kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) The pace didn't really pick up until Bush 43 if you don't count Thomas's hearings That's what started it. And now, it's just so far out of control, it's almost pointless.

The really ugly politics started when Kennedy gave a blistering speech against Bork an hour after his nomination. Before that point in time, yea, the appointees were "political" but not "ugly" like it is now. And that speech was what started the nasty stuff between parties on SCOTUS nominees.

And who started the real "politicing" of SCOTUS nominees? It took one hour for the Borkinization of SCOTUS nominees to begin by one Ted Kennedy.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 09:20 AM) Do you think they let Obama and Biden fly together on a regular basis? Or do you think they make them take separate planes and separate routings if they are travelling to the same place? Sorta like they take one cabinet member in the chain of presidential succession and put them in an undisclosed location during the State of the Union? I guess I didn't realize the VP was on the same plane. Of course, they don't let them travel together. In fact, there's usually two presidential planes for the president alone for security reasons.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) This is something that's truly stunning. Do you think Obama and Biden are allowed to fly together on the same plane? I don't understand.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) These kind of posts are exactly why I stop responding to you in the Filibuster. It's funny, I think you have lots of valid points to make in these discussions, and when we talk about this stuff via instant message - I always really appreciate the discussion. I wish you could bring that here, and this place might become a more interesting place to have discussions. Yep, maybe. But then again, when people actually debate this stuff from a differing viewpoint, it usually ends up in a pretty, 1,000 word "GOVERNMENT SAVES" rant and how stupid those who have a different viewpoint really are. I just save the number of words to make the other viewpoint easy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 9, 2010 -> 08:20 PM) That is an incredible double standard. If they aren't a political party, how are they going to have politicians? As for what they stand for, if the name doesn't tell you what they stand for, there is nothing I can tell you past that. They're not liberal, utopian, redistribution of wealth, everyone needs to be equal in society people (oh, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... GOVERNMENT SAVES!!!), therefore, they're nutbags without a leader.

The bigger issue is you can't cut taxes and then increase your spending by 10%. That obviously doesn't work. But it's been proven over and over that the revenues received goes higher when taxes are cut. It's just Congress is so stupid about it that we're left the other way.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 09:29 PM) Suck on that, small ball fans Hey, wait a minute, you like the small ball, don't you?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 09:21 PM) I agree that it's a macro issue, but it is what it is. There are 2, maybe 3 times as many left-leaning posters as there are right-leaning posters. And that's perfectly fine.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 09:05 PM) I think it's all a lot more nuanced than that, personally. Republican politicians don't like to stray from the line they draw at all, for any reason, like for example if a Republican at the national level supports a tax increase, or a government program (of a particular type) they get ripped a new one for not being truly conservative. When someone succeeds (Gingrich reducing the deficit) it's because they were truly committed, if they fail (Bush) then it's because they weren't conservative enough and they need to get back to the basics and be more firm in their principles. This is kind of ironic to me though, because Gingrich got blamed for failing to do some things and got voted out as Speaker in the 90s because they said he wasn't committed enough and compromised too much, which makes no sense because he shut the government down out of a refusal to budge, more than once. And Reagan raised taxes more than a couple of times too (and pulled the Marines out of Beiruit after the bombing - by today's standards, the paragon of all things Republican would be a horrible Republican today). If I say the Tea Party is "incoherent" it's because they want to lower taxes, but they also say they're deficit hawks - which makes no sense to me, even if you completely factor out healthcare reform. We already cut taxes, a few times, and it added to the deficit. It has to be one or the other. Reduced taxes does not equal larger deficits by itself. Why is that such a hard concept for people to understand? Keynsian economics is working swellingly, right?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 08:55 PM) NSS losing his composure, then calling you out, then me taking issue with the characterization of how this forum is run, then Rex and Gage going back and forth for a while on polls, then me and you... like I said, I read every post, albeit sometimes delayed... what are you getting at? Everyone is out to get you? Even me? Come on, you know me better than that (and this is reaching the point where I don't feel comfortable talking out in the open anymore) First, you're not the problem. Second, people calling me out? Please. I could care less. Third, the macro point here is a very large one and the whole problem behind this forum now, but almost everyone here won't get it nor care to. And yes, I'm part of the problem, but I don't cover it up with a bunch of verbose bulls*** to have a different type of appearance. Most of the time, behind the obnoxiousness of "Kaperbole ™", there's a larger point that no one really gives a s*** about. It's a baseball forum, right? (Incoherent point here... yes...) /back to people having real conversation... at this rate, maybe this'll catch up to the Dem thread...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) Then don't come here if it's like that for you. Seriously. Not everybody feels that way, no need to piss on everybody else's parade. Oh and in any case you're talking about Balta specifically and you can take that up with Balta, he is a big boy, he can handle it... Ok dude. Look at the last two pages and think about it a little bit.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 07:12 PM) kap the point is that when you do that, it's EXTREMELY obnoxious and adds nothing, nothing at all, and it's like a kid who is sitting in a classroom farting while everybody else carries on with their business. I try to be really lenient but sometimes you just get out of control and to be honest, a lot of times I don't want to have to post anything directly, and I just cross my fingers and hope other posters get bored and ignore you. At a certain point though, it's just irresponsible if I don't. You're getting mocked by other posters not for your point of view, but because of the ridiculous ways you convey it (or think you're conveying it). But to whatever you're saying - inherent bias? What? How is there an inherent bias in somebody posting something? That's like me telling you the stuff you posted is inherently biased to a conservative point of view. Um... yeah! That's the whole reason I bother responding to your points in the first place! I know there is a bias. Most of the time I'm in here posting, and this 100% the truth concerning me, I'm either trying to learn something, or trying to educate somebody else. Ranting and shouting really isn't usually my deal. Oh, so if I link it to a blog and pretty it up, and then ask circular questions to make "debate" an entirely different point, it's somehow better? This forum ceased to exist about two years ago as anything useful. No one wants to really learn anything, they just want to vent and make people think they are smarter then other people. Whatever. There's a lot of you who really don't get it, and either don't want to, or care to, or want to even bother looking like they might have the capability to learn something else.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) You mean like the past two pages of this thread? Look in a mirror for Christ's sake. When I've gone off, I took some time off. I've been treated very fairly, including the time when I called out NSS for trying to act like an inbetween moral arbiter in the 2008 election and taking sides with you. They are fair. They are extremely lenient. One of the things that has pissed me off, and I don't even like him as a poster, but one of the easy things of this forum is anyone can make fun of AHB and it's fine. People can clearly insult him, and no big deal. Imagine if that was kap. Are you f***ing serious? LMAO. You guys hurl crap at me personally then anyone else, and this post is exactly on that point. But I could care less, because I've just accepted it. Which in a way is bad, because you get the responses that you see about the inherent bias of all of the information posted here. GOVERNMENT SAVES, in 1000 words, or GOVERNMENT SAVES in 2. The point's the same, and then I get mocked for it. Yea, ok. And I go around here suspending people and power grabbing. I'm a ring leader, baby. Yea, please. And SS, I can never be figured out.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 04:52 PM) Nowhere in my post did I, or anyone else for that matter, say anything about that... hell, I am in the same dirty, unholy industry as you, and of course I want an overwhelmingly powerful DoD. But there is a point of diminishing returns or just plain overkill. Defense industries are powerful, and they provide a lot of jobs scattered across the country - intentionally - so they have a lot of senators and representatives willing to go to bat for them. But where does their profit come from? Government spending, that s*** isn't free. It makes no sense at all to have 5 times (arbitrary number I threw out btw) as many next-gen aircraft as our nearest competitors do, and we can barely fund our current, ACTUAL operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless someone thinks Russia or China is an imminent military threat in which case I'd say there is a very strong case for that being bulls***. LMAO. That's awesome. That s*** ain't free, unless it's for health care or some other government entitlement.

