mr_genius

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) see how far their enjoyment of "I can do what I want!" will go. Don't forget to wear an Al Gore or John Edwards name tag when you talk about how it's ok for you to destroy the planet because you've earned the right to.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) Who cares about public transportation when Michael Vick is out there? "don't forget about me. i need news coverage too"

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) And you'd get nowhere. But, as a downstate rep, I suppose you would be expected to put up the good fight anyway. i think it's a one of the main reasons Blago is threatening a veto, he thinks he needs some support other than just Chicago.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 07:26 AM) So you would get into a pissing contest with Rich Daley? LMAO. huh? if i was a state rep from down state i sure as hell would. LMAO edit: unless i was bribed with some really good Sox tickets. then i wouldn't

QUOTE(bmags @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 08:38 PM) did that list somehow look bad to you? It had some of the best players to ever play the game in the last 15 years on there and the majority made it to the big leagues. i was thinking the same thing

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 07:57 PM) Why wouldnt you tax people who live out of Cook? Over 70 percent of the people taking up the roadways and the parking in the city are commuting from the suburbs outside of chicago. These people are using up chicago's resources just as much if not more than the actual residents. The highways are federally funded, they will not be affected. Parking is actually a source of income for the city; ranging from meters, to paid parking to tickets issued. So parking isn't costing money. Also, a claim that 70% of people who use CTA are from the suburbs doesn't sound accurate to me. I live in Chicago and use CTA, I'd say the vast majority of people on the trains and buses live in Chicago. A lot of the supposed "collar counties", which could potentially be taxed for Chicago, have a majority of residents who don't use CTA at all... so why should they pay for Chicago corruption with higher sales tax? Honestly, it would work out great for me to have everyone else pay for this mess, because I sure don't want to... but don't think it is reasonable to expect all other counties to pay for Cook's mess. Also, A lot of people travel from Chicago to the burbs for work, so should we have to start paying for DuPage county stuff if the the mayor of Naperville screws up the cities budget?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) My suggestion - get the revenue from an increase in both the gasoline tax and the sales tax on vehicles, throughout the metro area, combined with small fare increases for all transit. This, essentially, becomes a use tax. What would you do? two problems with your solution IMO 1) Chicago area already has the highest gas prices in the country, we are already severely over taxed. 2) Counties other than Cook should not have to pay for Chicago's wasteful ways. Example, I don't think higher sales tax in Lake County should be implemented to pay guys to sit around in trucks making $90,000 a year in Chicago. My solution: No extra money. I would force them to become more efficient. Let mayor Daley and the city council shut down the trains, call his bluff. He won't do it, he'll be forced to cut some waste.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) No, I just think it's a fairly embarassing slipup if he's totally pulling things that random out of his arse, and I haven't been able to thus far find anything on the Google suggesting anything other than "he totally made it up". in the words of the honorable Hawk Harrelson: "c'mon.. streeeetch!"

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 07:48 AM) GOP stand on staying the course is much more beneficial to AQ's cause than the U.S. pulling out. I don't think so. If the US pulls out early AQ could claim victory and show that US will abandon you, so do not dare oppose AQ or any terrorist group.

