kapkomet

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) Definitely makes up for having to work from 6:30 AM till 10:30 PM yesterday. WUS!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...mI5ODg2OTc3Yzc=

I think Mr. Armitage is covert, seeing as how he's NEVER mentioned.

Thanks. I better go get my passport renewed just in case I need to go to Saskatchewan this summer... And I'm SO there if it happens.

(door slams in background) If this weren't a public forum, I'd close this thread just to get the last word. (sorry, inside joke).

Well, forget the hearings. She's a babe. (and I'm kidding... I don't care about that, but it's funny). This is all a semantics game. People knew who she was, BEFORE the White House people supposedly got involved. Otherwise, there would have been a lot more charges brought up by Fitzgerald.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) That's bulls*** and you know it, and nothing you say will make me change my mind! oh wait... Where's that :fyou smilie?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) USA today is liveblogging the event, and I think that their summary disagrees with how you're presenting it, so I'd like to know your source. I heard it on a news clip on my way back to the office at noon. I think it was ABCNews, one of those quick clippies. I haven't heard it again, but I haven't listened either. On that, I'd actually like to see a transcript, because how I heard it was the way I described it, but I wonder in what order and how the questions were asked... that's one that context change can be very slight. Edit: Maybe it wasn't Waxman - but someone asked her "were you told that you were covert?" and she said no. So maybe my "definition" here is off.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) She is not required to have a passport to go to the Canadian side of the falls until at least January 1. However, a birth certificate would be required otherwise. Is that all of Canada or just Niagra Falls? I thought you had to have a passport no matter what now? Or do you have to have a passport to get back into the states? There's something weird about it and I don't remember what it is.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 06:15 PM) Or, maybe she told the truth. She is under oath after all. What's the proof she lied? Because if she was in Langley, she wasn't "covert". Once you are assigned back to the home office, your "covert" status is no longer in effect. Her argument was "I WAS covert, I AM covert, and I WILL ALWAYS BE covert"... which is nothing more then playing up the C_O_V_E_R_T word and getting it out there as many times as she can for the cameras. It's kind of like Bill Richardson. He'll always be "Ambassador" Richardson, as will her husband always be "Ambassador" Wilson. Again, though, her "agenda" is to use the word C_O_V_E_R_T as many times as she can to make it stick. As a matter of fact, she had to admit that she wasn't "covert" in the hearing as well, because Waxman asked the question, and she had to say "no" to that question.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Dems suck, the poor victim GOP always gets the shaft, the media loves all Democrats, GOP are just too honest, etc., etc., /thread. This is the kind of garbage that made the Gore thread such a mess (well that and my blowing my top). Ignore the factual material at hand, claim the victim's ground for your side, point out that someone else is scuzzy too, and then your opinion is the end of the discussion. How about we point out that Clinton's questionable choices were bad, Bush's were similar and maybe even worse, and none of them are OK nore are any of them the damn victims? And how about the fact that, regardless of party, Gonzalez has stepped all over the Constitution waaaaaaaaaay more than Reno or any other AG I can recall has done (in my adult life, at least). Ok, for once I'll be serious and try to not "fan the flames" with rhetoric. I think I try that in about 1 out of 100 posts in the filibuster. (OOPS, DAMN! My secret's out!!!). I agree with your general sentiment, and you're one of the posters who I do see that at least tries to see both sides of an argument. I've said before (although sometimes hard to see because of the "rhetoric") that THEY ALL DO hazy, shady, bulls*** things, depending on what their interests are. Most of the time, if you're a "liberal", you want to talk about how bad the Bush administration is and how bad his s*** stinks, and if you're a "conservative", you want to talk about how bad the Democrats are (the Clintons, today's Congress, etc). I get so sick and tired of seeing nothing but "SCANDALLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" about the Bush administration, and I also get sick of hearing about how it's always different when Democrats walk up to or break the line of the law. The defense of Clinton lying under oath cracks me up (he just told a little lie to save his marriage, it didn't REALLY matter!!!!). The defense of Sandy TurdBurgler also cracks me up (well, no one KNOWS what documents he destroyed or took!!!). It is just depending on your point of view. Our government is as corrupt as it can be, just about (thank you lobby $$$). I think what scares me is what we do NOT know that is happening. If you can't look at our government today and scream ROME!, then you've got your head in the sand. And ulitimately our country is going to face the same historical fate. We are ALL so egotisical in our country, system, spoils, riches, etc. and argue about such petty crap. In the end, we all leave this earth with the same thing. NOTHING. Yet, people spend more time trying to find reasons why George W. Bush and his adminstration sucks, and this is killing people, and and and... when the truth is the entire government is a part of the "plot", if you will. They all swing off the teat of the cameras and $$$$ being handed to them, and NOTHING else matters to them but staying in power. Anyway, I'm done. It doesn't matter, because no one changes their minds about anything here anyway.