It's called a deferred liability, first of all. Second of all, they'll pay. Don't worry. And it's not some trick. Third of all, you can thank your Congress for this (without regard to party - but I'm sure it's some evil GOP plot against government and paying off the private sector, because it always is.)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) Total corporate income taxes paid last year by Exxon-Mobil: $15 billion. Total corporate income taxes paid last year by Exxon-Mobil to the United States Federal Government: $0. Corporate taxes in this country are clearly too high. And it's CLEARLY not that simple, but I'm sure you don't care. This makes your talking points and you don't want to bother understanding reality here.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) They're cool if they can actually be used - I mean - we could order another 300 F-22s, but what the hell for? Peace, man. *SUCKS AIR IN* Seriously, you don't get that? You don't get weapon programs, especially air force weapon programs? Considering, you've got China, Russia, and others developing more technology as we speak? It's ok, though, I see ya'lls point. Nothing will ever happen, and the world is a safe, beautiful place. Dismantle it all and stop the spending. It's unnecessary. We need all that money for social programs so that the redistribution of wealth can continue from the private sector... i.e. the government decides where to put money. Defense spending included, of course.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 06:54 PM) [dials FBI tip line] Don't worry about it, the Patriot Act has already made sure of noting the IP that came from.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. /thread. (Now, who am I talking about, this moronic thread, or the President?)...

After seeing some of this stuff, you know, like up close, fighter planes are cool. But I guess they're worthless in today's hippee love everyone world.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Apr 4, 2010 -> 06:04 PM) I love IRC, but it's a pain, and it isn't user friendly. I'll toss a link up when I have it all ready and you all can decide from there. I hear that. I was going to get the chat software that connects with invision, but my understanding was even though it's a pain in the ass, IRC was still preferred. Again, I defer to you all - I'll help however I can (even though I've been horrifically short on time the last couple of weeks and I know I'm swamped for the next couple, but I will make this a priority... at least for now you all have something...)

QUOTE (Felix @ Apr 4, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) * kapkomet ([email protected]) has joined #SoxTalk.com WOOOOOO I'm a f***ing idiot. See ya! LOL Felix * kapkomet ([email protected]) has left #SoxTalk.com The idling begins! I couldn't help myself. I was just excited to log back in. I'm a dumb f***er (well, I'm old and I forget things).

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Apr 4, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) I'll get back to you. The one I'm looking at has a lot more admin features and it looks like it'll link to the SoxTalk mysql database - which means the login here will coincide with the login there. If it does that, I'm 99% sure that the files will need to be hosted on your server. I'm installing it now on my end and looking at exactly how much it does. Do you all really want to do that? It's up to you guys.