kapkomet

I heard someone make a comment about Her Thighness going after Obama today, and I have to agree. He's going to get ran over, big-time. That's why Evan Bayh got out... he got a VP offer from Her Thighness because he's "moderate". She'll be the liberal queen during the primary and then all of a sudden go "moderate" after she locks it up, if you believe conventional wisdom. BTW, did you all notice that those two just took a trip to Iraq together?

My point is this early in the game, intangibles is all Obama has, and he's being annoited as the best thing since sliced bread. He ain't s***, yet, but he's the new media darling... that is until her thighness Ms. Clinton jumps in.

Yea, I need to catch up on seasons 2-5 now.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) I understand that Reagan was a Governor, he was also President of the Motion Picture Academy, but what parallels will you point to between a Governor and President? Foreign policy? Perhaps knowing your way around Washington is an advantage that we have ignored through the past several decades? And I wasn't deflecting, just making a prediction that you will be voting for the GOP candidate. So what kind of a track record are you looking for? Voting on Federal issues? A Governor will have none, we'll have a couple years of Obama, and more with other candidates. There will be a much different set of issues to tackle if a Governor/Mayor is running versus a Senator/VP/Congressman/CIA Head etc. What we are asked of by voting is who would make the best President. If in your eyes, running a state is critical, you will vote for most any Governor over a Senator. (of course I don't see you passing over a GOP Senator to vote for a Dem Governor). I place much more faith on their vision of America and what we can become in 4 years under their direction. I look at their ability to forge compromise with various factions. I look at their ability to raise the American spirit. I want a glimpse at their character, citizenship, and mental and physical fitness. I want to know their views reflect mine in most areas. I don't know what track record could have predicted that Bush would be off the charts brilliant during 9/11 and terrible in New Orleans. What track record would have predicted Kennedy's brilliance in staring down the Russians and vitalizing the space program. Actually, I said that I think Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate out there somewhere else around here. He has executive experience, was an ambassador for us, and has some good, moderate views.

Two inches of the fluffy stuff where I live. I'll have to take some pictures. It took me two hours and 15 minutes this morning to drive 20 miles. People were pretty good for the most part.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) Then it becomes what kind of a track record could prepare you for President? The most favored as been Governor and because we are United States, who get together and pick someone to be President, that does make sense. So right off the bat, he's at a huge disadvantage. As I have said before, I believe this is too early for him to run. 2012 would make more sense to me, You dismiss the speaking and moral building as fluffy bulls***, I place a greater value in it. Perhaps you are just a tad too young to remember the lead up to Reagan and how he made us feel invincible again. Contrast two moments in Bush's Presidency. Standing on a pile of ruble in NYC with a bull horn and later in New Orleans. I am convinced that if was on top of his game in New Orleans with another defining moment of compassionate conservatism and feeding off his faith, we'd have a much greater feeling about how we did in New Orleans. He was brilliant in NY, Tired in NO. But in the end, you will support whomever the GOP wheels out there, so why get yourself all worked up over who the Dems toss into the ring? I'm not talking about the assbags that the Republicans have carted out there, I'm talking about Obama. Quit deflecting the subject. P.S. - Reagan had a record. He was governor, remember?

How nice. These asshole weather forecasters, after calling for all gloom and doom over the weekend, called for NOTHING and this morning, we have an inch of snow on the ground. And of course, we have a layer of ice underneath. I better go get my commute from hell overwith. It's actually kinda pretty out. Austin, Texas and even San Antonio got a nasty ice storm yesterday and last night. The northern burbs of Houston got it, too. This is a nasty little storm.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 16, 2007 -> 11:55 PM) Who was the last President who had concrete reasons for running? We haven't elected someone with Federal experience in God knows when. We like Governors not Congressmen and Senators. Give it a rest. You, nor anyone else, can say anything that gives him a track record to be president. So instead, we get this fluffy bulls*** about what a great speaker he is. Clinton governed a state (executive experience) and had a record. To this point, Obama's record is razor thin, at best. I seriously want someone to point out to me why Obama's so great, besides he can speak clearly and articulately, which is something our current president surely can't do.

I should probably make a separate thread for this, but I want CONCRETE reasons why this guy is presidential material. Not the fluffy bulls***. REAL reasons.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) My top 3: Red Wings white jersey Blackhawks white jersey Bruins black jersey I love the Blackhawks Black jersey. That is just a sweet ass jersey.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) I saw some of Lieberman on MTP this morning w/ Dodd, Kyl and Hagel. He was justifying his support for the escalation to Russert by explaining that U.S. soldiers are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. Hearing that from an average citizen makes me sad, but from a U.S. Senator who is chairman of Homeland Security, I don't even know anymore. If that's what he said, that's piss poor. Now if he would have said they have the same ideology as the people who attacked us on 9/11, that's much more fair.