MTV doesn't care about black people

you're really reaching for a conspiracy or scandal on this one.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 05:56 PM) I simply said that the Iraq war was illegal and has resulted in a lot of bloodshed. "satisfied their bloodlust to go kill Muslims" is actually what you said. you were implying that this was a some sort of ethnic thing and we just went to iraq to just kill muslims. The Democrats still supported the war back then. The MSM, even if not intentionally, is so overpopulated by Democrats they constantly tow the line for that party. I was as frustrated as anyone over the lack of information put out by the media for reasons NOT to invade iraq. Now that we're there I would hope we wouldn't leave too early and make things worse. Of course we need to leave at some point (and hopefully fairly soon). Also, GW Bush did pretty much feed us a line of bs when he said "i'm against nation building", but we kind of owe it to the country of Iraq to at least make an attempt to clean things up a bit. Just my opinion of course.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) And what on earth does the fact that Dems are Christians have to do with it? I never said anything about crusades or what not, that was someone else. You said that AQ likes the idea of a Christian conservative admin in the White House. So the Dems would meet atleast 50% of those requirements. A main tool for there recruiting is also the "lack of morals" and the "satanic way of life" in the United States. So basically, a Christian, pro-gay, pro-liberal ideals would be much more "satan like" than a conservative one. I would also imagine the Democrats would continue much of the policy towards Israel, therefore the recruting would be fine for these groups. I didn't think you were implying that this was a Christian crusade.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) think its because AQ loves the idea of the christian conservative element staying in control in the U.S. It means more business for them. Highly unlikely. Their attempts at destroying targets in the United States and killing US citizens has been greatly hindered by this admin. Your theory of "it helps recruiting" is also suspect. There were plenty of recruits well before the GW Bush presidency and the main tool was "jews / Isreal" and the United States support of them. And aren't most Democrats Christians as well? The entire theory has so many holes in it. If a Democrat is president there will still be an equal amount of support for AQ and they know this.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 06:46 AM) You said the Dems were soft on terrorism by leaving the leadership of AQ alone and not wanting to kill/eliminate OBL. Then, I showed you how six months after 9/11 GWB stated publicly that he was not concerned about OBL. Then I quoted two major Republican candidates for the Presidency that have said that is not worth it to go after OBL. Why can you slime the Democrats and Clinton for not eliminating OBL and saying they are soft on terrorism when you're giving GWB, Thompson, Romney, et al. a free pass for the exact same behavior? Brain dead is one of the terms that I would have used for a cheerleader for the war. Despite the stories that information was unreliable, being stovepiped from questionable sources, Powell's UN speech being cribbed from a doctoral paper written in 1991 and that there were likely no WMD -- they threw that all out and went for the feel good orgy of violence in a nation thousands of miles away because they thought that it would make them 'secure' and it satisfied their bloodlust to go kill Muslims for what they did on 9/11. Remember, most of the people still believed that fallacious notion that Iraq and 9/11 were related which was an excellent selling point by the corporate media and the pro-war wings of both parties. Any person who did a little reading of investigative journalism could have seen that the claims of Iraq and 9/11 were absolute bunk. Yet, people shut off their brains and continued to believe the bulls***. So, yes, braindead would be an accurate descriptor of a war party supporter in this case, especially the 20+% that still continue to support this insane bloodbath and slaughter. And just because a partisan writes a book does not mean that what they wrote was suspect. Everybody has an agenda and the idea of objectivity is insane. The only objective thing in newspapers is the sports box scores and sometimes stock reports. And I'm not necessarily a Democrat. I shift from party to party in elections depending on the candidates running and their platform/how they stand on issues that are important to me -- sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat and sometimes Green or Libertarian. Obviously a strategy to stop terrorism is going to go beyond obl, but if the Democrats are going to claim the war on terror is failing because the guy is not captured or dead I am going to call them out on not getting him when they were in the White House and had the chance to take him out. They vote for the war in Iraq, then decide to abandon it when things are not going well. When things turn around a little it's "in spite" of the troops and military leadership. When they have a chance to get Bin Laden, it's not worth insulting muslims...when the GOP doesn't get him it's "a failure". They stand for nothing, just constant contradictory rhetoric. I'm not going to get into an in depth discussion about the notion that the US just invaded Iraq to kill muslims and are waging a genocidal war. It's a ridiculous accusation and one that does not play out. I'm not sure if this is really what you think or maybe your emotions got the better of you and resulted in that portion of your post. If the US was really this fascist regime, as you are eluding to, these muslim countries would have been totally destroyed. The military is trying to avoid civilian casualties, I can guarantee you that if they wanted they could carpet bomb, or even nuke those countries and succeed in this "mass genocide". As far as the corporate media supporting the war, I don't see much or any support in the MSM. Yes, the MSM is owned by corporations and it's news rooms are run by Democrats. Democrats and "liberals" are often in places of power in these large corporations you despise. From Hillary Clinton at Walmart to John Edwards and his large investments. Many of these supposed "liberals" are as money and power hungry as even the greediest of the GOP.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) But but but this is creeping socialism! Let these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps with their rugged conservative individualism! Horatio Alger didn't need no goshdarn big gub'mint to help him on his way. If they didn't have enough money for college, they must have just been f***ing lazy. How dare Bush tarnish the Reagan legacy by continuing to prop up the Department of Education instead of abolishing it? NO OIL FOR OIL! oh wait... NO BLOOD FOR OIL! yea thats it. no blood for oil.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 06:46 PM) Point away, chief. And weak on terrorism by leaving bin Laden alone? Would that be anything like saying: “Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else,” he said. The country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." “I truly am not that concerned about him.” If so, then that's Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and our current-terrorist-smoker-outer in Chief George W. Bush. How the Hell would you and the other rabid partisan right wingers have responded if Democrats, Greens, liberals or even conservatives critical of the Iraq war policy would have said even half of that stuff? I don't see how starting a war based on factless intelligence and continued actions which have only swelled anti-American sentiment abroad and swelled the numbers of people willing to accesorize with dynamite is a working strategy. And Suskind has no more of an agenda than the Krauthammers, Freepers, WNDers, Kristols, Humes, Fox News, O'Reillys, Hannitys and the other boundless, brainless cheerleaders of the pro-war "stay the course no matter how much suffering or countless billions get poured in" cheerleaders do. This whole near blind support for W and the Iraq policy is pretty damn insane, especially at this point when it is pretty damn clear that it was an absolute failure and continues to be. give me a break. your Dems are the ones saying " but, he didn't get bin Laden.... osama is the real target. " . you going to blame them for being shortsighted? of course you won't. comparing Suskind to Hannity and O'reilly sounds about right. i certainly wouldn't use any of their books as proof of anything, and that was my point... so what if some partisan wrote a book? it proves nothing. i didn't think the US should have invaded iraq.. but i wouldn't say anyone that does is, as you call it, "braindead". we get it, you're a democrat, but do you really need to stoop so low to make a point?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) By true definition of genocide - Less than 70 years ago. I hope your aren't counting the government of Germany of the 1940's as Christian. Edit: I think Goodwin's Law is about to be invoked! don't let me down Rex Kickass!

