kapkomet

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) This is where I sing my Kurdistan song. Its really the best option at this point. Probably right. But it's not going to happen - at least not yet.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 02:59 AM) Times two? No, I just write like I'm 17. My fault.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 08:23 PM) did you actually read the article? No. QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 08:27 PM) My question is how hard is it for a guy to identify himself as a contractor and produce ID to avoid that whole mess? Good question, Nuke.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) This is a direct symptom of Ameninawhosits constant blustering and trash talk. I believe the Iranian people are afraid that if this guy keeps talking about wiping out Isreal and keeps developing nukes that eventually the US and others are going to bring the hammer down and they dont want to take the fall. We won't if we leave Iraq, because then, we're chicken craps.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) Not sure whether this one belongs here or not, but it's sorta on topic. Long piece from the NYTimes. Much more at the article. Oh, and does anyone realize the absurdity of the Pentagon saying in their defense that the people didn't complain about their treatment when they were locked in Solitary confinement? Oh, does anyone realize the constant defense of these people, who IMO gave up their rights when they started hanging around people (or are those people) who want to blow us all up, is absurd?

Random thought of the week: it would be interesting to see if LT BY HIMSELF could get 400 yards against the Colts run defense.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 05:51 AM) I Jason that turd hasn't done anything.

one more day or two on the talkbhawks - I have it almost done... Kap

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) We won 90 games. We would've won quite a few more with legitimate back-ups at C and CF, not to mention a better bullpen. I can't imagine our starters being as bad as they were last year. Can I quote you on this in about, oh, July/August/September next year when you're b****ing? (I'm just razzing you. I'm glad you're upbeat...)

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 06:14 AM) October 2005: Long Branch, NJ. 2000 people turn out to see him speak at a rally for the Governor race. It was one of three rallies featuring Obama that day within an hour of each other. Each of them had 2000+ people, on an off cycle election year. Obama isn't a flash in the pan. He has the touch of a Bill Clinton. He speaks well - very eloquent. That's it. What is his record? Flimsy. Now I'm not saying that he isn't "right", only that his record shouldn't support him as presidential material, yet.

