Rex Kickass

Kap: you're right. Before he was an actor, he was a Senator. Before he was a Senator, he was a lobbyist. For NARAL. (A Reproductive Rights advocacy group)

Personally, I don't have any issue with Senators and their sex life. It's not of my concern. However, I do feel when they spend a good amount of time in their public life railing against it and pushing to make it difficult for other individuals to freely engage in their own sex lives, these public officials should be exposed for the hypocritical frauds that they are. In previous appearance, the good Senator's wife intimated that she'd cut off her husbands balls if he ever cheated on her. That came out a couple weeks ago and the good Senator mysteriously disappeared from the public eye for a week. Coincidence?

I wanna reset this topic because I'm not sure if everyone understands what's happening here. The White House is claiming executive privilege on communications between White House staffers done on emails paid for by the Republican party. The White House used those emails so that the email communications between White House staffers for certain issues wouldn't actually be in the public record. Issues like political motivations for firing people in the Justice Department. Now this is what I don't understand. If they aren't in the public record because they were conversations between administration officials on private email, and the conversations are between administration officials and not with the President, how can the administration rightly claim executive privilege? Doesn't that automatically admit that the President was specifically, if not initmately involved in these specific firings?

If Fred Thompson runs - meet your new establishment candidate.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jul 7, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) IMO, a fairness doctrine will hurt liberal causes more than it will help. The major newsrooms are dominated by Democrats, so if there is going to be a 50/50 split of opinions the Dems will lose their formittable advantage in news coverage. Fairness doctrine does not equal a 50/50 split of anything. Unabashed bias would still appear. Air America made a lot of foolish moves, but I'd say by 05, they had a solid lineup - actually. Marc Maron wasn't bad in the morning, Jerry Springer can actually be a good, engaging talk show host, Al Franken has a significant following and Randi Rhodes (love or hate her) is the prototype for a successful liberal talk show (although some guidance for her would be nice). Their problem was business model and perception about their offerings.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 6, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) No one here has said it was all fine. And I know I sure as hell wasn't saying it was all fine. Word.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jul 6, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) And the liberals on this board rival my 8 year old for b****ing and whining about the eeevil Chimpy McBus***ler. He will be gone in less than 2 years, he can't get re-elected, get on with your lives. Both sides f*** up, both sides have nothing but contempt for the voters and both sides suck. Honestly, for all the whining liberals do about the Bush administration - at least its a current administration. The amount of time Bill Clinton's presidency still comes up around here, you'd think he'd still be schtupping Monica in the Oval Office right now.

Berger admitted to destroying copies of documents he made illegally. All original documents he viewed are accounted for IIRC.

It's a big deal because major corporations will have to start offering matching viewpoints. Eventually, what will end up happening is for every 24/7 right wing station, you'll have so many people demanding their viewpoint heard that eventually, there will be representation on the other side in the form of a show. When that happens, the fairness doctrine is more satisfied than before. BTW: you can make the argument that right wing radio sells because the talent pool of conservative radio folk is deeper. IE since the genre has been there for 20 years and mostly consists of failed DJs who at least know how to communicate via radio (aka Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) As a result, they tend to be on stronger signals and have better market reach. Left wing radio tends to be filled with hacks who don't understand the concept (Hightower, Sam Seder, Mike Malloy) and who are on much weaker signals. For example - the way it is now, WABC is the second strongest signal in NYC (behind WFAN in signal reception) and is the right wing talker. WWRL is the left wing talker. If it was dominating its signal area in NYC, it has a weak signal in market and at best could grab half the ratings WABC would have in a down book. Still, Rhandi Rhodes has between 1 and 2 million listeners nationwide per day. Al Franken was closing on 3 million til he left to run for Senate. Stephanie Miller and Lionel do well for themselves. These shows can sell, they just aren't put in positions to make lots of money - honestly. The signal just isn't there for them.

