kapkomet

The 'civil war' could be over, real quick, if we wanted it to be - but most Americans wouldn't stand for what needs to be done to make it end - and that's go in there and really kick some ass. However, as you're sort of alluding to, what would that do for the larger Islam religion as a whole? I don't think anyone knows, and even if there's some stupid article that tries to talk about it, no one really knows. It's a hard issue to deal with.

WOOT! CIVIL WAR! That means we can come home now. *sigh* They need to just go in there and clean stuff up, but as I said before around here, the American people can't or won't stomach it, so it just keeps getting worse.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:19 AM) I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I don't think Cheat is, either, but he's a stat freak.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) Kap, if the President thinks he has the support to get Bolton reconfirmed - why doesn't he renominate him when the new Congress takes up its seats in January? Didn't Bill Frist even say that he wouldn't let most of these renominations take the floor in the remainder of this session? Because it was inappropriate? It's pretty hard to be a roadblock majority two months before you are a majority - so I guess what you're accusing the Democrats of is pretty impressive. We have no idea what a Democratic controlled Senate will or will not block in terms of nominations. I can tell you that in 2001 and 2002, the Dems kept something like three judicial nominations from Confirmation when they had control of the Senate last. So, if this is any indication of what will happen in 2007 and 2008 - George Bush ought to be happy, he'll still get most of what he wants. But not necessarily all of it. Because the role of the Senate is to advise and consent on nominations. The President's perogative is to nominate as he pleases - not be a rubber stamp. You're right Rex. It's just that when I hear Bolton being railroaded for political hackery (both sides, honestly), I think it stinks. Like I said, I don't know enough about the judges that are up to even comment.

It is different, Rex. Because the Democrats prmoised to LEAD instead of being a roadblock. But they just can't do it. I'm not talking about the judges because I don't know, but I am talking about Bolton. As I said earlier, the Democrats admit (most of them who aren't cowtowing to the hard left) admit that Bolton has proved himself worthy of the job. But they refuse to compromise to get him a vote. Besides that, the key vote on Bolton at the time was Chafee, and he's a Democrat anyway who stayed Republican to get $$$$$ for Rhode Island anyway, which is another hypcritical irony, but that's another thread. The man has done well, even by your accounts, for the most part. But nooooooooo, he can't get a vote all because of prior partisan bickering, and it's baloney. But WAIT! The Democrats are the new party of prinicpals and ideas. They won't play political posturing horses*** games because they're DIFFERENT! Nevermind. No they're not, but according to a lot of you, it's all justified, hence the tag 'it's always different'. I won't dive the thread off again. Back to the 'draft' attention.

I smell poo.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 05:10 AM) Didn't the Peppermint Poontang open for Cream and The Buffalo Springfield at the Fillmore in '68? Wow. Just wow.

I wish we could have an election without a Bush, Clinton, Kerry or anyone else that has ran for the last 12-16 years. McCain included.

I thought there was a cap to sales tax imposed at the federal level that states and local municipalities had to abide by?

Do you think that is why Ah-mhed-deen-i-screw-tard is having a convention inviting Mr. Iraq and Mr. Syria over for dinner?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 05:51 AM) Man, that's one hell of a flipping of topics. You complain that Rangel is bringing this out as a way of giving the finger to Bush. I don't really dispute that, whether or not the merits of the proposal are worthy or not, he's certainly bringing this up exactly right now because it's 2 weeks after the election, Iraq's still a mess, and Rangel's using the specter of a draft to make a political point before the new Congress comes into session, and probably piss Bush off a little bit. Yet on the other hand, when Bush renominates guys like Bolten, Tomlinson, and half a dozen judges, all of whom the Senate has already rejected, right after the election, and I try to point out to you that basically the day the Senate was called for the Dems Bush was already flipping the Dems the middle finger, suddenly you jump onto bashing Kerry and Clinton and others for being almost as ungodly wrong as Bush was about the war. Let me make this simple; there is no great military reason for Charlie Rangel to be calling for a draft right now. The draft is only needed if we decide to put more troops into Iraq. It is done entirely to score political points and to give a big "FU". If you have a problem with that, then you must have a problem with Mr. Bush giving repeated FU's to the new majority in terms of firing off every possible nominee he could to the Senate before the Dems take power, most of whom were already rejected by the current Senate. To tell you the truth, I haven't had a hell of a lot of time to follow anything going on outside of the snippets posted on here (sad, this is my news source). I haven't seen the pissing offs of Bush (which, he does all the time, which is another subject entirely... and frankly he deserved to get his ass kicked this election cycle). Bolton should get nominated. The dude has done a hell of a job, and even a lot of Dems agree with that - but the ONLY reason he won't get a vote is because the Deomcrats are bing f***tards about the whole damn thing. And that's pathetic. As far as the judges go, I have no idea what the hell is going on with that. But for once, give them the vote up or down. But there's too much yellow piss being thrown for that to happen, apparently.

