kapkomet

And that accomplishes what? Absolutely nothing. That will be just in time for hurricane season, where we'll be paying $4.00 per gallon on the "threat" of a storm, and $5.00 per gallon if one hits.

SHE ADMITTED IT! WTF?

Every time Aff-ass-enjahn-idiot-i opens his mouth and farts, the price goes up. That's not manipluation.

GMAB people. She gets fired for leaking, and you all are making her a "martyr". She should have been fired. She should be nailed for treason. The difference between Bush and Cheney and Ms. McCarthy is that Bush and Cheney BY LAW can discuss these matters by declassifying information. It might stink, it might be "morally" wrong, but the law states that they can do so, since they ARE the executive branch. Furthermore, if this were treated like the MSM ™ treats it, by extension, shouldn't Bill Clinton be brought up on charges? After all, he must have known all these people are doing this for him and his future wifey President. What's good for Bush should be good for Clinton, shouldn't it? Oh the irony. (BTW, the last paragraph is not serious... but I find it interesting the line - Berger, Albright, McCarthy, Wilson, Plame - all of these people are mid to late 90's cronies and they are all interwoven)

I heard on the news this morning that the gov't is suggesting reducing tax breaks on "research" - as a 'penalty' for the high profits. WAKE UP, GOVERNMENT IDIOTS! THEY WILL NOT SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE INCENTIVE TO DO SO!!!!

Brett Hull was on the postgame show in Dallas. His quotes were AWESOME. (paraphrase) This the playoffs. Old NHL, new NHL, it doesn't matter. You move the puck FORWARD. You NEVER go back, ESPECIALLY in overtime. One glaring mistake, yet so little, and the puck ends up in your net. They are playing STUPID. They need to eat some fish, because fish is brain food, before they play again Wednesday night, because you can't keep passing backwards at your own blue line and turning the puck over. HALLEUJAH! SOMEONE GETS IT! I kept screaming that at my tv all night last night.

OLN is now available on Dish Network, if you get the 180 channel package. FINALLY!!

Dallas = f***ing suckturd balls. They SUCK. And with everything I saw in the regular season, I thought they would make a serious run. It's like they forgot EVERYTHING that got them to where they are. I think the 'Hawks would smoke their ass right now.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 04:17 AM) On a personal note, not sure what else I can change. I have a 4-cylinder car which gets decent milage, but can't afford $20,000+ for a hybrid. I also can't afford to move closer to my work. If I take my $200,000 home here in Plainfield and plop it in Bloomingdale, I can expect to be paying almost $400,000. I can't carpool, there is no mass transit to get me to work, unless I want to take the train downtown, and then out to Hanover Park or Roselle, and even then I would still need a cab to get from the train station to work. Nothing like a 3.5 hour commute each way. I have a bike to ride around town, if needed, and don't just jump in the car to take a drive. I realize that you may have been referring to all the soccer moms driving Excursions to go the the Jewel, but for every one of those, there are people like me stuck in the middle. How many people that work in Elk Grove Village do you think actually live within a few mile of Elk Grove Village? The average factory or warehouse worker out there can't affort the quarter million dollar homes, they have to commute from Addison, some of the inner suburbs or even the city itself. I too would like to see more work done on alternative fuel methods, and not just ethanol and stuff. All $8 a gallon will do for me is make me more pissed at the world than I am now. QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 05:51 AM) Join the club. I have a 31 mile commute each way. No effective mass transit means to get me to and from work (although I could go work in NYC via train) and nothing in my area to earn me comparable money at the moment. I agree with both of you. If I had a way to commute via mass transit, I would be all over that option. But I don't, especially in Dallas where EVERYTHING is 30 miles from where you are. How does that happen?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 11:20 PM) Kap- I think you have seen my posts enough to know that I was not saying the oil companies are evil for making profits, even huge ones. I was trying to put some perpective on things in response to Chuck's post. What does frustrate me about the oil companies is, for one, their strangle hold on patents for alternative energy technologies. Usually I could care less about protectionist business and patents, but in this case, it becomes a national security and national economic issue. They need to s**t or get off the pot. I also hate that they have Congress in their back pocket and get all kinds of subsidies, but that is more the fault of Congress and this (and former) presidential administrations. Congress needs to set the table to incentivize their development. Until that happens, it's going no-where.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) For there to actually be new refineries built, the oil companies would actually have to want to build new refineries, instead of trying to shut them down (while still profitable, btw.) Why are they trying to shut them down? Because it's rapidly reaching the point on these 35 and 40 year old refineries that they soon will start breaking down to the point where they are HIGHLY unprofitable. The refiners don't make that much money.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 07:47 PM) They have made a lot, but nothing compared to the oil company profits. Add up the profits of the big energy giants in this country alone and you get close to $100 Billion in profits. Yes, that may be true - but as a percentage of "profits" they are not getting anymore then other industries. And furthermore, THEY (oil companies) DO NOT SET THE PRICES! I'll tell you who is setting the price. That assbag from Iran. Every time he opens his mouth, oil goes up AGAIN. Saudi Arabia ain't saying anything. Iran is loving it. And the Democrats LOVE this because it gives them another talking point about how bad Bush is... even though their party is largely responsible for blocking any new refineries, etc.

