kapkomet

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2007 -> 07:10 AM) :::Thunderous applause::: Are you serious or being sarcastic? Do you agree with this or not?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) I did. She's a good senator, and I'm very happy with her representation. I agree with Jason, she admitted her mistakes. I'm sure you'll just say it's political posturing--but I think she's sincere. I will say one thing positive about Hillary Clinton. She has done a good job as a senator for New York. She's definitely done a lot for some local issues in the state as a whole, and that alone is commendable. (NOTE: SEE, I CAN BE POSITIVE ABOUT HER! ) However... I ABSOLUTELY do NOT think she is sincere, though, on national issues such as Iraq. She went with the political tide, and now wants us all to "blame Bush". When she made it a point in 2003 to say it was HER decision based on the information that SHE had, only four years later to totally say it's (paraphrasing) all Bush's fault is pure bulls*** and is posturing.

Because they are borrowing that money.

"civil protections"? Ouch.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:58 AM) On the other hand, I think looking at the field this year for both parties, I cannot remember the last election with a better field at this stage. There are multiple candidates in both parties that I do not hate completely. Yet. Oh really? Who on the Republicans (at least the esteemed frontrunners) is worth a s***? I don't think any of them are. I'll say it again, the best canidate right now IMO is Bill Richardson, and he's got a pigs chance in crude oil to make it.

I think every one of these s***bags on both sides of the aisle aren't worthy of being president. And yes, I said that in 2000 as well. In all seriousness, the best of the best don't ever run for president or government office, and it really saddens me to think that's the case.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:00 AM) she made a mistake. it happens. That's f***ing rich.

It's not the "surge", it's a part of the strategy that Bush was crystal clear on... the government of Iraq needs to crack down on these assholes and there is no forgiveness. But somehow, "surge" and "escalation" and all those pretty words get entangled in the mess, and it shouldn't be separated from the fact that Bush was VERY clear that the government needs to step up NOW.

Hillary on March 7, 2003 Hillary on January 28, 2007 What a hypocrite. How can anyone vote for this woman with any conscience at all? (I bet this thread is pretty sparse... )

Actually I think for the most part I've tried to stay pretty civil in this thread. And I've actually agreed with some things in here, and on those oh so rare occasions, I better say so.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and was essentially dismantled by the U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes. It's military was in shambles, all the money it had was going to Saddam, and it was in no condition to defend itself. The U.S. invaded Iraq. North Korea actually had an active nuclear program, and admitted it publically in the fall of 2002. In early 2003 the U.S. detected the atmospheric signatures of the North Koreans reprocessing their fuel rods to access the plutonium for a bomb. The U.S. invaded Iraq. I don't know, if I'm Iran, I take the message from this series of events that if I want to be safe from the Americans, who have repeatedly threatened the existence of my government, I sure don't want to be the country America thinks it can invade. The difference is, we are talking about their exisitance of the GOVERNMENT, while they are talking about the existance of a NATION. BIG difference.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) What other thread. I guess I just like to keep to my own kind. How very conservative of me. Uh huh, exactly. (padding my Dem post totals - and in this thread somewhere, I actually said I liked Richardson... )

I'll answer that question. This has pretty much (as has the GOP thread) become an attack on the "other party" thread, which is just stupid. I understand the original point of this thread - but if I'm Balta, I'll just post the most inflammatory rhetoric here so I don't get a response from those pissant conservatives. If I'm Kap (), I'll just post the most inflammatory rhetoric in the "other" thread, just so I don't get a response from those pissant liberals. I think that it's just people see this stuff and they want to refute the crap they're seeing (in both threads, although it's less on the "other side" because there's less crap posted in there, thanks to Balta's tireless research... ).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) And I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up. And I still love you Kap. It's not a generic bulls*** answer, it's yet another specific example of the bias. BTW, Balta's post pretty much hit it right on.

John Edwards is a f***tard s***bag who absolutely doesn't get it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 07:03 PM) But I've said it before and I'll say it again; few things would make me happier than to totally remove the influence of money and lobbyists from the entire U.S. government. No lobbying for contracts by spending money, significantly higher wages for elected officials to insulate them against bribery, much more strict controls on investment and lobbying by family members of elected officials, and public financing of campaigns. It will NEVER happen. And to me, that's the biggest problem with our government today. I don't listen to those s***bags you're talking about Tex. Nuke found it, not sure where he heard about it, but the media goes after ® people like flies on s*** when stuff like this comes up. I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) I'm with you there. If the Dems did not learn from the billions in no bid contracts that Chaney's cronies received, they should be kicked out on their asses for doing the same thing. Damn right I'm indigent as should every American who is paying to destroy and rebuild Iraq. I'm not certain why Kap believes this is somehow different, it sounds the same to me if true. If he's won fairly and squarely as the low bidder in a competitive situation, I don't see a problem. I am also certain if there isn't a problem, the GOPerheads on the board will give us a chorus of media bias trying to dig up dirt on the Speaker. It's different because if she had a ® behind her name, it would be on the front page of the NY Slimes and the top story on every Sunday morning TV show in America. She may not have done anything wrong, we don't know yet, but again, if she had an ® instead of a (d), it would be enough to run full throttle on this story.

But it's different. Somehow, it's ok.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) Exactly. In 99.9 percent of cases you file jointly. Signed, Kap, Certified Pain (in the) Ass.

There's that "negotiation" word again.

I suppose this is a lie too.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 03:06 AM) dumb way of figuring it out: fill out your taxes both ways and see which one is better LOL There really is no real advantage from filing separately based on what you said - unless you have a boatload of capital gains that ONE of you need to offset, and you can only do that in certain circumstances anyway.

No, I didn't. I said throw out NEGOTIATIONS. There's nothing to negotiate. It's not a contract dispute.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Um, North Korea's test by most accounts wasn't a successful test. Um, check again. After initial reports saying that, they figured out that it at least was a small nuclear explosion. And so what if it wasn't "successful"... if they are trying to sell this s*** to Iran, I guess we're supposed to "negotiate" with NK to make it stop.

Again, what is Iran's interest to negotiate with us? What is their incentive to do so?