Rex Kickass

I would at this point in time like to point out that the Democrats by turning against segregation and race laws effectively ceded much political power to the Republicans.

You wanna talk about the effectiveness of Bush's war on terror? From today's NYT. (Paul Krugman) He's a better writer than I. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html "Ever since the uprising in April, the Iraqi town of Falluja has in effect been a small, nasty Islamic republic. But what about the rest of the Sunni triangle? Last month a Knight-Ridder report suggested that U.S. forces were effectively ceding many urban areas to insurgents. Last Sunday The Times confirmed that while the world's attention was focused on Najaf, western Iraq fell firmly under rebel control. Representatives of the U.S.-installed government have been intimidated, assassinated or executed. Other towns, like Samarra, have also fallen to insurgents. Attacks on oil pipelines are proliferating. And we're still playing whack-a-mole with Moktada al-Sadr: his Mahdi Army has left Najaf, but remains in control of Sadr City, with its two million people. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "interviews in Baghdad suggest that Sadr is walking away from the standoff with a widening base and supporters who are more militant than before."... On Al-Sadr, this is from the Christian Science Monitor yesterday http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/200...04s01-woiq.html "Sadr and his forces agreed on Friday to put down their weapons and withdraw from the Shrine of Imam Ali, one of Shiite Islam's holiest sites. But interviews in Baghdad suggest that Sadr is walking away from the standoff with a widening base and supporters who are more militant than before." Yeah, that's a solved problem. The Mahdi army is being seen more and more as a parallel shadow government. Yesterday, George Bush said that there is no winning the war on terror. I guess that's the kind of positive leadership we need in office.

What makes you think the only other option is throwing flowers at terrorists? There's more than one way to solve a probem.

Actually, its cause most liberal talk show hosts are boring. And its pretty damn hard for new liberal hosts to break into the biz.

I guess this would be the bad part of the show to point out that Dick Cheney voted against many of the same defense programs that Kerry voted against in Congress. It would also be a bad time to point out that if you create new terrorists by defeating the existing ones, you aren't exactly taking care of the problem are you? Iraq still faces problems caused by Al-Zarqawi, Muqtada Al-Sadr, we're still threatened by Al-Qaida headed by UBL. Where are they? oh yeah, still free. If we are freeing the world from this terror war, explain the two airplane bombings in Russia last week. The carbombings in Kabul this weekend. The thwarted plot to bomb the D train in NYC this week.

People act like every freaking welfare recipient is a crook. There are some out there and it's wrong and they should be caught and punished. But I will say this. You b**** about people whining about their station in life and then whine about having to pay taxes to support them. Last time I checked, the working poor I knew worked. Hard. But you tell my single mother friend, who works the only job her education allows - she had to do the Army, couldn't afford college by the way - to live on her own with two autistic kids, a deadbeat dad who left her - and take care of her needs on a family income of under 30 thousand dollars. These are the people we have a duty as a society to help. If this means a few people skim the system and take advantage, its a price I'm willing to pay in exchange for protecting the people who need protection.

Here's a question. Why is it irresponsible to ask those that make the most to sacrifice a portion of their tax cuts to pay for the soldiers needs in a time of war? The republican party thought it was. The question I keep asking myself is this: Why is it an honor to die for your country but a burden to pay your damn taxes? Stop whining. Last time I checked, people who make lots of money are doing just fine in this country. Apparently fine enough that all the problems in their world seem to boil down to one or two percentage points in a tax bracket. You know, when I wondered about whether or not I'd be able to stay afloat in my salary frozen job last year, I would have thought that complaint to be a luxury.

Here's the deal dudio, There are two realistic choices for president this time around and the stakes couldn't be higher. And three words make this true. SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS. You think affecting social change is hard now, imagine it with the help of Supreme Court justices in the model of Charles Pickering and with the ideological flexibility of an Antonin Scalia, or worse yet a Tom DeLay. This election isn't one where throwing away your vote is a good idea. This is the most important election in the last 30 years because of the upcoming Supreme Court retirements. Choosing wisely here DOES make a huge impact. Period.