In the large scheme, no, neither party is held accountable, depending on your viewpoint. I will say, though, that the "new media" gets their panties twisted a lot more then the MSM over issues that piss them off.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Anyone other than me think that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea? As for overspending and undertaxing versus overspending and taxing for it, I'll take the latter, thank you. I am tired of this administration, and this Congress, indebting us into oblivion. Balanced budget should be the model, but between the two evils, better we cover our bills than increas our debt. It's OUR damn money. So let's raise revenues, across the board, for the government, so they can SPEND MORE! What a formula. Last time I checked, raising revenue to spend more doesn't really help. The only way we get out of these deficits is to STOP waste. Or, how about we all go a year without a salary and just give it to the government, so they can do what they want with it?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) Then you aren't paying attention. As a rule, the MSM doesn't want to hold anyone accountable for anything, to be honest. That would require WORK, something that the "press" doesn't know how to do anymore.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) The alternative is worse? What have you been smoking? The Republicans increase the budget at a greater pace than the Democrats did even when they controlled both houses and the Presidency. I think its responsible to make sure that any additional expense that you assess is covered with matching revenue. Higher taxes = higher spending. No. They need to CUT SPENDING. And no, the Republicans didn't do it, and they should be held accountable, but I don't want to see the government triple in size from where it is now, you know, with "universal health care", "education", "medicare", "social security", etc.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 23, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) Man I am PUMPED we went into Dallas and stomped them in game 1.. Hopefully Theodore can get back to form and we can make a deep run this year.. With the key players we lost this year because of the stupid new cap I am pleased with how this season has gone.. the only thing I wish is that it was on TV because there is nothing better than playoff hockey.. I loved watching the Avs when they were on TV, the playoffs are electric You live in Texas and you root against the only NHL team in the state? You wanker. Pretty much my vote is ANYONE but Colorado and Detroit.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) I'm not fixated on Fox, in fact I watch their morning show now. What I am fixated on is the campaign to eliminate a free press and turn it into propaganda machines for either party. When we have news outlets that are just mouthing one or the other party lines, we lose an important mechanism that keeps out country great. What I see is conservatives demanding news that caters to them, and makes the GOP look good. That is such a devestating technique, Dems will follow, and then we are screwed. No independent press, just a conservative and a liberal press, both at the extremes. Currently every mistake by the GOP that is reported is blamed on a liberal media bias. The GOP can do no wrong. Next, every Dem mistake will be blamed on a conservative media bias. Then we won't be putting up with bad government, we'll be demanding it. :headshake See I totally disagree - the "new media" has 'pushed' the GOP into some corners that they don't want to be in. The ports deal, Harriet Myers, immagration, spending in Congress, to name just a few - the 'new media' is ALL OVER these guys for their lack of "responsibility". On the other side, I rarely see the Democrats get questioned on the MSM. They play thier bits over and over again. John Kerry's ra-ra-ra speech this weekend is an example.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 06:54 AM) If the Republicans were being responsible with the budget to begin with, they would have raised taxes too. ABSOLUTELY not. They should have not have spent like drunken sailors. Low taxes, even less spending, is what they SHOULD have done. And for this, they should pay, but the alternative is worse.

ok, HOW do we do all this? (insert Dem name here) Raise taxes Put small businesses in a harder situation Raise taxes Raise taxes Raise taxes Raise taxes Put Iraq into a vacuum All right! I'm all about that. But at least they are starting to present ideas, but it's more rhetoric then anything to me, until they start talking about HOW they are going to accomplish this.

Happy Birthday, Jason!

I think the one thing that we have to be careful with the "new media" - the AM blowtorch talk shows are ENTERTAINMENT.

Heck, 20 points per quarter. I still think it's a neat story.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) And there in lies the danger. Is it better for our societies well being for being to receive boutique news that is tailered to get them to buy it, i.e. news slanted to fit their views, or for journalists to strive to deliver the truth, no matter who it offends or attracts? I believe you and I should be watching the same newscast and pointing to stories that appear biased. You will see storied that you think are too liberal and I will see storied that appear too conservative. But in reality the newscast would be "fair and balanced". What we are moving towards is "News You Agree With". I'll play up the stuff you like and slant the stuff you don't like and you will watch, our ratings will go up, and we'll keep saying it's because we are publishing the truth. ok, so why doesn't the "new media" consist of more "left-leaning" biased programs? Why are they not as successful?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) That's easy, First convince an audience that each audience member is independent and neither liberal or conservative. Give them what they want. Makes them happy when they hear the news that they agree with. Have the commentators make fun of anyone that doesn't think like them, gives them a smug, elitist cocoon to sleep in. Convince them if they don't like something, it is the reporters fault. Create a bunker, us vs. them mentality. It really is a great system. We are not biased, because you are not biased, and you agree with us. So if you read, see, or hear something yuou don't agree with, it is because of a bias. But see, if more (and more) people didn't agree with these "new media" people, they wouldn't be as popular as they are.