mr_genius

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 05:32 PM) "Hey, Chuck, we noticed that you haven't laid a broad in months. It's weirding us out and really bad for moral. So here's $20 go hire that hooker in town so we all can breath a little easier." "Thanks, but I'm gonna need more than $20. I've got standards"

this thread is hilarious QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 6, 2007 -> 01:13 AM) Heads, you have work on dpbl to do. how's KC doing!?

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) How shocking is it that Pelosi applies the law to everyone else but corporate interests based in her district. Honest government indeed. how bout it. the dems are full of it. just like Ted Kennedy being all for wind energy, well until he could (gasp) see one of the wind towers in the distance from his home. oh, imagine how horrible that would be to wake up in your mansion and have to see a windmill off in the distance.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) I am just annoyed with the fact that some people's fears rule their views so fully that they cannot accept any positive from one party, or any negative from the other. well, this is the GOP only thread totally biased posts are to be expected

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Can you provide evidence for this being factual? Pelosi's new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wanted/wants more troops. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 07:59 AM) True, but you said it takes 60 to override a veto. It takes 2/3. good call QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 07:47 AM) I see paranoia reigns supreme. almost exact thing i posted about has happened before with democrats. if you agree with raising taxes to cut the deficit, thats fine. no need to insult posters accusing them of mass paranoia.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 06:56 AM) 2/3 = 67 votes in the Senate true, but it takes 3/5 to stop a filibuster. 3/5 = 60 votes in the Senate

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 06:56 AM) Nobody's dumb enough to come out and say "I'm raising taxes!" They'll diguise it as a "rollback of Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich." (Of which, I must be filthy rich, because I enjoyed a part of those cuts.) the dems think we're all so stupid we won't realize that saying "rollbacks of evil tax cuts for the wealthy" is the exact same thing as "raising taxes". if you make over 50,000 a year the dems will consider you "wealthy". might take em a couple of years to get to that tax bracket, but they will attempt raise taxes substantially on many people who are not really wealthy if given the chance.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2007 -> 07:57 AM) That's where the procedural changes come in... It used to take 60% to move tax matters, now it only takes 50% +1. They can force anything they want onto the President's desk now. The size of the majority doesn't matter as long as the Dems vote as a block. true, but they need a certain number of votes (60 i think) to override a veto. i doubt they'll get that many votes to raise taxes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 08:40 PM) I know two military folks and one journalist who have spent a lot of time over there. They all describe the situation as some form of miserable or another. Yes, there are the occasional good stories. But they seem to be the exception to the rule. Yea, that sounds about right. I know this idea is kind of radical, but I would support us looking into breaking up Iraq into 3 smaller countries, one for each major ethnic group. That could make things even worse though, they might start invading each other.

--Will you watch the speech? Maybe --What do people think it will include and not include? Probably include him wanting even more money for the war. --Which of those things do people think will be effective, if any? Nothing will be effective. Lost cause IMO. --If you were him, right now, what would you do for Iraq? Secretly support another dictator to take over Iraq. Seriously, I have no idea. I guess we need to try to win this, even though i doubt it is possible. Actually I'd like to hear from Nuke to see if the situation over there is better than the media tells us. Hopefully it is.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) Obstructionist! haha, they better obstruct! QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) You can't filibuster in the house. I don't think major tax increases are on the agenda. i said Senate, not house, yo. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 07:39 PM) I find it unlikely that the newly-crowned Dems will want to waste their political capital on a PR drain like a tax increase. i hope you're right

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) Couldn't that also be seen as a more effective way to be able to achieve PAYGO benchmarks though? the Dems only have a slight majority in the Senate. they won't get the large tax increases they want. if they try to push legislation for huge tax increases the republicans should filibuster.

21

.269/ 17/ 71 think Konerko will have a down year

didn't Harry Reid vote for the Iraq war? just curious. if he did it was bad vote on his part, backtracking now i suppose.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 6, 2007 -> 08:48 AM) And Republicans live on deficit spending to boost the economy. "We'll buy you everything and you'll never have to pay for it." Republicans insist they have to spend more than the taxes they bring in to stimulate the economy. I'll take paid for pork over borrowed from other countries debt any day of the week. But would prefer a pork free balanced budget. once again a poster inaccurately reads a criticism of democrats as supporting everything republicans do. oh, and you don't think pork helps lead to national debt? do you even really have a point with your previous post?

QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 09:02 PM) In 1994, there were 1,318 pork projects costing taxpayers 7.8 billion. In 2006, there were 9,963 pork projects totaling 29 billion. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...rts_pigbook2006 So yeah, they both feast on it, but while Democrats were up to their waste in it, Republicans went over their heads. it's out of control for both parties. a lot of the pork increases were earmarks by democrats as well as republicans.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) The attempt is what it is. Read the article. The bill passed. Is it everything we want to see? No. But its a far sight more than any attempt made by the GOP congress. You can doubt it all you want, but its there in black and white. I think taxes are fine where they are for now, and once we get out the nightmare that is Iraq, we should decrease the budget accordingly and split the surplus between debt reduction and lowering some targetted taxes. And if you actually think that the Dems "LIVE" on pork any more than Republicans do, then you truly are drinking the GOP kool-aid. I read the article and there are tons of loop holes. the dems know this and already know how to exploit these loop holes. glad you agree that taxes should be low. do i think the GOP lives on pork too? yes. Republican koolaide? thats funny. i probably dislike GW Bush and crazy evangelicals more than you. I have a strong dislike for the current Rupublican party. Haven't voted GOP in 8 years. nice try.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 05:39 PM) I agree on low taxes. Tax cuts I am split on. as for Balta and the Dems' B.S., his statement is accurate - the GOP couldn't even make a dent on those subjects. The Dems have gotten things started at least. you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea! as for the start on removing pork? yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Also, the house passed PAYGO legislation for spending, which me likey. Makes it tough to bloat programs and increase deficits, but also disallows major new spending without finding the money. Muchos gracias. sounds good to me. lets also make the tax cuts permanent. low taxes and low government spending. excellent combination. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) the House Dems have already done at least a few things the Republicans were totally unable to do last year...pass rudimentary lobbying and earmark reform bills. looks as if Balta has totally bought into the dems bs on this.

.272 17 69

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) I do at some level. If a person tried something once or a couple times, I could live with that, but I don't want a regular user or recovering addict in the White House. Edit: For example, if say, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court spent a decade addicted to dubious painkillers which caused hallucinations to the point he tried to leave a hospital in his pajamas, well, that's something I'd care about. haha, well yea. having a junkie as president or on the supreme court isn't a good idea. i'm prett sure Obama and Bush jr aren't drug addicts. i think you know what i meant.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 07:45 PM) Again, Obama admits his past usage of recreational drugs. George Bush didn't address anything he did before 40. But I'm sure it was different for him. personally, i don't care what either did.

haha, that kid is hilarious for thinking up such a lame excuse after getting busted watching porn