IIRC: (its been a while since I left the broadcasting industry) the Equal Time doctrine only applies within an election window - within 45 or 60 days of an election - when candidates who receive a specific amount of time of coverage on a radio or tv station (say, an interview or some such thing that is exposure but not paid advertising.) At that point, should another candidate ask, he is to be granted a similar amount of time for exposure on the air. So if NBC or WLS radio does an interview with Giuliani 10 days prior to the Primary, it would be obligated to either offer an interview or give a requested interview to Mitt Romney or John McCain or generic GOP primary candidate. This doctrine still exists and can be enforced but rarely is. The Fairness doctrine is an old regulation that would ensure multiple points of view were broadcast. With this regulation, if a broadcasting entity were to offer a viewpoint on a specific political issue, it would be required to offer an opposing viewpoint as well, if an individual or organization requested the station to air it. The station will weigh the request, and offer an adequate amount of time to that airing. However, if it wants to deny the request - it can petition the FCC to do so, who would then rule on whether or not FD is appropriate here or not. It's important to note that there is no provision of equal time. For example, lets say that WGN offers an hour long documentary about it being cruel to drown kittens at 8PM on Monday night. The National Kitten Drowning Council thinks that there should be an opposing viewpoint portrayed. WGN is not required to offer an hour program in primetime on Monday night. The opposing viewpoint could be as little as a 60 second editorial reply aired at 3 AM on Sunday morning between infomercials. The timeframe that the response is given is not what's important. The fact that the station offers voices of different viewpoints is what's important. The motivation behind this is that the radio and TV stations do not own the frequencies which they broadcast over but rather lease the rights to use those frequencies from the people of the US. As such, they are duty bound to showcase a diversity of public opinions. These rules were rolled back starting in the Carter administration and eliminated in the Reagan administration and that's why you never see things like "Editorial Replies" anymore on TV or hear them on the radio anymore. They used to be commonplace, and fairly unobtrusive to regular programming and satisfied the Fairness Doctrine quite handily.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) This will get either no reaction or some stupid excuses from Dems about "equal time" provisions. The Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Doctrine are two completely different things.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 4, 2007 -> 08:20 PM) Then you all keep going back to the "as governor of Texas" stuff... please. It's a lot different. Of course it is. It's ALWAYS different. But it's not. As Governor, Bush had the power to commute sentences, and had the power to pardon people. He chose not too. Not those with religious conversions, not even the mentally unfit. He wasn't the first leaker. He did confirm the leak's accuracy though - so he was involved. He did so at the direction of the Vice President. He was involved. The President said anyone involved was to be fired. The investigation seems to have reasonably concluded that the other people involved in the leak were Richard Armitage (resigned), Karl Rove (still working) and Dick Cheney (still working). The only administration official to be held accountable was Scooter. And not by his own administration. You don't get five federal felony counts if the perjury wasn't directly related to the investigation. You might get one, and you certainly don't get an obstruction of justice charge. But hey, why take my word for it, why don't we look at the statement Prosecutor Fitzgerald made on the day of indictment. Taken from the extremely left wing Department of Justice website (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf) Except, government records show that he spoke with other administration officials about the information on three separate occasions before he learned the information for the first time. But wait there's more. So he "forgot" that he talked with several administration officials about Joe Wilson's wife and forgot that he had four conversations with reporters in June and July about Joe Wilson's wife. Before the leak was published. Which means he's only not the leaker because someone else spouted it off first. But I'm sure that wouldn't be germaine at all to the investigation.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) And now it's the good 'ole US of A's fault the electricity isn't on. Last I checked, we pledged to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed in 2003. So yes, it is our fault.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) It's not brought up much at all until this happened... because again, at the heart of it all, the hypocracy is quite enormous here. Now, if you want to talk about someone who lied under oath... now that is a story no one wants to even remotely touch... because it was about "private" stuff. /rollseyes I just saw your edit... now I do agree with that. Could you tell me exactly where in a court of law Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury and had his sentence commuted?

I recently got the u740 by Samsung for Verizon. It's a neat design, full keyboard and flips two ways. one as a phone, the other as a keyboard. The only thing I don't like about it is that it uses Verizon's web browser and you can't download AIM or Yahoo messenger for it but instead have to use the s***eous Mobile IM from Verizon which uses txt msgs for every IM. Makes me wish I bought a T-Mobile Kickstand 3

That's what the CIA seemed to say, so yes.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:24 AM) I would agree this would be the best approach in theory, but will it work? It certainly didn't work all that well with Arafat. And aren't we trying to do this in Iraq? We're trying to set up a democracy for the people there. We're trying to set up their infrastructure (obviously we could be doing a better job at it). The people there want that stuff. They have no beef with us. But the terrorist groups resist it, just like they would in every country. And it's not like the people can revolt on their own to overthrow their governments, they don't have the man power nor the weapons to do so. For this approach to work we would need to start a broad campaign to reclaim our image, then take military action to oust any militant regime in charge. But would this ever work with the 24/7 bashing on the US and the rest of the West that these countries spout out to their people? Actually it worked wonderfully for Arafat. He led a government in exile into getting a great degree of power within Palestinian territory right up until his death. It didn't work out so well for the people he led, but then again - nobody ever really accused Arafat of giving a s*** about the people beneath him. I would argue that we are not doing a good job at rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, that we're doing quite the opposite. You can talk about opening schools and all that - but the truth is, putting a fresh coat of paint on an existing building isn't rebuilding infrastructure - keeping power on 24 hours a day would be.