I hate being so busy because this whole thing looks very cool. Awesome job, all of you, for this. I'll try to jump in at the end of the week, if I can't, I'll play along later as the election winds up as far as asking questions and all of that. to all of you! Kap

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 05:46 AM) I gotta file this away for when I start to Swiftboat the hell out of everybody running next week. Question: would you be more likely or less likely to vote for Mr. PA if you knew he favored tasering of liberals on college campuses? PA, you better STFU and stop trying to go to the school of John Kerry joke telling.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 03:28 AM) And Bush hasn't spent the last 2 weeks flipping the bird to the new majority? Yea, it's always different, and somehow it always comes back to something caused by Bush. Thanks for making my point for me. I seem to recall that Clinton, Kerry, and others in the Democratic Party voted FOR the war... oh, but Bush lied. /ROLLY They had the same damn evidence shoved under all of their noses, and chose to commit to war. OH WAIT, it's different. It always is. ::::: Back to the subject. Part of me agrees with the sentiment to volunteer, part of me doesn't. It goes along the lines of what mr_genius was saying that I don't think people should be forced to volunteer. And God bless those who do, seriously. Part of me, though, after volunteering for some things (although not full time) on my own, you certainly get a hell of a lot of neat, great experiences. But would they be so great if forced into it? It's not so easy to say "hell yea, force kids out of high school to volunteer"... yet, it is.

I think that Rangel issuing this is a hypocritical thumb it in your nose move. That's why this bothers me. So much for the "new tone" and "work together" bulls*** that was spewed a day after the election.

Bull crap. This is just another mechanism to "make it harder to go to war"... which after all, the Dems are peace loving hippy freaks. BTW, it won't work, even if for some weird reason the draft came back.

Both of these are horrible trades. HORRIBLE. But I think BA has wore out his welcome on the southside, and it doesn't matter that we are going to get a bag of crap back for him.

I think Bush has been very clear about not staying "Fovever", but doesn't want to put a concrete date to anything so these blowhards can sit, wait for that date, and then blow everthing up the next day.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:59 AM) I firmly believe that the GOP doesn't lose BOTH houses if it weren't for Mark Foley. There's nothing quite like the news that your political party hid a pedophile for, at least, one year, to damage your credibility with a nation that is already disillusioned with your rule. That was part of it. The other part is that the plain reality is that Sir Knighthood of the American Pulse, aka Karl Rove, aka Turd Blossom, really f***ed up on the true American opinion this time.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:58 AM) The Democratic House leadership said that they want to change the way things are done with regard to lobbyists. Let's see if they do. I hope they do; it's hard to walk away from the $$, though.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:55 AM) You're right, Kap. They have about three plans for Iraq. Because the only place where there has been any kind of debate on Capitol Hill about what to do in Iraq has been in the Democratic Party Let's see. Plan A. Get out now. Plan B. Get out now, but to a lesser extent. Plan C. Get out sometime really soon. That's about it. You have to be careful what you wish for.

Immigrants, as in NOT legal residents of this country, Rex. At least that's how I read it.

For your information, I haven't listented to the radio in a good two or three weeks, at least. I have more then enough to do then listen to that drivel for hours on end. The Dems do NOT have a plan for Iraq, which was the big election turning point. How many quotes do you have to show that says "we have to do anything but what we're doing"? What a plan.

Happy Birthday, Queenie!

So hard... /thread