kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 4, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) The Democrats try this but they don't do it anywhere near as effectively as the Republicans, the GOP is basically a well-oiled machine and has been doing this for a couple of decades now whereas the Democrats still are what they are. Actually on policies and general politics and such the Democrats haven't changed much at all since the 60s, and socialism never got into the mainstream left in the United States like it did in Europe And what are they trying to do now? Jesus, wake up. But, yes, lf, just dismiss it as a meaningless post.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 4, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) Bill in the House of Representatives: Prohibit schools from restraining and isolating students and creating undue physical or mental abuse on the students except for cases of imminent danger. Out of 170+ Republican Congressional Representatives, 145 voted against this measure. So in the last six months, we have 75% of the Republican delegation of the Senate voting against the right of rape victims to confront their attacker in court, if a government contract is involved - and now we have over 80% of the Congressional GOP caucus voting against a prohibition of restraint and physical abuse in schools when defined as "restraints that restrict breathing or compromise a student's health or safety." Just thought you should know. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll082.xml What aren't you telling? What else buried in the legislation?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) What are you going on about? They are different procedures and you tried to conflate them into the same thing. I didn't make an argument for or against the use of either, just against trying to say that they're the same thing. edit: AIISII is about the executive's power over the military, treaties and appointments. No I didn't, other then to say when one party "fillibusters", it is "good" and when the other does it, it is "bad". That's just the way it is through those political colored glasses people like to wear.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) Well there's some truth in what you're both saying, but they're 2 totally different countries. Yes on a broad, macro type level, they're doing the same thing and changing to a counterinsurgency-based strategy, but in execution there's not really that much the two countries have in common so the ways they go about it are different. There are people in Congress who really do think one is just like the other and all wars are the same (i.e. John McCain) and frankly don't know what they're talking about. Kind of like Barackus the Great and Harry "the war is lost" Reid? Meh.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 08:25 PM) They are, by definition, two distinct processes. That's not justification, that's how words work. edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliatio...tates_Congress) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option They are two different processes, Kap. No amount of "OMG everything is always equal!" will actually make them the same thing. I know they are two different things. In fact, I would argue that the Democrat version of the "nuclear option" is blatently more against the constitution (article II section II). The rules of the senate are set to pass legislature, and no where in the Constitution does it say they have to pass laws. But whatever... Dems are always the theoretical saints in these arguements, and the GOP is always bad. It grows stupid, and the arguements are weak sauce at this point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) "It" in each section of that sentence refers to different things. Stop equivocating. BS. You all always justify things when it's "your party". And at the end, it's just partisan hackery defending bulls***.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) The "nuclear option," as it was opposed by the Democratic Senate in 2005 was not reconciliation. It was changing the rules of the Senate in mid session to eliminate the filibuster so that three Judicial nominees could be muscled through the Senate. Reconciliation, is a practice that has been commonly used for bills that involve budgetary process and only certain portions of a bill can be affected by Reconciliation. A lot of good things have come out of reconciliation, among them the COBRA insurance program. The R in COBRA stands for Reconciliation. The 2010 "nuclear option" as the Republicans are now calling it, is really just a regular Senate parliamentary procedure that isn't used very often. The 2005 model "nuclear option" would have changed parliamentary procedure. They are two different things. And maybe people should learn that if you call two different things by the same name, they do not magically become the same thing. The Democrats use it for "good purposes" and the Republicans use it for "bad purposes". We get it, Rex.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 23, 2010 -> 06:07 PM) I think it's pretty hilarious, if slightly pathetic, that after left-wingers started calling themselves "progressives" more often because the right-wingers made "liberal" a bad word, that the right-wingers picked up on it and started trying to make "progressive" a bad word. You can immediately tell when someone is a talk radio listener/Glenn Beck watcher when they use that word. 8 times out of 10 they don't even know what the f*** it means. Hillary Clinton started it all again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) Because creating an entirely new judicial setup, including figuring out what rules everything has to follow, takes a lot of time? (Especially when 99% of the point of that new judicial system is to break the rules of the normal system) It's not a new system, and if they wanted these people tried, they would have done so already in the military court system - or you know, make them go through the public system even though by the technical merits this case would easily get thrown out before it started. And lost, quit homering this. You're not even making a point other then veiled crap.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 08:30 PM) You must've forgotten that I've pretty consistently supported military tribunals for the last few years now. But the thing is, they just aren't moving. At all. How many terrorists have been convicted in criminal courts since 9-11? Like 300? And tribunals? Like 3? Why aren't they moving? Because someone doesn't want them to for some reason.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) I'd rather the market dictated the rates, but that doesn't seem to be working. Why? /grabs some popcorn.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) I really think most people (vast majority are conservatives) just flat-out miss the entire point of trials and the basic rule of law. It's not just a symbolic show, there really is a point to it all. And there's also a point to a military tribunal. But that's ok, just marginalize that point to make your point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 07:16 PM) Honestly the Dems not being able to get together is starting to put a hole into the old "It's all Bush's fault" excuse machine. Yet, they still do it, day after day, after day, after day, after day...