great move by congress here here

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) THe CIA spent significant time analyzing the 2004 tape, as they always do, looking for a reason for it to be released days before the election. They concluded that he was secretly trying to get hte public to think of him and thus strengthen Bush by threatening the nation from outside. Why? Not because he thinks htey're soft or anything -- CIA, FBI, everyone with half a brain...they all understand that Democrat/Republican doesn't really mean much to the War on Terror as nobody seriously running for President is going to roll over for al-Qaeda, but Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who uses and has used words like "Crusade" to describe his war and so you've got a brilliant propaganda campaign on your hands. It's easier to paint the country as a Muslim-hating place if a Christian fundie is elected and re-elected even after his wars, which the mideast generally detests. It's in several books about the CIA/War on Terror. The most recent one, if I recall correctly, that I read is The One Percent Doctrine. But you don't give a s*** about what the CIA says or what their speculation is or any of that. You don't know much about terrorist, terrorism, terrorist thought, terrorist training -- you don't know much about what the government does to fight them, you haven't looked too deep into it. Have you? IF you did, you'd know full well why al-Qaeda would want Bush in there. And I'm not saying that as a political condemnation. I'm not like you and Kap -- I don't believe that just because a bad guy says something in support of someone means much about that someone. So, whatever. I don't even know why I bother explaining the analysis or anything like that. You and Kap don't genuinely care about what the CIA says, what anybody says, bcuz Dems r bad, and everything else BEGS for a sarcastic, irreverent, irrelevant response. So some partisan hack wrote a book that is "proof" that Bin Laden really likes GW Bush. Give me a break. I could point out like 30 books stating the opposite. Dems are weak on terror, it's been proven by their actions. They could have killed Bin Laden but Clinton didn't want to offend any muslims, and if you don't offend them they will leave you alone -- oh wait, that has proven to be incorrect. Ok, I just read some of his New York Times and Esquire articles, the guy has a blatant agenda. Seriously, he's about as objective as Ann Coulter.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 07:10 PM) The CIA believes bin Laden wanted Bush to win the 2004 election because Bush is a conservative Christian and that plays well with the donors. yea right. no offense, but i think you just made that up.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. It's true.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) I wonder how many laughs would of been had, if they had gotten close to the president and Secret Service shot and killed the main actor as a threat to the president. i was thinking the same thing and decided it would have been hilarious

ok, we're getting way off topic. lets just move back to discussing what a prick John Edwards is.

I think that message was actually written by Chuck Shumer. Don't plagerize, Osama. Edit: well, except the low taxes part. that kind of came out of nowhere.