kapkomet

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:08 AM) No -- I'd really like to see this, actually. The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all? But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait. No, that's not what I said. I said the RHETORIC is the same. Read what I'm writing, please, before you just all out assail what I'm saying.

And where's the definition of opinion? You missed part of your assignment.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 11:54 PM) But but but this is creeping socialism! Let these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps with their rugged conservative individualism! Horatio Alger didn't need no goshdarn big gub'mint to help him on his way. If they didn't have enough money for college, they must have just been f***ing lazy. How dare Bush tarnish the Reagan legacy by continuing to prop up the Department of Education instead of abolishing it? /ends rabid right wing authoritarian hate. Finally, an increase in Pell grant funding. Now just doing some work to get rid of the insanity of NCLB and things will be even better. This program is different then the government telling me when and where to go see a doctor, for example. It is like subsidies to farmers, in a way - it subsidizes loans, etc. so that private industry doesn't rape you. To me, that's a big difference then taking over something as a whole like they want to do with everything else.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 12:30 AM) Man, you sure "could" do a lot of things. I keep thinking I have to actually back up what I say, but your method is way more efficient. Their quotes are all over the place. I'm just lazy, that's all. Come on, people. You know what they say, almost once or twice a week an definitely every Sunday morning on the liberal talk shows on ABC and NBC. Thanks for cherry picking that one sentance out of my whole post.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 11:52 PM) Uh, Suskind's One Percent Doctrine directly quoted the deputy director of the CIA who never denied making the statement and the agency never denied the analysis. Beyond that, it makes a ton of sense that for radical Islamic purposes purposes Fundamentalist Christian who slips up and uses word "Crusade" > Weak Bostonian with Herman Munster face who talks about sensitivity Of course McLaughlin has a huge axe to grind. Any analysis, after all, which disagrees with our preconceived notions is obviously false and created falsely. Osama bin Laden wants to drink tea with Nancy Pelosi and Walter Mondale. That's not really the issue here, though, and this isnt' a genuine debate or discussion about al-Qaeda. You said I made something up and I said, No, actually, sorry. That's enough for me as you clearly have not an agenda but a mind that has decided everything for itself and is in no need of looking further into a subject. I have just as much contempt for bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as anyone here. I was, and am, as big a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning as anyone here. I simply object to claims which I think are demonstrably false about "Democrats = al-Qaeda" or "Iraq = going well." Neither has a basis in reality. To stick to the issue - I've never said that Democrats = Al Queda (at least I don't think I did), but I did say that the RHETORIC of the Democrats = Al Queda RHETORIC. If I didn't say it that way, it should have been said that way. And there's very little that is NOT true about that statement. Again, I could come up with a lot of the transcript and put them side by side as to what was said YESTERDAY by Harry Reid and Schucky Schumer. I about wanted to vomit when I heard what they had to say to the media darlings yesterday. It disgusts me the rhetoric that they use - and it is very similiar in nature to what Binne had to say. I've said this time and time and time and time again. BushCo has handled this TERRIBLY since about week 6 over there. It's been a total waste of effort by our guys because the leadership at the top is too worried about scoring political points then actually taking care of the problem over there. THAT's all political, and it sickens me that the Re-pube-lican leadership won't grow a pair and get things done right over there. I can criticize things beyond party lines. Most around here can't... other then to say that the Democrats have "failed them" because they "gave in" to Bush on the last go-round of funding and other "concessions". What those "concessions" tell me is there is a LOT more behind the scenes then we really know and the camera whoring is nothing but a power trip to get elected by BOTH sides, and in a time of war, that disgusts me on both sides of the equation. I think the Democrats are MORE dangerous because they are clearly on the wrong side of the equation by simply giving up the fight in Iraq at this juncture... and even Binnie more or less confirmed that with certain phrases in his "speech".

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) You accuse me of being too young to "get it." Listen: I fully understand what al-Qaeda, war and terrorism are, thanks. I watched the 9/11 attacks same as you, maybe deeper as I was at the hospital when the second plane hit live. There are few people here as willing to concede that I don't know everything because I am young, but I flatly refuse to accept any insinuation that because I'm young you can teach me about terrorism. I know I know far more about al-Qaeda's history, leadership, operations, goals, aims, desires than you. I know I know far more about the Muslim religion than you do. I know that because of the way you talk about this, the way you would accuse with nothing but a shallow article as evidence the Democratic Party and all of its inhabitants of "sharing" bin Laden's talking points when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. If you had a clue what al-Qaeda is you'd understand it is above and beyond political ideologies and it doesn't have anything more than a passing resemblance to American political ideology. They come from a very different world and have very different goals than anyone here in America who is not an Islamic theocrat bent on the caliphate. And that's about the end of that. Anybody who would accuse bin Laden of being a shill for the Democratic Party or worse loses all credibility on the subject. And that's about as far as this conversation will go because you either don't know what you're talking about or you simply don't care to give it genuine, serious thought and conversation. You approach all political news like a reactionary. Everything is "f***ING DEMOCRATS!11111111111111" or "/GREEN f***ING REPUBLICANS, SAYS THE DEMOCRATS!" and "bin LADEN LOVES SCHUMER!" It's cute to watch right-wingers dance about accusing Democrats of being like bin Laden and laughing about it but it's so wrong on moral, political and intellectual levels. Who cares about that, though? PS: al-Qaeda =/ Iraq. The truth of the matter is it runs way deeper then a political ideology, but it puts your little panties in a dander when I compare American political ideology to that of Al Queda, because it's partially true. Now about the personal s*** you are throwing my way. Don't you DARE tell me what I know and what I don't know. You better get that straight away before I flame bomb your ass for public consumption. Do you get that? You have no f***ING clue what I know and what I don't, and what I study and what I don't, or what I really think and what I don't... so please just stop while you're ahead. I STRONGLY suggest you drop the personal rhetoric or it's going to get really rough. I'm saying that as being nice, this time. You always think you have to have the last word, I suggest on this, you drop it and don't. If you want to stick to the issues, fine. I didn't start this, but I can sure keep it going. I'll drop it, but I better not see anything else personal about you telling me what I think and what I don't... because this board is CLEARLY not representative of what I do really think or know, and I'll leave it at that.

