on Iraq, with the tacit acknowledgment that even a Democratic Congress could not in good conscience simply abandon the country to chaos. An implicit precondition of leaving Iraq has always been relative stability. As long as the commander-in-chief (not a Democrat) is unable to achieve that goal, Congress obviously has it's hands tied. If you believed there was a Democratic consensus that we will pull out yesterday, no matter the consequences, that's your misreading. What this is on Obama's part is a mix of an effort to avoid appearing weak on security and (more importantly) an opportunity to show that he's this kind of everyone-at-the-table, I'll-meet-you-halfway kind of guy. It's pure politics -- kind of like how McCain shelved every true belief he's ever had to become a Bush shill so that he could become the nominee. It's not good, but understandable, and a good deal less despicable. Between the party that has made too many compromises, and the party that compromises my country's fundamental laws and notions of decency, I actually don't have a hard time choosing, thank you very much. I'm not a hardened Dem, nor do I lack doubts about Obama. But the last eight years made my choice VERY easy. I don't think I'm wrong. What is it that we hear all the time? Get out of Iraq. No compromises on issues like this telecomm law. Etc. etc. etc. Then, when it's really quiet, all of a sudden, these guys fold like a wounded tent in a hurricane. The Democrats are duping the "anti-war" crowd something fierce, promising something that they never have an intention of keeping. Now, I have always said that both parties do it. I just happen to think that the Dems are quite a bit more backhanded about it, or that is to say, Republicans are more in your face about being corrupt, while the Dems are just sneaky about it.