Democrats know so much better who to elect. Oh wait a minute, that only counts for "moderate Republicans".

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) Maybe I'm timid, though I doubt it, but I also think those questions are out of place for the class. Elaboration: When I take a science class, I do not go into it looking to prove my beliefs, I go into it for knowledge on how to do the science and how to understand their topics/jobs. A better way to explain this, This 6,000 year belief is based on religion. The biologists work is not based off of religion, but based on the work they've done. I think the importance of the class is to ask questions pertaining to that work. And I think it's shortsighted to say you can't still find you're beliefs on that 6,000 even moreso by knowing how the science works. And more elaboration: I took religious studies courses on the torrah and also a christianity course. When in the torrah class, I didn't feel it germane to the class to ask "Why do the jews reject the son of god when there is clear evidence that he was the prophet?" The class is about the teachings of the torah and the societies it represented. My questions stuck to them. In the Christianity class, I did not ask for proof to counter my growing atheism. I learned what there was to learn, and I found it a fulfilling class. It's just as important to learn the topic at hand without forcing the topic to extrapolate to your own hypotheses. That can be done at professor hours. But I find it a bit disrespectful to ask the teacher to debate something off topic. Good post. I agree with you, although I may disagree with your conclusions. But, it's your ability and free will to decide what's best for you. And that's what makes this a really insightful and well meaning post. As for cramming down people's throat the politics of a scientific answer, bulls***. I'll just leave it right there, because obviously there's room for only black and white in any argument, and that's not only shameful, but why college gets the bad rap it does now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 08:47 PM) On Amazon, if you search by categories for "keeping america stupid" all the books seem to fall into a certain category. Which is why college is uneducating our kids, but whatever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 09:32 PM) I know you tried, but this isn't kaperbole. It's true. The US government tortured the s*** out of people while being run by some evil motherf***ers who are retarded enough to believe that's the way to go. Ok, sure. Concentration Camp, USA. Er, CLOSE GUANTANAMO! Tourtourous bastards!

We are some evil motherf***ers who torture! TORTURE! OMG TOOOOOOOOOOURTERETTETUUUUUUREEEE!!!!!!!!! *yawn*

OMG OMG OMG. /Carry on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) I figured that'd get you riled up. The opportunity to bash big business. Wouldn't matter if they were forced to give out health insurance to someone below cost or going out of business because they will not be subsidized and then being forced to close down by the government...as long as they're unprofitable, what's what we want, those capitalist pigs. Government needs to step into everything because capitalism has left me wanting everyone on equal footing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2010 -> 06:07 PM) Link Evil mother f***ers. Now, ask yourself why this happened. Oh wait, there's no convincing of you otherwise. Evil mother f***ers. And, what's the % overall, not the "% profit gained", which is misleading.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 10:52 PM) As they have on capital punishment, separate but equal, abortion, . . . You forgot to take a shot at activist judges, you are turning into a lib after only one day in Canada! There's no logic in your argument. The "legal right to secede" as Texans like to claim is false under current law. Now, if Texas wants to break the laws of the United States, I guess they're free to do so. Next.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) In 2 years, the Chinese will be operating 42 separate high-speed rail lines, connecting virtually all of their major urban centers. In 4 years, the U.S. may have a high speed rail line running from Tampa to Orlando. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy This is one thing that I don't understand. Why don't we develop this? Is it because the airline industry and auto industry will get pissed off?

And the court has already ruled on this issue - Texas cannot secede. That loophole was closed after the civil war.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 10:47 PM) Kap you take up the positions of people you also disagree with often. I do? Then that would mean that I don't know what to think. I'm "Independant!" Or "Moderate!". I like that better. It suggests I can be bought.