kapkomet

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2010 -> 08:32 PM) LOL. Of course it is. ffs, can you accept anything at face value without turning it into a massive Obama conspiracy? It may not be Obama directly in this case, but someone knew exactly what to say close to the general and virtually nothing was a direct quote - it was all "sources close to"... . Furthermore, the response was too quick (Gibbs was too much of a happy ass on this). They knew this was coming.

You're missing the point, and always do.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) Well, everyone does. Just not in public. And especially not to a reporter. Yea, they do know this. Which tells me this whole thing is a set up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2010 -> 07:57 AM) You guys didn't seem to have a problem with the 30% year over year increase in California that Blue Cross pushed, or the 9% year over year average price increase for the past 2 decades. Strawman. Again.

Because our president has one-upped him at every opportunity, through a lot of leaks (see newsweek story about a month ago... it's ok for THEM to leak and DIRECT quotes smearing this man but no direct qutoes whatsoever in Rolling Stone)? Because our president is a f***ing boob of a man? Because... oh whatever... let's just keep worshipping our Mess......... iah.

No no nononono nono no... According to Baltanomics, the costs must go up before they come down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 12:24 PM) The government technically owns the airwaves and leases the rights to television, radio, and cell phone providers. Does the government own either the wires that connect your home/business to computer networks or the servers that you're accessing through those networks any more? No they don't.

How about actually fixing what matters. Oh, wait, we can't rape the system for tax revenues and redistribution of wealth dollars if we do that.

What Barack Obama does has nothing to do with BP. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to comprehend. Oh wait, because it's a good cover. Got it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2010 -> 11:10 PM) Sure, because there is no middle ground. If you don't find 100% agreement with Barack, you are in favor or a 20 year court battle. Seriously don't ever make fun of Kap again. You have lost all rights to the high moral ground. Whaddayah know. I think after about two years of this nonsense, my point has FINALLY been made.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2010 -> 05:50 PM) so, are you still telling people how you have never defended BP? Oh, yea, I'm "defending them" all over the place by mocking our sit-n-spin Comrade new Chairman of the Board of BP. Show me, still, where I've "defended" BP.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2010 -> 04:14 PM) Solves on unemployment, welfare, and social security, It should be considered... just as long as people sign on the dotted line to not sue the government for the cancer. Make BP pay. Comrade Barackus, Chairman of BP, says "make it so".

9-1 in last 10... and another shutout.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 11:10 PM) So...you're admitting that the health care system was unfixable. No, I'm admitting that there's a really easy way to change the cost curve but no one wants to see it. The way it was done is a government plan. You know, a "public health care system" without being a "public health care system" and if you look at Europe and Canada, their cost curves haven't come back, either, even with the severe rationing.

They already had financing lined up before USTREAS said no, we must do it.

And you people b**** now when soxtalk farts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 05:08 PM) So, you're attacking the ability of the ACA to bend the future cost curve based on stats from the years before the ACA is passed? Is that the quality of argument that's been happening while I've been out? In case you wonder, I've worked in the health care industry. Those cost curves are not going to save anyone anything. But keep dreaming the good dream...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) But kap's been saying that Obama is deliberately letting things get worse in just about every situation. Because he has. GM's profitable? Wow, who'd a thunk that? Too bad it's not legit. But, I don't know anything about any of that... Just so you understand, they would have been just as profitable under a real chapter 11... but I don't know anything about that, either.

Against the almighty Starsburg...!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:24 PM) Thank you Toyota. That wasn't just coincidence, either. They burned them at the stake, drug their ass in front of Congress and made a big ass spectacle of that, too. Again, it's not like we've seen this before. This is the adminstration playbook, and it works every time for suckers out there to villify what it is they want villified. Saul Alinsky would be proud, because it really is textbook Saul Alinsky.

No, we "won't be sorry"... we'll never know. Kind of like that stimulus. No one has a f***ing clue where that money went - you know, all that transparancy and accountability. You see, that's the cover. Again, this president INTENTIONALLY sat on his ass letting the oil destroy the coast, all so people like you would get pissed and call off all offshore drilling, all the while setting up to control a privately held company and an industry right with it. Remarkably like banks, insurance, car companies, and whoever else he can villify.

EAT s***, PIRATES!!!!!!!! (It's been a while). 7-1 in the last 8 ain't bad, folks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 08:28 PM) I didn't say he was successful. I said your grand conspiracy assertions are ridiculous. You're moving your goalposts around. No, I'm not. My 1-2-3 point is exactly what has happened, and he has fixed nothing (you're the one that asserted he hasn't played this game, and I asked you what he has accomplished - if he hasn't accomplished anything, then by definition, he's not done anything) --- all the while promising what he would do. Which means he sits, lets the crisis build, plays Robin Hood, and pats himself on his back while "kick{ing} some ass". Furthermore, of course he's exaggerated everything. That's the entire point, otherwise he can't sell his piles of

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 08:11 PM) You fail at point one. Obama didn't build or exaggarate the financial collapse, the state of our health care system and its future direction, GM & Chrysler's situation and the impact their failure would have, anthropgenic global warming or the oil spill in the gulf. These situations all existed independent of Obama. You're also accusing him of letting a situation fester, but that fails, too. Where did he sit around waiting on jobs? economy? health care? GM? Has he tried to come through with legislation, make himself look like some glorious negotiator and a great leader? Of course! But that's not quite as nefarious as you paint everything to be. Obama knew the severity of this situation and he could have stopped it, but he purposefully let it get worse and worse and worse so that he could make himself look good. That is absolutely absurd and you've nothing to back that up. You know what would have made him look great? Cleaning this s*** up ASAP, not standing around for a month while BP f***s around with the same ideas from 30 years ago that didn't work. And just how likely would that be to happen? The GOP has already apologized to BP. They blocked attempts to lift the $75M liabilities ban several times. They're going to oppose just about anything Obama, Reid or Pelosi proposes. And what about the people affected by this crisis? Oh well, life's rough, s*** happens? Wait around 20 years for the SCOTUS to cut liabilities by a factor of ten? Please stop white-knighting BP. f***ups happen when companies have long patterns of negligence and incompetence. Show me where Obama has fixed a thing. Anything? Anywhere? Jobs? Health care? Financial issues? Oil spill? Anything? All this man has done is taken money on behalf of all of these issues, put it into government hands, and redistribute the money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) The person in charge of running this fund is the same guy who ran the 9/11 fund. Why are you so convinced that it will be corrupted? I think Democrats are at least smart enough to understand the political liability those sorts of shenanigans would bring. Because he's a Kennedy lackey and certainly not "indepenent". It's easy to play shennanegins with this fund for several reasons unlike the 9/11 fund... but I won't waste my time.