She definitely walked RIGHT on that line. But she'll get a free pass (see Sandy Turdburgler), it's ok.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) There are lots of stupid cover ups that get exposed every single week in Washington. Most are swept away because they don't matter and the person involved is liked enough to not be a big deal. But every so often, something like this comes up and the relationship is poor enough to cost someone their job. If you think this is about who covers up better, you need to take your blinders off. The Dems are no better at covering s*** up than the GOP. ok, then I'll rephrase. The Democrats (or those associated with them) get more of a free pass, largely. Hello Sandy TurdBurgler!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:43 PM) As is the response. I'm not faulting anybody for being successful. And I'd like nothing better than to go the Fair Tax route rather than the current system, modified with some sort of voucher system to address its regressive nature and the burden it would otherwise impose on the poor. No, I hear you, and with your additional comment tagged at the end, I agree with you, in principle. However, you don't do it with a voucher system.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) Tax magic is right. The authors knew how to ask/answer the right question. The critical missing bit of information, of course, is how much more are the top income earners worth now compared to 1996? If the top earners are worth more than 5% or so than they were in 1996 then they are giving the government a lower percentage of their income than they were in 1996, regardless of whether that total paid by the rich is 5% more than it was in 1996. And if that is the case, I would guess the tax breaks have a lot to do with it. Those evvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiillll rich bastards! REDISTRIBUTE! NOW! GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT! Equal pay for equal mindless drones! YES! OK, my response is a little over the top, but this argument is always the same.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) IMHO AG AG would have been able to survive the blowback on this much better had he not acted with such contempt for Congressional oversight from the very beginning. If the AG office hadn't been so adversarial with Congress since 2005, this kinda thing would likely have disappeared. No it wouldn't have. And this is exactly the type of s*** that Mrs. Bill Clinton's adminstration will get away with all day long should she take office. Republicans are transparent at the crooked s***, and the Democrats are not (they lie and cover up better). Again, /thread

The bottom line. Bill Clinton lies better then George Bush. /thread

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) You're all being dense on purpose I know, but it is irksome. 2 months into an administration ≠ 6 years into an administration. The circumstances are very different, and ritual incantation of the ever-pithy Kap&SS "It's Always Different" mantra doesn't change that fact. And it's irksome that every single thing that is even a little questionable in terms of the administration's happenings rises to the level of "SCANDAL!!!!" in most of your eyes. It's shallow, stupid, and maybe even questionable. In fact, I've said repeatedly I personally dislike a lot of the Bush Administration policy. But I certainly don't run around and throw gas on the "republicansarebabykillers.com and republicanskickthes***outofpuppies.com crowd" like some here do.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 05:32 PM) So, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service did a study of the recent history of the in-term turnover of U.S. attorneys since the Reagan years. It appears that during the Clinton years, there were 2 U.S. attorneys who were forced to resign before the end of their usual term. So let's see...reasons for removal of an attorney during the Clinton admin; biting a stripper. Reasons for removal during the Bush admin; investigating too many Republicans. I guess they're right, Clinton did ask attorneys to resign mid-term too. You are the cherry pickingest, most liberal agenda driven soxtalker around. That should be your new member title.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Well when you are a no-talent ass clown, whose very presence means that someone much more talented is gone, you are probably going to get some dirty looks. He should feel uncomfortable, as he does not belong there. Heck they dude shouldn't have made the final 24 let alone 12. Which is why he's staying... and probably for a long time. BTW, what's the theme for next week?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) I've done it, but my sister hasn't. I might make her do that when she's up here (only a three hour drive)--but she'll have to get a passport first too. . . oh that's right... new laws.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:49 PM) On a different topic...if you go to http://www.johnmccain.com/Brackets/, enter a random email address and zip code...you can view John McCain's tourney brackets. His final four? Florida UNC Kansas Ohio State. Yes, that's right, he picked all 4 #1's. And his elite 8 has 4 #1's, 2 #2's, and 2 #3's. Well that tells you who to NOT pick.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:03 PM) Well, the point I was trying to make was that he makes plenty of public statements that the media loves to highlight saying that Bush is doing things wrong on Iraq, but then he still votes with the President. The reason I left off most of the parts about things Hagel said was that I sort of figured that everyone had already heard him talking about the war, but people might not have followed his votes, that I contend go in the opposite direction. Hell, Hagel voted with the Republicans to filibuster his own compromise legislation in the Senate that would have allowed the Senate to even start to discuss the Iraq war, just a month ago. So in other words, he kisses the MSM's ass to get the sound bites, and then does the opposite. He's a hypocritical f***tard jackass. That's all.

Niagra Falls is indeed very cool. Hot Springs, Arkansas is a great place to go as well, but not in the summer, it's too bloody hot. In the spring, it's awesome with the wildflowers and all.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 06:58 PM) I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Its the opposite of what will happen. The next Prez, regardless of party, will be the most scrutinized yet. And if its Hilary, she'll be even more scrutinized than most of the other candidates, except possibly Obama. Well, you're wrong. In the "new media", you're probably right.