BigSqwert

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Let me ask you this. If the opposition President had met with you regarding a bill that you disagreed with the vast majority of, would you vote for it because a small part of it was something you liked? Would the President meeting with you honestly change your mind if you still thought in your heart that most of bill was wrong? I don't get how stuff a few bones into a trillion dollar bill is supposed to placate a party that disagrees with the huge premise of the bill. To me, it doesn't make a difference. If you believe the bill is going to do more harm than good, you should vote against it. Even though your constituents voted for and support what the President is proposing?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) grats on learning how to post a list web links. you should pat yourself on the back. i clicked on one and i have no idea what you are getting at. having a meeting about a pet project massive pork spending bill and then basically saying "I won, deal with it." isn't much of a negotiation. He met with GOP members of the House and Senate on more than one occasion to get feedback and buy in. The bill had additional tax cuts added to appease them. The house version passed with a grand total of ZERO Republican votes. Obama lost his cool for 1 second and reminded people that he won the election. And the reason I was posting those links is that apparently I only get my news from huffington and there was absolutely no attempt to bring the GOP into the discussion according to you and Kap.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Huffingtonpost obviously isn't. all you do is parrot that trash. I guess these are all extreme liberal news sources as well. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/27/...olitics_4755065 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44...1405&page=1 http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny...0,1560330.story http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/02/Oba...ress/index.html http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/Doc...cumentID=108989 http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-le...2009-01-15.html http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-go...ulus/2688570997 http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/2...348/-1/yourprez http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...6FZMuwD95VNOS00

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) And in his first month has called out Rush and Hannity by name on seperate occasions. Imagine if Bush had called out Randi Rhodes or any other Air America host by name? Petty indeed. He pretty much called out GOP leadership. Who else would you call the leader of the GOP these days? Joe the Plumber?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) uh you might want to get news from somewhere besides huffingtonpost.com, dailkos and MSNBC Fox news is blocked at my work.

LINK

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) Bush used to have both parties up to the White House, that doesn't mean he was exactly bipartisian. To quote Kap "some outreach". There was outreach so why the lying?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) Yea, some change. Some outreach. He has gone out of his way to talk to GOP members of the House and Senate and get their feedback. What news have you been watching?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) However, the facts are plainly speaking for themselves because he's going back on damn near everything he said he would do with the exception of the things that will placate the hard left. Other than being more loose on lobbyists than was expected what else would you consider 'damn near everything'? The guy has served as President for less than a month and if I were only to listen to your opinions I would think that we elected Adolf Hitler or something.

^^^^^ I don't want to promote something that turns out to be kiddie porn.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) um... isn't that called email?

This seems pretty cool and it's free. http://beta.zumbox.com/

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) And I think that Obama is the biggest fraud and double standard president we have seen for a long, long time. You're sounding like Sean Hannity more and more each day.

Hard to argue with the current roster.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 12:15 AM) Those new shows on MTV last night have reached a new low, utter crapola I can't believe people still tune in to MTV. I don't even have it programmed in my favorites anymore.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 11:50 PM) Hey, you're one of the ones that says he will fix everything. We've been over this before, many times. I never said he would fix everything. I knew he would be an exponential improvement over your pal GWB and he's already showing that he will be.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:43 PM) Because people say the same thing about everyone else, unless it's their guy. I'm only making the point. Your schtick is getting old.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) Nah. Obama has it all figured out and he's going to save us. Says Mr Know-it-all. Aren't you the same person that was telling us that there was no way he would even get elected?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) Seriously, im addicted to Rock Band, and its sad. LOL. It seems whenever I go see what the Soxtalk crew is playing inevitably it will say "The_Rockraines is playing Rock Band".

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) You guys were all against a special election. Until a Democrat proposes it. Hilarious. continue. Where did you get that big paint brush of yours?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) I'd be in favor of state laws where the person being nominated has to be from the same party as the person leaving. I'd be in favor of what Feingold is proposing. I thought this was a Democracy.

LOL

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) I actually don't really care about your reasons for hating him, I just wanted to know why because it strikes me as odd that him accepting an appointment by Blagojevich in and of itself is enough for people to despise him. I guess. We'll find out what people think of him in 2010. I read somewhere recently that Senators are re-elected at a ridiculously high rate no matter how good or bad they're perceived to be. Somewhere around 94% if I recall correctly. Just look at Ted Stevens. EDIT: I was referring to the number of times Stevens was re-elected. Almost forgot he recently lost.

LINK

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) He did it for three years (2001-2003) Watching the interview, he seemed really upset/emotional while talking to Gammons. I've always heard he had a huge conscience, and tried doing the right things, whether that's accurate or not... I don't know, but he looked like he was truly sorry for this You never know though, some people are hard to read Especially this guy.