I'm sorry wheres your proof about Bill CLinton saying we had him but couldn't keep him? Cause I don't remember anything of the sort. I do remember a story of Sudan offering him to us, and we saying no - but I believe that story was debunked as being about as true as the Yellowcake story. As in not true. What would Gore have done differently? I don't know, but the 9/11 commission shows that the White House had doubts about the voracity of their evidence against Iraq within a week of 9/11 but pressed ahead anyway. They knew their evidence was sketchy at best and they hoped that their convictions would see them through. I'm sorry, but when it comes to leading the free world, I want a president who will not be blinded by his ideology. Apu, you're just as bad as the people on the right you demonize. It's an all or nothing battle with you. You can't get everything you want all at once. If you could, I'd be sexy, naked and swimming in a hottub filled with naked sexy people and hundred dollar bills right now. But that can't happen til AFTER i buy the hottub. Dude, its all about degrees, not wholesale immediate change. Under the Clinton administration, fewer Americans died to the hands of transglobal terrorism than under the watch of George W Bush, George HW Bush or Ronald Reagan. The 9/11 commission concluded that there were serious efforts on the part of the Clinton administration to disable the threat of AQ during 1998 and 1999. But Republicans who couldnt be bothered at the time were too busy screaming Wag the Dog. Here's the thing to consider in 2004: This IS a referendum on the president we have had. In the last four years, the percentage of adult population with a job has decreased by about 1 percent. That's the first time this has happened since Herbert Hoover in 1932. Over 1000 troops in our coalition have died in Iraq as a result of our invasion. In that time period, we have found none of the reasons we went to war in Iraq to be true. Unless you consider the one about humanitarian means and freedom. If that's the case, what about the people who suffer under the Saudi Arabian rule, what about the million displaced in Darfur, Sudan? What about the millions in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestine who suffer daily without American military help? Why are we allowing the same religious extremists who harbored Bin Laden in Afghanistan regain footholds in that country today? We have a ballooning federal deficit. Bush doesn't seem to care, instead asking for a new tax cut every week. Benefits to police and firefighters are axed. Benefits to states required to take care of unfunded mandates are axed. We talk about protecting our soldiers but shun the care of our veterans. A lot of people say that Bush means what he says. To me, its become obvious that the opposite is true.

But Washington can't have representatives by constitutional law. How about Washington Shadow Delegates?

Oh yeah, we won... again. Last night. But its over. What a moron.

*jealous* Before I was officially fat, I used to do the occasional 50K bike tour. This seemed like the most awesome thing ever though.

The Tour de France is just a sick event. It's probably one of the most dangerous legitimate sporting events in existence. Between having to deal with spectators on the course, legendarily mean domestiques doing anything to get their leader the yellow jersey and the sheer power needed to finish one stage let alone 20. That being said, it is one of the most boring things to watch in person, and the organizers make it impossible for Pierre Winebottle to see the actual finish, by blocking that area off for corporate sponsor guests and VIPs like Sheryl Crow. When I saw Lance win the tour last year, I didn't really see him win. I got 5 or 6 glimpses of his jersey as he blew past in the middle of the Champs-Elysees lap which they do ten times. I saw him win, I never need to see the Tour live again. TV is just fine for that. :-) I don't much care for NASCAR, but I don't care if its a sport or not. Not important to me. I think it is, cause I hear about it on ESPN. It is more of a sport than Poker that's for sure. There is definite skill and physical ability necessary to be good at it. I just like to poke fun at NASCAR. Well, I like to poke fun at everything really. I just get a kick at how sensitive NASCAR people are sometimes. I know, I'm an ass.

Dude... we should play sometime then... I never won more than 11 dollars before at Keno.

Personally, I think when they played Mr. Roboto that was more offensive. And to everyone in the stadium, not just Shingo.

