Rex Kickass

I didn't read any of this, but I would like to slap the mustache off John Stossel. For no real reason, I just find him annoying.

Frankly, I agree. Except for this: if these are times that demand sacrifice, I'd like to see the sacrifice run across the board. Too often we cut subsidies to enrich our culture first, followed closely by subsidies determined to help the poorest and weakest of our society. And in the last few years, that has been followed with a tax cut - usually aimed at the wealthiest. Our government is responsible for maintaining the health of our society - physically, economically, politically and culturally. When I talk about this last one, I don't talk about the government regulating content or even getting in the business of content but rather creating an atmosphere where our culture can be enhanced. Foundations and grants are a big part of making that happen. More importantly, government has a responsibility to fund cultural education as well. Far be it from us to fall behind in yet another area to countries abroad in what and how we teach our children.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:56 AM) Okay. I see where you are coming from now. But isn't that what you'd call smart politics on the part of the GOP? Sure, but then so would the idea of finding a new Democrat to represent CT in the Senate who wouldn't consider such a move.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:54 PM) I don't think on a corporate level it is homophobia or "fundamentalist"phobia, it's boycott and negative publicity phobia. Obviously this show would have been fine on Bravo, they have done well with programs that would not necessarily be on Focus on the Families list of great TV, (re: Queer Eye). Other networks would be worried about a potential backlash. But it is just like Spike TV wouldn't want to air the same programming as Oxygen or Lifetime. Rex, we'll disagree on this on in that a homosexual couple winning does "promote" homosexuality, in fact any positive stories do. Sam, we'll disagree, because I don't care that it does. Something tells me your definition of "promoting" homosexuality is different than the people who accuse folks of "promoting" homosexuality. But I'm sick of people who seem to think that there's some form of PR war going on waged on behalf of the gay community. Yes, gay people have a community but they're also people first and foremost. And before anyone throws a gay pride parade up as a counterpoint - does that mean that the Irish are just as bad for a St. Patrick's Day parade, or the Poles on Casimir Pulaski Day?

I'm sorry, what?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) With all the talk here about media bias, I still haven't seen anyone respond to the fact that the case against the Clintons is laughably weak. I mean, please, read the news article posted in here multiple times by myself and Balta. 10 years and this guy doesn't have one shred of evidence, of wrong-doing OR the supposed cover-up? Come on. Why would you respond to a legitimate question when you can bash the media instead?

Cause nobody does that to any Democrats here Kap, you honestly need to get that chip off your shoulder over this. I don't exactly see you acting all idignant anytime anyone mentions Chappaquiddick.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing. So gay people winning a contest is promotion of homosexuality? Wow.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) But that's up to the voters in CT. They have the right to decide who represents them, whether it meets your approval or not. That's not how the Senate works. It's not that CT would elect a Republican Senator, its that the Republican Governor would appoint a Republican Senator who would finish Lieberman's term. So CT would NOT be getting what it votes for, by definition.

My prediction: Hillary Clinton wouldn't last to Super Tuesday. She's been a very good Senator for New York. So much so that the GOP can't even find a real candidate to pit against her.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) Easter is not a celebration of his death. It's a celebration of his resurrection. That's what was so 'twisted'. Damn. Use the quote feature then. :-) I'm too easily confused.

Hallelujah!

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) So I guess Jeffords was a sellout also, eh? By definition, yes.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) Always with the little "jab"... :headshake Are you talking about Bill Frist making poorly choiced comments that some would argue would be made to inflame the opposition and create a possible filibuster showdown in the Senate? I'd agree, that IS unfortunate.

http://www.ocobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../NEWS/601210315 I went to protest this decision just after the November elections. Ocean County's county commission had voted not to extend pension benefits to a long time employee's domestic partner, even though its allowed under state law. They originally cited economic concerns but several of the freeholders were overheard talking about the "morality" of doing so. This week, they've agreed to extend pension benefits to domestic partners. After a ton of pressure. The vote goes down Wednesday. Which is awesome.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) Truth hurts, but he (bin Laden) is taking a page right off of the playbook - he's not stupid. I'm sorry, but if you think the "words of the far left" are doing anything to contribute to the war on terror, I want what you're smoking.

I don't have a problem with Dems in the cabinet. I have a problem when its done in a way that increases the GOP majority in the Senate.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 01:55 AM) Instead of trashing Lieberman you guys should be praising him. How many times have I heard people on this board talking about the need for politicians who have integrity and a mind of their own? Politicians who dont always toe the party line and aren't afraid to take a stand that doesn't agree with the party leadership are a refreshing change in Washington and Im not just saying that because Lieberman is going against the Dems. There's no problem with thinking for yourself, but to seriously consider leaving the Senate for a cabinet position that would only increase the Republican majority in the Senate because CT's governor is a Republican. When you have to worry about a Democrat increasing the Republican majority in the Senate, he's no longer just "thinking for himself," he's selling out the party.

With all this talk about Democrat media manipulation, you'd think they might actually control Congress or something.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 02:43 AM) Wow. Talk about twisting something to suit your purpose. :headshake If the President didn't try to constitutionally ban gay families, there wouldn't be a need to show them that they threaten nothing.

Except Dem hearings don't go on the Congressional record.

Because one happened seven years ago. The other is happening right now and affecting people right now. What if the Clintons have a legal argument saying what they did is just fine? Would that suddenly make it all better?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported" Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast? Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it? I sure haven't seen it. It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny. Maybe its because the current sitting President may very well have broken the law regarding US Citizens daily life.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing.

Then they broke the law. And since they authorized necessary force (or action), and there were avenues to use the "force" (defined as spying on US citizens) that didn't stop the president from doing what he needed to do as quickly as he needed to do it. So he would have been in compliance with the necessary clause in either case. To me that means he - or people in his administration - willfully broke the law.