Rex Kickass

When you cant memorize lines like "We must have good laws. We must do our best to stop bad laws," it doesn't exactly engender confidence.

The atmosphere isn't the same and the will isn't there anymore. Neither Jordan nor Egypt wants in on a war with Israel. Even Syria is at best tepid to the idea, and Iraq is incapable of acting. This isn't 1967 or 1973 anymore. This region doesn't have anything close the the Unity that it used to have.

Except the problem with Thompson is the same problem that Richardson has. Horrible campaigner. Speaks in a monotone voice, head down reading most of the times. He doesn't seem vibrant, he looks like he's late for a nap. And that's gonna kill him in the polls.

My point is that although language towards each other might be irrational, actions toward each other tend to stay rational in the mideast. Ahmadenijad talks crazy, but won't act crazy. And probably won't get the opportunity to because the President of Iran needs permission from the Supreme Council to take a dump, let alone invade or attack another country.

With all the death to Israel calls that Iran made throughout the first ten years of the revolution, they were the only country in that region to trade with Israel. In fact, there's a book called "Charlie Wilson's War" which talks about the Jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s and how it was funded with US cash and Israeli weaponry. The mid-east is such a complicated region that nothing is really as it seems. Is Iran building a nuclear weapon? Probably. Why? My best guess is protection. Major powers tend to try to prevent major regime change in nuclear declared states, because chaos means a lack of protection for the most dangerous weaponry around. Nobody really wants a nuclear armed Iran around because nobody really likes the system of government that they have. If Iran was nuclear, Russia, China and the US would find itself in the awkward position of not trying to completely destroy the Revolutionary Council for fear that control over the weaponry would disappear.

Umm exactly. Oh, and by the way, where do you think Israel got its oil from through out the 1980s? Here's a hint - Flock of Seagulls wrote a song about this country. Why is this important? Because in foreign affairs, words and actions are two completely different things.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) You're a mind reader now. Nope, I'm putting two and two together. He regularly attacks veterans' service whose opinions he doesn't agree with. He did it with Paul Hackett, he did it with John Kerry, and he did it with the guy in the Vote Vets ad. The best part of the phony soliders thing was that, he trotted out his own phony soldier a while back. He had a caller on the show, a phony officer claiming to represent units of the military that doesn't exist to get his own point of view across and even after the Pentagon contacts his show to tell him that this person and unit do not exist, he refused to rule out the possibility that he was talking to a soldier in Iraq.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) There is a very irrational mindset when it comes to the Jews as far as the Muslims are concerned. For that very reason, I can see things getting that out of control. Except, no. Their actions towards Israel (with the exception of non-state actors) have been entirely rational. Rarely are you seeing one state act unilaterally against Israel.

The reason I think the first question is weird is it makes it seem like the Democrats were wanting to provide more benefits to people between 40 and 60K a year, and less to people making less.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) I don't think they much care what the rest of the world thinks. Think about it from their point of view. The entire world, sans the US, votes against them every chance they get in the UN. They are condemned, attacked, and hated by most of the world. Its not like they are endangering some big base of support here. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks, as they only care about their own survival. If they are attacked with nuclear weapons, do you really think they are going to stop and think about what the rest of the world would say if they answered that attack? They never have in their history, why would they start with the most deadly of attacks? Seriously, at very least, they would launch at nuclear attack at whereever the missile came from. More than likely they would settle old scores and attack anyone who was even thinking of attacking them again. Actually, Israeli warfare has generally been fought with much restraint - when out and out war is the issue. I just read a history of the 6 day war in 1967. They were attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria simulatneously, with support from Iraqi troops. That's why the six day war was fought on several fronts. There isn't the will on behalf of Arab countries at this time to fire on Israel after Israel would exercise a nuclear strike on Iran. These states are interested in their survival as well. The scenario you describe assumes that there are no rational actors on either side, and I just can't see something getting that out of control.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) Interesting USA Today poll. Dispite the inability to get their side of the story out, a majority of Americans seem to agree with the Republicians and Bush on this issue. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...ppoll16.art.htm Here's the text of the poll questions: The wording is kinda weird. And then the other question seems even more loaded. More simple questions yield a much different response. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBS_news_poll_101707.pdf

This bill was a bipartisan compromise. It passed with almost 70 votes in the Senate. A lot of work went into making the bill the compromise it was - which if I understand it correctly - merely changed the rules to allow states to run their CHIP programs the way they wanted to run them, within reason. From what I gathered, it seemed more a tacit acknowledgment that a family of four making 50,000 a year in NJ isn't doing as well as a family of four making the same amount in Indiana.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Did Sammy Sosa make the Rangers a ton of money when he hit #600? As for 2012, A-Rod will be 37 at that point. If he's not on the juice, what's to stop him from a Thome-like injury-induced decline? How many power-hitters can even pull off a full season at that age? Are Thome or Frank worth $30 million/year at this point? Wrong order. They cut bait with him after he had arguably the best season ever for a Sox hitter. He got hurt later in Baltimore. A-Rod couldn't keep the Rangers competitive in his prime. How is he supposed to do that for the Sox as he enters the downside of his career? The Sox will attract more fans with a team that WINS... period. A-Rod is going to hawg a massive amount of the payroll and may actually PREVENT the Sox from winning. What happens four years from now when Buehrle is gone and the Sox need another top-of-the-rotation starer, but have no ace in their system, and A-Rod's salary is preventing the Sox from signing free agent Josh Beckett? Payroll flexibility is huge. What would've happened to the Sox if they had signed A-Rod back in 2004 and didn't have the extra money to sign Garcia and Contreras? Look, A-Rod was the difference between a Yankees team in the playoffs and a Yankees team that didn't make the playoffs. Do I think he's worth 300 million over 10 years? No. 150 over 5? Probably.