Kap, Here is where I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Tax cuts are beneficial to the economy, I'll grant you that. However, the debate is what kind of tax cuts are necessary to stimulate the economy and when is it appropriate to cut taxes. Reagan knew this well - he agreed to two tax HIKES in his presidency including one in his second term that he proposed. What Hillary Clinton said was stupid - but then again, the proposal on the table is to bring taxes for the richest 1 percent up to where it was in 2000. Judging by the massive growth of wealth in the 1990s, I think its safe to say we weren't exactly in an oppressive tax regime. Also the tax hikes they speak of are temporary as well. And taxpayers pay this money elsewhere. Reduced revenue to the US government means increased unfunded mandates for the states. Which means cuts in programs like education, roads, etc. It means state deficits requiring states to raise income taxes or, in the case of California, borrow like crazy. It means that Universities like Michigan State University are required to hike their tuition 20 some percent over 3 years so that they can stay afloat. Speaking as a democrat, I believe that the government is responsible for its people and needs to do everything in its perview necessary to make the average citizen able to compete in a world that is changing. What we needed to provide 40 years ago as a country is not what we need now. Times have changed and so have needs. The reason the rags to riches stories are so exceptional is that they are generally the exception. I also know people who can't get a job because they can't afford the education they need to make a decent living. If the concept is equal opportunity and not equal result, the government needs to make sure that the poorest 5% have at least some degree of opportunity. Period. That is not what the constitution requires, but its what an enlightened society requires. On the war on terror, you can say you don't trust Kerry, but who let counterterrorism sit on the shelf for nine months because they still had cold war glasses on and were desperate to be the UnClinton? (Clinton spoke often of the threat of terror in 99/2000) It wasn't Kerry. I don't think that could have necessarily stopped Sept. 11, but it didn't help. Here's a question for you, how can you trust a president on the war on terror when the number one terrorist in Iraq (Zarqawi) could have been taken out three times before the Iraqi war started but the Bush administration said no - three times - mostly because it would shift the focus from Iraq. I think we gotta stay in Iraq and clean up our mess - this place is our responsibility now. But Iraq was a contained state to begin with. We were bombing the place every five days since 1991. Any kind of significant weapons program would be difficult to produce to say the least, and we had entered into a sort of MAD pact with Saddam - you f*** with us, you die. Iraq was a managable problem, a little pin prick if you will. However, there is Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, where we have lots of problems. and 3 of these folks are supposed to be our allies. We're doing very little there. France and Germany were making illegal cash from the Oil for Food program. But one company in America did also contract work in Iraq during the embargo, against federal law. It was done through a French intermediary firm owned by Halliburton whose CEO at the time was the current Vice President. Sure you still trust this administration?

Its beyond the politics of this. If the Federal Government wants to not allow gay marriage, that's fine. The difference here is that the President wants to codify discrimination for the first time in the constitution since it was drafted in 1787. If the Bush administration supports the notion of limited government, why isn't an issue like this left to the states in the first place? The issue of cousins marrying is a state one. So Kap, you've seen these issues that you have problems with. And many of them don't seem that small. What makes Bush deserve reelection?

The movie was ridiculously funny. A lot of the clips from the trailer aren't actually in the movie - and almost every joke works.

Actually, I was just making a joke. I'd never debate what is a sport and what isn't, I'm too busy training for next year's Hot Dog Eating contest at Coney Island. That Japanese dude is goin down!

Youre fighting for a very small niche audience as a percentage of the general market. To win that niche, you need to outshine your competition as much as possible. Something like this, just highlights why people would find ESPN 1000 more entertaining than the Score, because they are so passionate, they fight each other about sports. This has got you all entranced - tell me why that isn't good for them?

Most people are saying that PK deserved to be there. Even Kotex boy on ATH today. Damn shame.

If I was the PD, Id be hoping Jay hits Mac hard next week. And that Mac takes Kotex boy down right back. Mac might even call in his own show to sound it off.

I can't be there so I'm going to drive around the block turning left while listening to the race for four hours. I figure, I'll just recreate the event.

Dirty bombs scare more than they hurt, and with enough smoke detectors or medical waste, you could make a radiological dirty bomb. Fissile material is only one way to get there.

Leiberman wouldn't lose because he's a jew. He'd lose cause he's a boring twit who's only contribution to the democratic primaries was coming up with the word "Joementum" I was all excited when he left and said Joe Revoir.