kapkomet

Yea, it's all my fault.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) Jeez. I try to make a post about a positive channel for Bush, Congress and both parties, and yet somehow it becomes about Dems and Reps again. I guarantee that numerous Congresspeople (though not all, or even most, I'd bet) are stomping all over the rules right now, in BOTH parties. This isn't a party-specific thing. Bush has a chance here to be that "uniter" he has always claimed to be. Let's see if he's capable of living up to his word. Yea. It's all my fault.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 02:38 AM) I'm too lazy to look up the logical fallacy here. "The Republicans have terrible ethics problems which are vastly worse than those of the Democrats = the Democrats have no ethics issues"? It's damn near always the way you make it sound with the select quotes you like to pick out of things.

I agree. TXU here kept asking for rate increases last year when the Nat. Gas prices climbed... do you think they asked for reductions when the price went down? Hell no. Bastards.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 02:10 AM) I wonder why this didn't come out before he was elected? It was, sort of. People in NJ thought that we needed corrupt Democrats in power instead of corrupt Republicans.

Add to the fact that there were no storms this year to interrupt supply. And don't forget your favorite emirs of OPEC. We need to send them some thank you cards for the cheap gas for the last two months.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 12:24 AM) You're assuming that Bush would actually be willing to do something that could hurt his own party...had there been an actual ethics process running for the past 4 years, it would have been a disaster for the Republicans. Yea, 'cause it's only Republicans that are unethical... as always.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 07:45 PM) Damn that New York Times and the liberal media bias. They would never splash a story like that about a Democrat on their paper. Oh wait... It's always different, somehow.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 05:47 PM) I never qualified for more than a couple grand in federally subsidized student loans per year as a student. There are federally subsidized and non federally subsidized student loans that a college student can qualify for. Right, I do remember that there are "standards" applied to how much was subsidized, but I think thye do that by years, meaning your 1st year in school you qualify for less then your last two years.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) Based on the debates earlier this year, as far as I can tell, it just topped 300 million like a month ago. *rimshot*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15643614/ Nothing else needs to be said.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Good questions and comments, but remember we are warned to be aware of false prophets in the bible. It is stated that many will pose as men of God, yet be mouthpieces for the devil. The key is always the connection between you and God, not between you, someone else, and God. DING! Which is the single biggest reason that I have problems with Catholicism.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful. I don't think that's right, Rex. Unless that formula is a very widely accepting formula on a lot of different incomes.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) I'm not a religious person in the slightest. I guess I'm a catholic, but only because there were some things I couldn't control as a child. I have no problem with religion or anyone that practices their religion regardless of what they practice. However, and this may be purely ignorance on my part, what I've never understood is why a religion has, as you said, "different flavors." Obviously there is a debate for one god or many gods, but that aside, for instance, why isn't there simply just one branch of Christianity? Why are there several? And why do the "rules" so often change? I may or may not believe in God, but if so many people are certain there is one (even if there is one or a group of for each and every select faith), why are there so many different practices within the same faith? Are the different "flavors" of Christianity a sort of debate of what a Christian really is? Oh yes. Some denominations think that "their way" is the one and only ticket to heaven. That's ignorant, at best, and downright misleading most of the time and hypocritical. It's pretty plainly laid out as to what a "Christian" is, but congregations twist this all sorts of ways from Sunday. And I do take them to task, because it's a lot of what causes turmoil unnessecarily in our world today.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) I understand your point, but exactly what made you make that post in the first place? I don't see any rude mocking or hyperbole by anyone else (prior to your post) in the thread. Basically, it was that post that kind of set up a powder keg. I saw some speculation that Bush might nominate a Dem senator (which, okay, maybe cynical, but it was certainly a possibility). And yes, I know there are other mocking posts, but truth is, for Wednesday yours took the cake (and, not to sound like your mother but, you really are a better poster and "dialoguer" than that). And by posting in that style, how are you going to elicit anything but a negative, rude, and mocking response from people on the other side? Either you want a dialogue that can be conducted in a respectful tone, or you're contributing to the negative cycle of politics. I aplogize if my response sounded rude, but if you're going to complain about "the others" using a tactic you don't like, don't use that tactic. No, you're right, my post was much more direct and not as subtle as the others, but the little digs sometimes gets to me, and that was one of those times the other day. No harm, Soxy, in you stating your opinion of the post. That's one of the biggest reasons I respect you so much around here.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!! What would you suggest, then, for people that have paid into it for years and get nothing in return?

It stinks. Both sides of it.

That's an interesting spin, Rex, on the subsidies. On the Medicare reform, it's needed, and I agree with that part, by and large... but the government hookey getting involved in our (private) medicine practices, that's a road we do NOT need to go down.

My question is "how"? The minimum wage thing, I agree with. I don't like it, because it hurts a lot of businesses, but it's time to do something with that. The 9/11 commission report stuff is fluff. It really is. The health care thing... that's complete horsedookey. There's problems with the system, I agree, but ANY attempt to socialize our system needs to be looked at VERY closely. Ask Canadians why they come here for medical purposes. Ask Britians who travel to India why they do. The student loan thing. WOOT! I LOVE IT! Seriously, it effects me directly right now, but be careful what you ask for here. Oh, the big bad oil companies again. What are these "subsidies" used for? Find out first. I have mixed thoughts about "privatizing" social security, but how will you keep it, Ms. Pelosi? Oh, that's right, by raising taxes on EVERYONE, not just the "rich", because it's the only way.

Leave it to you to link us to the onion on this issue.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) Um I think you missed the point. I think he is sick of it being one-sided, and then getting yelled at for responding in kind. That's exactly my point, nothing more. It's interesting that everyone reads so much into every single one of my posts.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 01:04 AM) Whaaaaaaaaaaat, did you see where he attended Indiana?? He had to live in Indiana! What could be worse? That's a hell of a point you have there.

Jason's right, and you're right too, PA. Religion is a man made situation, and therefore, imperfect. Church, however, should not be considered as such, and there's a big, big difference.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 07:18 PM) Some states have a law where it's automatic. Not sure if VA is one of those. I agree, tho, Chisoxfn... no recount. Just move on, unlike Webb would have. Oh for the love of God. HE SAID HE WOULD, or at least someone in his campaign said they would early in the night when he was down slightly. That's what I base my comment on, nothing more. Geesh.