Go get Webster's and look up opinion and fact, and get back to me.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 02:16 AM) Yeah, but it's such a sleazy thing to say. There are plenty of right-wing terror groups that everything you believe in falls into but you have absolutely no interest in genuine political discourse. You believe what you believe and everything else is a sarcastic crack. That's okay, though. Good for you. Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over. JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER. Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin. To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

That's about the only thing in there that wasn't. If I get some time this weekend, we'll play compare the quotes game.

Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. HOW SAD IS THAT?

So we're living in the crusades again? Please. We're not killing people because of their culture.

Yea, I gotta say a call out from Binnie is not exactly what you want to be known for... so if Noam's views are embraced by Binnie, what exactly does that say?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) Out of curiousity, has anyone stopped to wonder why this thread is up over 200 posts or so, and there isn't a thread at all on Hsu? It has to do with Tex's fascination with dicks.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) yeah, I'm not amused. I know you're trying to be funny, but no, especially since I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There are serious questions about our scouts that need to be answered. Was whoever it was that told KW Brian Anderson would be suitable as a replacement for Rowand/Young fired? Are they still advising him? Did KW KNOW that Masset wasn't "a tick" beneath Jenks and that Floyd's fastball loses x MPH in the stretch? That he has no control? It's all very disturbing stuff. Do we need new radar guns? Is that the problem? Why do all our pitchers lose velocity after a year or two here? What does Cooper get paid for? What is Kenny seeing and hearing from the scouts? GP, it's a little over the top to say "how many ways have we been LIED to"... and that starts getting into the conspiracy stuff. And frankly, it gets beyond old. It's so kewl to sit here and rag on this team, because frankly, they suck. But to sit there and say that they are deliberately trying to hide crap from the fans, media, etc. is juuuuust a little misguided, to put it nicely. They were wrong on some things. Fine. But I certainly don't think it was "delibrate".

That was my first thought.

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS CONSPIRACY! SPORTS, POLITICS, FAMILY, EVERYTHING! /carry on.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) How many Christian countries are sitting on top of seas of oil? Wow. It's ALL about oil and religion, and NOTHING else. And you all say I wear a tin foil hat.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) At least from what I saw, I think Floyd at least comes up there with better stuff. If Masset was throwing mid 90's as advertised, I'd change that, but they're roughly the same on velocity and Floyd seemed to have much better off speed stuff. Wow, then I think I've been incorrect on my interpretations of Massett. Interesting.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) Yea, cause RELIGION is exactly why we're bombing countries. Now, since Islamofacists choose to make it "religion" as to why we're bombing them, then you're right with their line of thinking. /waits for the expected result of what's coming next. We send money to Egypt. Jordan. Saudi Arabia. Oman. Anywhere else? So... anyway...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) Kap, when was the last time we bombed a Christian country? Yea, cause RELIGION is exactly why we're bombing countries. Now, since Islamofacists choose to make it "religion" as to why we're bombing them, then you're right with their line of thinking. /waits for the expected result of what's coming next.

Massett seems like he's another Gavin Floyd (a headcase), or am I reading into that wrong?

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:08 PM) And from the other point of view, it seems like a lot of people will never, ever blame Ozzie for anything. I'm just shocked that people don't expect this type of polar opposite debate on a sports message board. Oh, personally, I blame him for a lot of silly moves... but I'm not running around nitpicking every freakin' thing ad naseum calling for him to be fired, either.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts. And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later? Which is exactly why we don't need governmental health care, and other huge expenditures in the government's hands.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Remember Kap, socially I am conservative, and I favor only spending what we collect in taxes (that use to be a GOP bedrock position), I am also in favor of restrictions on abortions and love my guns. So it is easy to see why many Dem candidates will be left of me. I also look at GOP candidates and they require me to love them exclusively and dislike the controls our Constitution places on them (Judges, Free Press). I'd also have to acknowledge the inherited superiority of old, white, guys. I'd have to love the death penalty, embrace killing people whose culture isn't like our own. So I am lost somewhere in between. . . Oh come on.

It amazes me the continued insight of so many things AFTER THE FACT around here.