There are three pardons that Clinton made that were in my mind pretty craptacular (that stand out in my mind) and all were made in the last two weeks of his presidency. 1. Rostenkowski on two counts of mail fraud (although it was after his sentence was served) 2. Marc Rich (never tried) 3. Roger Clinton (two counts of cocaine possession) Oh yeah, another reason why this commutation is as craptacular as all these? Libby didn't even petition for it and go through the system. In August, Governor George Bush let a mentally retarded man be executed. But he finds two and a half years in a minimum security pen excessive for an aide who leaked a covert operative's name and lied about it several times to investigative arms of the government while under oath.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) Personally, I agree that this stinks. But the hypcritical part is the "OUTRAGE" being demonstrated by Schmucky Chucky and Little Dicky Durbin, et. al. It's crap all the way around. Yet, somehow, when the (D) people do the same things the outrage isn't quite as noticed. I'm sorry Kap, but how many of the (D) people around here did you know 6 and a half years ago when the last opportunity for (D) people to do such a thing happened? Oh that's right. None, but I'm sure that's somehow different too. Please save your fake anger for an issue where it's believable. You're angry at an argument that NOBODY is making.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) That's "rich", even coming from you, Rex. The comparions here are more the same then you want to say. Maybe if TurdBergerlur would have just done something like this while Bill was still in office... he would have gotten pardoned. You want to place a bet right here and now if Her Highness gets elected, she pardons him? I'll take that bet. If he gets pardoned, it wouldn't be til 2013 at the earliest - first of all. And that guy's fat so he'd probably be dead. And second of all, I'd be pissed off if Berger got a pardon. And lastly, it won't matter because Hillary won't win the nomination. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 11:20 PM) WHY IS IT ALWAYS DIFFERENT? This is what pisses me off about you people. I mean, if you people were consistent, that's one thing, but you're not. So explain to me why this is so different? /waits for left wing up the ass links to explain to me why Libby is such a cocksucker for being a "BushCo neo-con" who got off "scott free". What's different? He was convicted of perjury. He only quit when he got indicted. The same President who said heads would roll over this - took away all the teeth of the penalty that he fairly received from a trial. The only thing that's different here is that the rule of law was respected with Sandy Berger. He pled guilty, was convicted and sentenced. Nobody asked for commutation, nobody asked for a pardon. In Libby's case, it's different. He got off.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) As much as my 'side' is stupid in thinking an all out war will solve the problem, your 'side' continues to think that we're dealing with rational, logical human beings. We're not. You can't deal with irrational people in a rational way. It doesn't work. These people want to murder people. They want to make the West crumble in the name of Allah. This isn't some sort 'you killed my brother, now i'm going to kill you' revenge scenario. It's decades and decades of state sponsored brain-washing, mixed with some stupid US policy, that's created this beast. OK, you're not far off here. It's decades of state sponsored brain-washing mixed with stupid US policy that created this beast. Yes. However, all out war against extremist Islamics without increasing trade and cultural ties that seem respectful and not imperialist is just continuing stupid US policy. It seems to me, you need to take the Yasser Arafat two pronged approach here. Gun in one hand, olive branch in the other. Feed the people, attack the enemy. You CAN do both. We just don't. Or we don't do it very well. There's not much that we can do with the "true believers" and there is some of that in the middle and upper classes of Islamist societies other than neutralize the threat. But you can also extinguish the oxygen that feeds the terror beast by working to bring people out of poverty in the middle east. By bringing them a better way of life in a way that doesn't seem paternalistic or disrespectful of their culture. It's a tough balance to acheive - but its one that we CAN do, as long as we're ambitious enough to achieve it. Sadly, I don't think our society is. We'd rather react in anger. Or ignore it.

He'd campaign here quite a bit actually. Always nice to speak from a position of strength now and again, but when you're within a couple weeks of Election day, don't expect to see him around Illinois much.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) It's not a pardon. The dude is still basically ruined. No, the pardon won't come until just before Bush leaves office in 2009. P.S. Sandy Berger pled guilty, and faced his music. There was no President making it all better.

I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am.

I guess, the thing to be heartened about here is that there were three attempts at terrorist incidents, and all were rather crude and all were basically foiled.