kapkomet

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) Why even tax us? Borrow the damn money, someone else will pay.

- not really, I don't have time... but I did read it this morning for sure.

Nice avatar, BTW. I've really changed my mind about Freddy. He's just as bad, if not worse, then these idiots that are already running.

The WSJ had it at $101.70 (the inflation adjusted high) in an article I read this morning.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 09:59 PM) pfft, all the candidates do. it will just be an issue of the MSM using restraint when reporting. they will definitely be pushing for Clinton, but if they're smart they won't go overboard. They won't be able to help themselves - they have an orgasm every time they think of "Hillary Clinton - President".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 02:59 AM) Those that think they should be in session more, is it because you want more government? What is it that hasn't been done, and why is it better that they be in session instead of somewhere else? I find it interesting that the small government advocates are the same ones advocating for more hours in Washington for the representatives. I am seriously not trying to bait anyone, I'm interested. Have you ever heard of the phrase give an inch, take a mile? I feel like that every time I read one of your rebuttals to posts.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 08:36 PM) Many of us didn't think Kerry Wood be such a jerk off. There's a lot of puns for Carrie Wood...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) IMNSHO Rudy is the biggest sleaze ball, slime bucket that has declared and Hillary isn't exactly oozing integrity. And both IMNSHO () are the face of modern US politics today. Again,

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 09:02 PM) God help us all. Tell me about it.

It's going to be a long offseason, folks. KW is behind the times...

And the REAL winners of this? The Texas Rangers. Tom Hicks FINALLY gets Payrod off the books and this was the last year for Chan (HOOooooo - see ya later) Park's money as well. All of a sudden, Texas has some money to play with.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) My buddy Roy Owes Walt $40 bucks. That's a stretch.

And ultimately, this is why she will win - and so will Guiliani. They are the only two people people have heard of.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) And if a Dem is in the White House and the war goes well it will be because of the stuff that Bush did, and if it goes poorly, it will be the Dem's fault and it wouldn't have happened if a Rep was elected. No it won't. It will be because they finally (who ever it is) will do SOMETHING instead of just "waiting" for better results. That's the problem with the current ass-monkey in the White House. History will prove him right on the "war on terror" in the long run, but he has totally mismanaged the process.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) This is one of the classic argumentative styles I keep seeing from the GOP hardliners... ask what the alternative is to the current plan (on Iraq or anything else), but add a caveat - the only valid answer is a plan OTHER THAN the one I know you are most likely to choose.... then, no matter what their answer is, they are wrong. If they choose the one that was excepted out, then its "see, you have no answer!". This is exactly the same as a Democrat asking you, "What is your plan for Iraq, other than staying there?" Its an accusatory statement disguised as a question. The truth of the matter is unless a Democrat is in the White House, they CANNOT show that the war can be "won" unless THEY (the Democrats) do it, because otherwise they lose face on everything they have told us in the last two years. Then, they can basque in all the glory of the "military victory" and show they're "tough" in protecting us from all that ails us. It's pretty clever, actually to say what they are and then turn around and "fix things" when they get in (more) power.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) And just like the people who pick an active hurricane year and shout "global warming!", this is an utterly useless argument for or against CCGW. CCGW may cause more hurricanes, but we won't know it until there have been a few decades' worth of data to analyze. I mean, unless we suddenly start getting 40 or 50 named storms a year, then maybe it will take just a few years. But barring that, you cannot look at something with such a small N value as hurricanes in a given year, and take anything from it. So exactly why did we get the barrage of GLOBAL WARMING stories after the 2005 hurricane season? It seems to me the loudness factor of that bit of data was just a wee bit higher on the decibel level then the lack of hurricanes the last two years. I wonder why that is?

ok, that's actually funny.

This thread is good. Since I suck with names and would have to go to the soxtalk Dean, Dizzy is leaving the thread.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) What do you think I'm doing right now? Posting crap in the filibuster?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 07:13 PM) So, Mukasey refuses to say that "waterboarding" (simulated drowning) is torture in the second day of his confirmation hearings. What was a path to a smooth confirmation, got thrown off the tracks with that one answer. The judicial committee is drawing a line in the sand. Call waterboarding torture, or no confirmation. http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/democrat...rney_gener.html I'm sorry but that is absolutely f***ing ridiculous.

They all suck!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 07:10 PM) It's different this time too. You know why? Because no one likes Biden anyway. Fine, but it is handled differently because of party affiliation, liked or not.

It's always ALWAYS different. A (D) says it, it's passed over, a ® says it, it's front page NYT specials.

It might be DVD night tonight. I haven't watched the games since they happened.

This one is absolutely ridiculous. What a bunch of chumps.