Hey you all, I'm going to have Talkbhawks back up tomorrow.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) Ladies and gentlemen - I present to you the most ringing endorsement of a Democratic candidate you will ever hear from the poster known as Kap. sorry, couldn't resist. I'm hoping he can pull out the dark horse run and win, though he is a long shot.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 16, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...CAL19/612160469 Bayh won't be running in 2008. Yea, he went up to N.H the same week "ROCK STAAH OBAMA!!!" went up, and he was pretty much told that it's a two way race between Hillary and Obama.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 05:40 AM) Heh, yeah, I just noticed that. We buy five games from one of my friends' ticket package, and my brother was able to get half off on the $40 tickets. The package games were picked at the beginning of the year, and my friends dad was nice enough to center it around when I'll be home for break. I'm not complaining. I always enjoy watching Sullivan play, although that Jordan Tootoo better get an ass beating... Well... I need to shut up on this one. PM me if you want the real scoop.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) So, wait a second, now you're implying that the ability for a politician to change their mind, to be flexible, to adapt to a situation, to do something that could be described by a particular type of footwear is not the most evil, heinous, terrible, awful, bad, sadistic thing in the world? Holy ****. In all seriousness, that's what's wrong with our political system, on both sides, in a nutshell.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 10:35 PM) as he should. imo, he is the most qualified candidate out there. He's been a congressman, govenor, energy secretary and US ambassidor to the UN. he's also doing some nice work on border protection in New Mexico. I actually don't mind Richardson so much.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 08:48 PM) Because one side won't move from their "hugs not Jihad" platfom, and the other won't move off of "kill em all and let God sort em out." because they know they will be blasted for changing their minds. "hugs not Jihad". Nice.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) How old are you? 17.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 08:07 PM) Yeah, Damn that Republican Congress, I always knew it hated America! More seriously, this is actually not the real issue. The Supreme Court itself, if I understood the Hamdan ruling correctly, also had no problem with the concept of using military tribunals to try these guys, but the problem comes about with the specific way the Bush Administration wants to try them. They want to try them on a charge that really doesn't exist, in courts where the defendents have virtually no representation, barely if ever hear the charges against them, have almost no right to prove their innocence, where the Judge and Jury are appointed by the same civilian in the Defense Dept, and where the defendents have no right to appeal whatsoever. That was the system Mr. Bush tried to build, and that was the system the Supreme Court threw out in the Hamdan case. The issue is not whether military tribunals are appropriate or not, and to keep saying that only obscures the facts. The issue is whether the trials can be held in a purely unfair system that violates treaties signed by Congress, not whether it should be in military or civilian courts. Yes, the Republicans screwed up on this. There's a way that this can be done that complies with laws... they've said as much, so go get it done that way, so everyone can move on.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) How about the civilian who was working for a company in Russia setting up a radar system. He was using a GPS unit to lay out the tower, was arrested on suspicion if being a CIA spy. Should he have been locked up without any process? How about reporters covering these wars? They get picked up in the field and just locked up without Geneva protections or civilian trials? Bottom line, the US is now saying we can lock someone up forever, without any trials, without Geneva protections. Never in our history have we done this. Is this the America way of life we are promoting around the world? Doesn't this sound like something a third world dictator would be doing? We talk about justice and fairness. Of freedoms. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the bastions of freedoms and rights, we need to try these people in some court of law. Currently we have two classifications. Civilian and military, Pick one for them and lets go. Or seriously get busy and declare a third classification. Some here want to think the same military that shot Pat Tillman is perfect and only picked up terrorists and couldn't possibly have made a mistake. That by being picked up they must be guilty. I don't trust our government that much. Let's get these people to trial, convict all that are guilty, and show the world that the American process works. Right now, by locking people up in black holes, condoning torture, we look like the people we are fighting against. We actually want to try these folks since they were picked up in "battle" as a military tribunal, but our friends in Congress won't let that happen. It seems people forget that.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) I know. We invaded their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and them damned Iraqi's can't handle their freedom. That in nearly 4 years we've unleashed the same amount of violence that Sadaam did in 20 doesn't seem to be a point you'd want to bring up. The resulting bloodshed was widely predicted. That Bush didn't see that was just one of many miscalculations. I'm soooooooooo sorry. We are the evil bastards of why the world is so wrong. My errors in thinking and judgements won't happen again... since WE have led to the killing of 600,000 plus people.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) I'm fine with that, then give them Geneva convention rights, allow the Red Cross in, etc. and have military trials. Have civilians ever been tried in a military court? If Americans were being held in a foreign country, and told they would not receive trials of any kind, that they could be locked up forever without contact with anyone, you would be ok with that? Yes, if said American kept company with folks who pledged his allegiance to killing innocents.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 06:48 AM) And of course that's why the same people who dismiss the terrible ramifications of this war now with statements such as that, were likely the same one's who eagerly bought the Bush/Rumsfeldian view that this war would be anything but. Now that it's become what anti-Iraq war proponents said it would become, and were ridiculed for it, its back to being a "war is going to be ugly" scenario. Yet I don't remember that phrase altered too often back in 2002-3. Back then, war was a cakewalk, to be paid for by the country we're to invade. Just like we're responsible for 600,000 deaths should be ridiculed, because Saddam killed that many Shias to keep them down. THEY are killing each other simply because they can now, not DIRECTLY by us. Here's the bottom line. These people have to WANT to grab their freedom. It's obvious that they can't handle it. That's Bush's miscalculation and where he went wrong. The resulting bloodshed is all about these people wanting to smoke each other at any cost more then us creating it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 03:04 AM) the Democrats are not even going to try to stop pork. it's a smokescreen, i'm sure they already know exactly how they are going to get around any new 'ear marking' legislation. Oh NOOOOOO, they REALLY want to protect us little Americans. PUKE.