Well, I have some things on Dubai for a "project" I was involved in. Those people are something else. I'll just leave it at that for now.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) I'm just sayin.... I'd rather let the scammers who cost less get by, if we're gonna focus our energy on just gettin one group of scammers. They all cost plenty. That was more my point before it got side-tracked.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) Reid said he supported a "surge" if it was part of a phased withdrawal of troops FWIW. And Kap, I don't think that the Bush administration has any secret carrots or sticks attached. We're there til we win (whatever that means), or until the next President sends them home. I do. I think Bush has told the Iraqi PM that the American people are going soft on the issue and if they don't step up NOW, we're done, and Iraq becomes a vaccuum where they all will get killed.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 07:29 PM) Some people will take advantage of every loophole the government offers. I'd rather it would be the low income scammers rather than the high income ones myself.... We need to get the rich. The egotistical bastards.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 07:28 PM) Can you provide evidence for this being factual? Especially within the last few weeks? I've seen this fired out a couple times by Republicans in the past few days and haven't yet seen any evidence that it's true. I mean, yes, there is always Lieberman out there, but for a counter-point, in June of 06, the Reid/Levin amendment calling for the start of withdrawal by the end of 2006 received 38 of 44 Dem votes in the Senate. There were certianly points at which a majority of Democrats even would probably have supported more troops, such as back in 03-04. But that certainly doesn't mean that the situation on the ground or in our army can't possibly change over the period of a number of years. Harry Reid was quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that on December 17, 2006 he said he supported a "troop surge". I read it last night. I don't have the link in front of me, but the point of the article is these assholes (including Bush to an extent) playing politics with the efforts over there. Rex, for the most part, I agree with your post. I think there are some "thresholds" or "benchmarks" that are not being made public that have been given to Iraq. I also think that GWB has pretty much told the Iraqi PM that this is the last time we will watch our efforts of securing the neighborhoods go by the wayside by letting the insurgency run rampant right afterwards.

So it's ok for Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et. al to support raising the number of troops as recently as three weeks ago, and then when the president wants to do it, it's "the worst foreign policy ever"? Come the hell on. It's all politics, and most of you are in the same pile of s*** that our politicians are swimming in and feeding you. No matter what happens, it's never going to be good enough for you people. Period. The fact is, we're there, and we need to get it right, no matter if it was all wrong or not until today. Learn from the mistakes, fix it, and fix it right.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) Could you show me some statistics on that? Exactly where are these people who do this? Otherwise, its just a lame straw man defense. SOME PEOPLE do this. I didn't say all, I didn't say MOST people. Some people will take advantage of every "break" they can get from the government because it's all they know how to do, rather than better themselves and get out of a "minimum wage" situation. That's a fact. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

QUOTE(CaptainStrykez @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) There is no victory in the real sense of the word. It is an occupation w/ a puppet gov't who's primary purpose is to make sure that trade coming in and out of Iraq benefits the multinationals that are in cahoots w/ the Carlyle group, etc. What's being sold is the idea of "victory" by escalating so that we can pull out. There will be no real pullout, just a reallocation of troops into other countries, as is the neocon agenda. Oh good god. Now it's all about Dick Cheney and conspiracies again. That s*** gets old, real quick.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) And some don't. And your point is? Most people can continue to move up the wage ranks from a minimum wage job if they choose to.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) So *we* are dying (literally) to give Iraq back to the them. And it will be a victory when we are out? What would YOU do to "win"?

So, I just got my tickets to the skills competition part of All-Star game week. I can't wait. I love this part of the ASG festivities more then any other part, and I'll be there live watching.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 12:53 AM) Elaborate, please. I see no connection between a cost of living adjustment pegged to inflation (vis a vis the cost of goods), and whether or not they receive assistance. Handout? Minimum wage doesn't mean wage everyone earns for breathing. It means minimum wage for working. How on earth is that a hand-out? And I doubt that there is any incentive in housing, transit or free lunches large enough to motivate people to live in poverty. That just doesnt make any sense. I'll say it another way. Some people choose to continue to make only minumum wage and bounce around from one minimum wage job to another so that they can stay on the "handout" rolls.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) I agree with this, and would add to it, the PR front. We have been so worried about glossing over war in the press, that we have never once tried to confront this thing from head-on like we should have. The right has been too worried about what the Dems are saying in the press, instead of ignoring them, and worrying just about the war, they keep trying to fight the war and the Dems. Forget the Dems, and win the war. Its like Hawk always said about trying to hit Johan Santana. You can't sit on both pitches, or you will always be in between. You either have to sit on the fastball or the change up. Well I guess you could call the right, the Sox, because they have been inbetween the whole time. Sit on the fastball, and give yourself a chance. Exactly. Balta, yea, 500,000 troops. Git' er done. And another thing that is different this time then last time - WE have enough troops there to do the job. WE have been securing areas, and then releasing them to Iraqis, who let it all go to hell again. That's the one point of this "new" plan that hopefully defeats the ills of the past and that is, Iraq MUST KEEP THE SECURITY unlike the past. I think that was pretty clear. If they can't do that, then you're right, there's nothing we can do. But, we need to make it CRYSTAL clear to them that they have to do certain things to keep their side of the bargain up, and that also includes not releasing assholes who blow s*** up just because they're friends with (insert public figure here).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 12:48 AM) So, Senator Chuck Hagel calls this surge/escalation/augmentation one of the biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam. Sort of strident, but maybe true. Then Senator Reid, our new Senate majority leader, making an ass of himself again, says nay, its the biggest blunder in our nation's history. I intensely dislike Reid. I really do. Making outrageous statements like that is no better than Bush's brainless cowboy crap. Look, people. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI or ANY of these f***tard politicians! We HAVE to win this war. I don't care what the reasons for starting it was, I don't care anything else... but now that we are there, Somolia was a walk in the park compared to what will happen. Furthermore, we will HAVE to go back in to the region 5-10 years from now on what will be the bloodiest war this world has ever seen if we don't keep what balance we have now, even as fragmented as it is. These political hacks from BOTH sides need to shut the f*** up and figure out how to get this done. PERIOD. Bush put forward a plan, now either try it, come up with something better, OR SHUT THE f*** UP.