kapkomet

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 19, 2010 -> 12:15 PM) This is what I say to people around me when they complain about winter. Pretty much.

QUOTE (T R U @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 03:08 AM) it sucks! im ready for it to be cold, not 80 at the tail end of December Then move.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 18, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) holy s*** world is ending. Y2HH and Balta not arguing. If kap comes in and co-signs on a BigSqwert post I'm going to s*** my pants. It has happened before. Go wipe your ass.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) uckfae ouyae. igpae atinlae?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 11:53 PM) Why should that even matter? Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) I'd steal until people stopped giving me free money.

The policy is "BIGOTED"... stupid thinking.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 09:05 PM) Well, no, the $25 billion fine is what the law mandates the government must seek under the Clean Water Act in the event of gross negligence on the part of the drilling company. That's basically a punitive fine/money to make up for the fact that the government technically owns that oil and BP decided to dump it. Ok, what do they do with that money?

I was going to take a picture of my car themometer saying 81 at 7:00 at night on December 15th, but my cell phone battery died.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) The Department of Justice has filed its case in the big BP oil spill lawsuit. This is the part where the law explicitly states that the company owes the government a certain amount of money for every barrel spilled, which could total about $20 billion in this case. HANG EM! Now... if this all is going to fund cleanup efforts and that's what it costs, they should pay.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) Apparently there's talk in the House of trying to change the payroll tax deduction into a one time tax refund check, which would have the same effect - but not actually have to worry about the fight over Social Security in a year's time. I think, if you're going to do this, this might be the best route to take. I was at an event with my Congressman, Rush Holt (D-NJ), on Sunday. He's really concerned with this bill and he came at it from an angle I had never thought of before. His main problem isn't that we're cutting taxes in different ways than is traditional, or that the wealthiest among us will get an Obama tax cut in 2011, but rather that we're cutting taxes meant to fund Social Security. This is something that he feels shouldn't be done, because it sort of takes Social Security away from being a separate entity in the way that the program is managed and switching into something that the government is confident to play games with. I can't disagree with this from the concept of if you need to fund something that's bankrupt, taking away money isn't the way to go... but then you all are going to argue it's the same with traditional taxes, which it isn't.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) Gingrich actually managed to work with a Dem White House and get some things done, before he imploded. Right now, that would be a victory, if Boehner could do the same. Boehner is a f***ing hack jackass. Yea, I said it. He'll be thrown out on his ass in two years and Ms. Pelosi will ride right back into power on the heels of her f***ing hack jackass president. The whole damn group of them are asshatery at its finest.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 11:28 AM) Then you know what? Someone from Organizing for America ought to go out and get Anthony Kennedy under a 6-figure consulting gig. After all, it's just a campaign organization, there's no direct benefit to the group if he happens to rule in favor of a policy that the President also favors. Every judge has some investment interest, and it's only a problem when they disagree with you. You see, the issues should be based on constutitionality and law, not some living and breathing ever changing standard. Otherwise, what is law besides baseless? At what point does it stop? For your line of thinking, never, the appetite is insatiable to the point where nothing is ever good enough but more government intervention.

I know, there's always something evil (EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL) whenever someone who has any attachment what-so-ever to anything that might be against what you think is right. /I gets no respect!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 12, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) Actually COBRA IS health care. Awwww, I guess I'm stupid. Gees. I need to go away again because obviously everyone knows everything about everything.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 07:04 PM) Exactly the very same way things like COBRA was passed. And the Bush tax cuts in fact. So? It's not the way things should be passed... especially the line here. Health care is not COBRA nor tax measures.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 06:59 PM) I would argue the private sector's gotten a pretty good deal over the last two years. I would argue you're flat out wrong... I know what you're trying to say (bailouts)... and on that these 2b2f companies should be on their ass, I won't disagree. However, the "price" for a lot of that is government control, which is not a good deal for all of us long term.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 06:05 PM) Hey kap, not sure what I was talking about earlier, it wasn't about obstructionism but lobbyists. Anyway, how HCR was passed wasn't the "nuclear option". http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/j...LPP_article.pdf You're right - I think we are both thinking about that as it relates to justices? I was trying to point out the procedural nature of health care passing. It was reconciliation, not the "nuclear option". Got my procedures mixed up.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 02:36 PM) Yah and they were punished at the polls for it. What's your point? Really? Wow... you're getting good.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) Do you even remember the last guy? LMAO. You guys have no sense of history at all. GWBDS.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) lol I knew you were going to post this. Democrats are a totally different type of sleaze. They're really not like the Republicans at all. The GOP more or less has a standard operating procedure across the board that they follow (you can tell on TV, they even use the same catchphrases in their media appearances in the same week) and if there was a written manual somewhere this would be in the first or second chapter. Republicans are openly cozy with financial-type lobbyists and are pretty unashamed about it, they are pretty indifferent when called on it. To the extent that Democrats do the same thing, they try to weasel out of it and pretend they're not doing the bidding of bankers etc., but even still that's only one wing of the party and everybody doesn't agree. Okay. So, then, are the Republicans hiding in the closet (rather appropriate considering most of their stances on DADT, don't you think)? You just said they aren't, yet Democrats do exactly the same thing and it's hidden, swept under the rug, and they're "for the little people" all of a sudden? Bulls***. No one is for the little people anymore. NO ONE. But at least Republicans would rather let the private sector have something instead of nothing. The sad part is, none of it really matters anymore. This ain't your mom and dad's and grandpa and grandma's country anymore. It's our f***up, and I for one hate the fact that no one gives a s*** anymore and would rather defend our government sleaze and be "right" then really care about what's going on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 05:09 PM) I love votes that fail with 57 in favor. f***, time for the "nuclear option" just so the terrible Senator rules get fixed. You mean how they passed health care? That really popular bill that well over half the country hates? Oh, forgot about that?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 03:43 AM) This is a false equivalency. You can point to "Freezerbucks" but he was removed from leadership, and was convicted IIRC. You can point to Rangel, but he lost his leadership and received censure. Democrats do hold members of Congress accountable, or at least have since 2006. This is why the House has had an ethics committee for the last four years. If this was 2005 and Rangel was a Republican, there wouldn'have even been an investiation. Yep, always different.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 12:36 PM) Not sure if this was sarcastic, but, I actually agree with it. I've always like the guy. I actually respect Sanders and another one I respect is Kucinich... because they tell you straight up what they are and they don't deviate from their beliefs. I totally disagree with them politically but they don't play games like the rest of these turds do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 07:46 PM) The conclusion is always that the Republicans have been far, far worse since 2006 than any other minority Congressional party ever, and by a significant margin. If wrong=wrong, than doing it twice as much as anyone ever means you're twice as bad. So... pushing through votes by any means necessary on the other side... The point remains the same. The sleaze factor since 2006 has elevated higher then any other time by both sides as seen by "any means necessary"... but that's okay, it's justified by the majority doing the sleazy things and the Republicans trying to stop it. It's all justified if it's your side. Wrong is wrong is wrong.