You don't think it won't be a huge deal in 2009 when A-Rod starts chasing 600? or in 2012 when he chases 714?

Except their nuclear arsenal can't hit everyone. You don't think a nuke in every capital wouldn't engender a nuclear response from Russia or China? It absolutely would. You don't think that the US would respond to protect Israel in that case, do you? Because in the situation you've placed, there's no way the US is coming to Israel's material defense or retalliating against any counter attack.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 07:06 AM) I have the opposite problem. The more she plays Santa Claus, the more she pisses me off, though I guess not nearly at as steep of a curve as Edwards does. He has actually passed Hill on my "I'd rather be a Cub fan than vote for..." meter. If you're gonna be pissed off at pandering, be pissed off at everyone. I'm not a Hillary fan. She's honestly my least favorite of the first or second tier candidates right now on the Democratic side. But having seen her in person, I can see the appeal. She's a lot better up close than you'd expect.

Israel would not nuclearize the conflict all across the region, that would be foolish and invite a nuclear response from someone else. One nuclear detonation might destroy Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but it wouldn't destroy all of Israel.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) I'm pretty sure he said he wouldn't do that. Also, once conservatives see Hillary Clinton in presidential debates they will get all pissed and vote GOP IMO. Except the problem is, election wise, the more people see Hillary on the GOP side, the less they dislike her.

Gotta say, I'm liking Dodd more and more.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) The candidacy itself has little value. It is merely further deterioration of political and intellectual discourse. Oh, he rails against it and satirizes it, to be sure, but he's no better than those other men who do the same he does for serious. And I've always found it deplorable that people get their news from The Daily Show or Colbert, or that they get their Cues, just as I find it disturbing that people "learn" from Rush Limbaugh and Shrill O'Lielly. Yeah and it's clearly never been done before. Didn't they put a pig on the ballot in California in 1968?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 12:17 PM) Here's my problem with his statement: Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved? I think the problem with that would be assuming China AND Russia would get involved. They wouldn't. At most, one and not the other would rally to Iran's defense as they are competing interests in this region. And my bet is that neither state would go nuclear over Iran. In reality, this is the one country where I think a policy of regime change makes sense for the US right now. Ideally, we'd do so by internationalizing pressure around the region towards Iran I think. It'd be tough to do but not impossible. It would however require a concentration of diplomatic efforts that I don't think the US is particularly interested in at the moment.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) So, the infamous SCHIP bill is dead. Passed both houses, Bush vetoed, Senate overrode, but the House just couldn't get enough votes, falling 13 short of the necessary number. What will probably be looked back upon with this whole thing, is... here is a President who let Congress (both GOP and Dem led) spend their pants off, without being responsible enough to bring in income to support that spending, refusing to veto anything, and then when he finally breaks it out, what does he veto? A bill to provide more money to more sick children?! The issue is of course much more complex than that. We all know this. But, in the eye of the general public, the above is how it is perceived. Bush managed to blunder himself into another debacle, even though in this case, his actions may have gotten it partly right. How bad is a President, when he can't even look good when he does something sort of right? Except its not right at all. This isn't based on any principle, other than the GOP betting their case on obstructing a lot of good legislation to get through. The Bush administration vetoed this to give cover to the Congressmen in tight reelection districts next year, so this can't be an issue for them.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) Aside from Michael Savage and the people who make him money....who does Michael Savage not hate? He did love Allen Ginsberg once. Or at least used to regularly swim naked with him.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) I do have an objective question, though. Why do you guys think that liberal radio is struggling so much while conservative radio is an explosive success? Is it the message, the marketing, maybe a combination of both? Is it a demographic thing ( being that most listeners of talk radio are white males )? Reason one: Signal Strength - In Chicago you can hear Conservative Talk Radio on WLS and WIND, pretty much all the time. Those are very strong signals. Progressive Talk is on WCPT which is not a metro grade signal. Reason two: Poor Backers - IIRC: Rush Limbaugh is distributed by Premiere which is owned by Clear Channel and is a marketing priority. Air America Radio has been owned by several groups with little money, and little clout in the radio industry. Reason three: Lack of Talent - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservative talk show hosts understand the radio format and know how to keep a show moving. Only a couple of radio hosts on the progressive side of things understand the format - Lionel, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes. Randi needs some guidance though - needs someone to reign her in when she goes crazy and overboard. Reason four: Poor Marketing - Rush Limbaugh has been around forever and is really the first incarnation of what conservative talk has become. But other big hosts - like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, they both have actual TV shows to cross promote with. Progressive talk doesn't enjoy this. And their solution was bringing in celebrities who don't understand what it takes to make good radio (Marc Maron being the main exception). Reason five: Different Listening Habits - There are plenty of liberal media consumers out there, they just spread their energies, and they tend to congregate to NPR, I'd imagine. 20 million listeners a week tune into Morning Edition. More than any other radio show in the US.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) It is nice to know that you can read minds. What he meant can only truely be known by him, and since everyone who heard it took something different from him, your 'opinion' is just that. i took it as him meaning the soldiers who make crap up, of which there have been several. If things are so bad, why do they feel the need to make s*** up? They need mental help, because clearly they have a problem. Because he regularly insults Democrats who have served. He compared the guy who did the Vote Vets ad to a suicide bomber. And I don't know why things are so bad that people feel the need to make s*** up. It's infuriating to me because it cheapens the argument. There are plenty of people who agree that things are so bad. But lying and hiding the truth isn't exclusive to either side either.