kapkomet

What about the argument that global warming is a manipulation of what's really (not) happening?

ok, we'll try the game thead, but remember any time tonight this can go down due to the server upgrade. '

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) Exactly. After all, he is a uniter, not a divider. He sure is. Especially on immigration.

Apples and oranges. Executive order can't quite be used for what you're suggesting except in small insignificant areas.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 05:37 PM) All of these investigations and subpeonas are just backlash for Congress letting Bush do whatever he wanted for 6 years without any oversight or possible reprocussions. If you swing the pendulum hard one way, it'll swing back just as hard the other. If that were true, we would have social security reform, new immigration laws, and I could go on and on... put the bulls*** rhetoric away.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was, she did NOT do what you say. She chose to fire (or worked on firing) only the politically select few. You may feel that's OK, but its not like she was being all honorable or anything - it was a purely political action. My point has been and will continue to be, NONE of them are honorable. I just choose to defend the Bushies because they continue to get villified over every single breath they take. Some of it is deserved (you've seen me say that a lot) but most of it is not.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) For the record, while I think Bush has been a horrible President, I don't believe I have seen cause for impeachment. He has skirted the line, but I simply don't see any per se illegal acts for a foundation of said case. I can (mostly) respect that. I know your thoughts on Iraq - but it's something again that he can't explain his way out of a wet paper sack where this issue is concerned. It's sort of like the little snippets I have seen today from his press conference. He's so freaking lame when it comes to explaining why we're there and what we need to accomplish. That's 98% of the problem. QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) he had a gut feeling? Nice. Because she didn't fire them. She also honestly was right in the first place - if you're going to do it, poop can the whole bunch. And beyond that, again, these people work at the will of the president. I guess that's illegal now.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) I find it ironic that conservative's are always yapping about "liberal" hollywood and actors sticking there nose in politics. Yet conservatives voted in Ronald Reagan, an actor and now Fred Thompson. I'd love Fred Thompson to be president. I mean america is F'd anyways. Might as well elect someone who finish us off. You don't EVER see any of these "liberals" run for office, do you? It's because they are straw people, at best. Fred Thompson did a lot of stuff before he ever was "an actor". But don't let that get in the way of a good story.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) I like her. She stands up to everyone. You can call her whore all you want but shes still here. That's pretty damn funny.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 01:55 PM) Please provide me a link that states your claim. And don't give me one of your "I don't have time right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" excuses. GMAFB. The current Democrat controlled Congress is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO innocent. Fine. You want links? I'll give you a whole f***ing slew of them over the weekend of the idiocy spouted off by these assbags if I choose to go get them. They hate this guy, and it's pretty obvious.

The current Congress has made it clear that they want to "take down" the administration any way they can. I wouldn't cooperate, either.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) If she knows nothing then why not let her appear? Sounds like there's something to hide. Because it's the principle of it, something Democrats just don't seem to understand.

QUOTE(southsida86 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 03:18 AM) When is this board going to change? I thought it would have been done by now. It should be tonight. Well, tonight we're switching servers, and then we'll switch the site sometime after that. It might slide into the weekend the way we're having to do it.

The last time BushCo used executive priveledge? 2001... for documents related to the Clinton White House. It was right then, and it's right now. I do remember that Congress was pissed off at the time, and Bush was right. You have to protect this area of executive power, whether you like it or not. Plus, all this has been is a grandstanding of public events to serve two things: 1- they are going after BushCo, and 2- piss away any efforts at getting something real done.

All indications are that she had NOTHING to do with any of this crap, yet, she has to go run to Congress to testify. Oh boy. They want to get Bush so bad, they're willing to tesify the world, I think. Hell, even the GOP left the executive priveledge clause alone in the 1990s. Now they won't, after this, but you get the point.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 02:39 AM) Looking at the thread, the most animated posts seem to have come from you. I was just pointing out that Chertoff screwed up, and that his screw up is endemic to the way this administration handles its business. I've seen more stupid s*** coming from the MSM and the "questioners" from the Dept. of HS on this topic then things that make real sense to b**** about.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 01:17 AM) Jason, you need to be like Kenny Williams and blow this thing up for the future! Its time. Retire this old thing, and lets move on to bigger and better things. I think it would be the perfect Soxtalk 5th anniversary gift to be glitch free. Gee, thanks, you dolt. Then again, you have the most to lose, hehe.

I allow for the fact that he should watch what he says. But, I also realize that the question was a vague question "what do you think of the current threat level"... and he just replied without really sitting there being all politically correct. I just think it's a little outrageous to be all outraged.

For Cripes sake... HE GOT ASKED A QUESTION and offered his OPINION when asked what HE (not the government) thought about the threat right now. There's more bulls*** being spilled over this then a cow with a poop blowout.

I must say now is a better time then December 29th. My B-I-L and his fiancee are getting married that weekend. Crazy. Hey, NSS, I heard that the moon landing was staged and used for political gain. Anyway, I digress.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 05:44 PM) I heard the jury's still out on science. Obviously I'm a bit biased here. I do keep general tabs on the big headlines of science, but I sure as hell don't get it from mainstream news. I'll look up source articles or periodically take a gander through one of the "big" journals (science, nature, etc). I admit I'm a science snob. So, I don't really listen to what the current administration says about science, because I'd rather hear from the scientists. I also realize that that not all Americans are educated consumers of science (which has roots in our educational system--but I digress), so I think it's important they have access to an accurate portrayal of current findings but, sadly, naive to expect it from the land of politicians and lobbyists. Speaking of Science--where's Balta been lately? He's off in the never-never land of Northwest Indiana getting married and stuff.

I can list three things directly. I the ongoing war on terror II judicial nominations III tax cuts and economic stimulus I can list things that I think he's dead wrong on too: I immigration II reigning in spending (therefore growing the government) III lack of communication on the war - the message is NOT getting out on what should be accomplished

And if he wouldn't have answered their HYPOTHETICAL question (with what was CLEARLY his opinion, and he even said it was HIS OPINION), or said "no comment", then people would be reading into that as well. To take it one more step, if something happened, and he had "no comment", he'd get crucified for not telling people his thoughts. It doesn't matter. There's never a right answer for anything anyone says that's a part of the Bush administration, no matter how you cut it where most people are concerned, right or wrong.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) What are you all smoking today? I dunno, but PLEASE give me some.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) Your paraphrasing makes it different than what he said. And Soxy had it right - detectives don't take their gut feelings, and tell the whole department to find suspect X based on it and arrest him. No, they find evidence and try to piece things together. When Chertoff tells the public about a threat, he has a responsibility for the consequences of those statements. A serious, difficult responsibility. And to make the country shift its behavior based on his gut feeling is utter B.S. So I am sorry, but in this case, this is not just some poor quote taken out of context. This is another in the line of "leaders" that BUsh has chosen, whose methods would be laughed away from the table in any serious private business enterprise. No plan, no facts, nothing to stand on but "gut feelings". We saw the same B.S. from Brownie and others. Bush picks people who think like him - which is really, really unfortunate. He DID NOT tell "the public about a threat". He was asked a question, and he answered it. Now, everyone is racing around saying "the sky is falling...", when he NEVER SAID THAT. He was asked HIS OPINION, not throwing things out there as "FACT" like you all are trying to say. There's a BIG difference. Again, he may be a moron, but not on this particular subject.