Rex Kickass

I'm sorry but the word you used I don't deem acceptable for this forum.

It's legal to walk to the voting booth. That costs nothing. It's legal to wear old clothes to the voting booth (which you can obtain freely if you need it badly enough). It's not legal to ask someone to pay to exercise their right to vote. Is spending 20 bucks to get an ID going to make anyone who votes, not? Probably not. But its the principle of it. You don't make people pay to vote. You just don't.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) Agreed. Travelling outside the US is not a US-granted right. Voting, on the other hand, is. If you require IDs, they'd better the heck be free, or else you are charging for a right. But does a citizen of the US have the right to return the United States? In 2007, a US Citizen will not be required to show a passport to leave the US and enter Mexico, Canada, and several other countries. However to re-enter the country, its required. So I guess "travel freely" was the wrong phrase, "enter freely" would have been more appropriate.

Like I said, I support equal rights. No more, no less.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:56 PM) Yeah Plame can't spy on anyone anymore from her desk at Langely. Outting an agent's identity compromises more than herself.

If making 180 million than the same quarter last year is a decline, then you'd be right.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) Its not about the government, private industry is taking the lead on this. They have venture capitalists lining up to throw money into this research because they, rightfully so, want to get in on what is going to be what I like to call "the next oil industry". OK, that's fine, then how about reducing the incentives for our oil companies to do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Well, this will be a big catalyst for reform in the near future, I guess. The more things change...

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) And curiously enough, both of those things can help you get DeLay'd. Is that why the caged Byrd sings? Editors note: It's not a joke unless a Maya Angelou reference is made.

Is it bad that I just wondered what would have happened if they passed a drug sniffing dog? *punches ticket to hell*

Not really, Shadegg's support was from the Anyone but Blunt camp. When he was eliminated from the second ballot, they threw their votes to "Anyone but Blunt." One other Congressman seeing the writing on the wall, switched his vote accordingly.

Odd, I thought I had a Blunt in my bag! Turns out I was wrong.

You're right. Make the ID free of charge. It's sort of like charging for a Passport. After 2007, to freely travel outside the US, you gotta pay $70+ for a passport. It's good for ten years, but its still a travel tax of sorts.

The rigged elections have more to do with machine distribution and what's inside the machines than who's voting in Ohio from what I understand.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) Yes, that body armor, the one that has advancements all the time and it doesn't roll out to the front lines quick enough. No matter how fast, it's too slow. (no sarcasm). But what I think is silly is no matter what happens, it's never, ever good enough. If there's a way to rip into this administration for anything, it sure will be found ASAP. Yea, this administration is hypocrtical screwoffs. So was every administration before this one. But one certain Democratic administration before this one gets a free pass on everything, including scaling down the military and said armor programs back in the 1990s. Hey look, it only took 11 posts to blame Clinton. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't rush us into Iraq in 2003. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't fail to plan for an Iraqi insurgency. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't go into Iraq with "the army he has not the army he wants." If Bill Clinton gets a free pass on everything, maybe you could explain why people in this forum find the things he invests in so interesting?

A hate crime is still a crime. Motivation behind it doesn't make it more or less of a crime. It's still a crime. I don't support hate crime legislation.

Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years? Yeah, not so much... http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 09:13 PM) I don't fault those people too much. Many middle and lower level employees only have enough money to choose either an ESIP program or a 401K. These guys were flat out lied to. They were being told by the company officials that this company was going to the moon, despite knowing the shell game they were playing with losses. The employees were also offered incentives for purchasing company stock, such as cheap option exercize prices and discounted stock purchases. They were used, I can hardly blame them for that. They were also actively pressured to go into the ESIP program.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) I understand your point, and I understand what the blogger is trying to do, I just dont think he lends any credibility to his stance when he is saying that he gave some senator a BJ in the union station bathroom, and that is his proof that this senator is gay. To me, this blogger is painting homosexuals in a bad light and he isnt helping his own cause by pulling this stunt. Realistically is this "outing" going to actually get something done? Well, some would argue if it means one less vote for the FMA, yes it would be getting something done.

The result of the meeting is Iran referring to the new Iraqi government as a friend in the region. Last time I checked, when we met the North Koreans, they didn't go around saying, "The U.S. is a trusted friend."

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0...89776121832.htm http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2006012101.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...int&oref=slogin The Iraqi government is meeting with the Iranian government. Iraqi militias are pledging to come to Iranian defense if attacked. Syria is announcing its alliance with Iran. This is not the "friendly coalition" we were looking for.

It should be handled by both. The police take care of the "crime against law" aspect, the church takes care of the "crime against religion" aspect. But when I hear this, its a difficult situation. What happens when someone makes a baseless accusation? It happens. Happened to a good friend of mine in Scouts. And that's what I think of every time. But if its a serious accusation, damn right the police ought to be involved.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) I have little doubt that building U.S.-friendly coalition in the bordering country to Iran was always part of the plan. The CIA has known about their nuclear ambitions for a long time. Say what you want about oil, but a nation that is CLEARLY trying to build nuclear weapons and has publically called for the destruction of Israel needs to be stopped. I'm hoping that sanctions will work and that it won't come to an armed conflict, but we're dealing with a head of state that's a complete lunatic. If that was the case, we really did a bad job. Iraq considers Iran an ally now.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Ok, Im trying to peg where you are coming from but I dont get it. This guy is obviously trying to out the Senator as a threat ( personally I dont feel that someones sexuality should predispose them to one job or another, but thats just me), and the only threat I can see is the Senators position in the Senate. But its like you are trying to tell me Im wrong. Am I wrong here? Are you seeing something I am not? I dont side with the blogger in the slightest, I think using someones personal life against them to further a political agenda is jsut plain wrong, and the blogger is trying to press for gay rights by threatening a mans gay lifestyle. It's not the Senator's position in the Senate, it's the Senator's positions. You're gay but you make your living attacking your own rights. Is it a method to get these people unelected? Yes, it's also a method to try to get the Senator to change his positions. And it's the wrong thing to do, but not illegal. The Senator is threatened with being "outted" because he supports positions that are at its core "anti-gay." (Although I don't agree with the Alito nomination as being anti-gay, but its a hard sell to say the Federal Marriage Amendment is anything but...) But to play the devil's advocate, would you want a politician representing you that panders to his base so much that he'd be willing to attack his own civil rights as an abomination, unnatural, a danger to families, or whatever he is?

Yeah, that's not the reason at all.