Rex Kickass

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 05:12 PM) I don't know whether to laugh or be offended by the man in his position doing this. His list says "Eggs, milk, bread, hope, change". I think its kind of funny. But he probably shouldn't do that.

Girls, you're both pretty.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/0...n-seeking-cash/ Whod'a thought interesting journalism coming from the Moonies at the Washington Times?

But I think he has a point about it. For example, the stimulus plan is about half tax cuts and half spending, the bulk of which are for infrastructure projects. Every specific project within the stimulus plan enjoys broad support. But the overall plan doesn't. The part about this article that I don't agree with is that it basically absolves the politicians. Politicians have taken advantage of the fact that the media doesn't really cover issues anymore, they cover horseraces instead. The stories are never about the policies themselves and whether they work, but about how popular the unexplained policies are. So its really really really easy to simultaneously support and oppose the same piece of legislation and get away with it. Because unless your John Kerry and literally say "I was for it before I was against it," nobody will really notice anymore.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) Even if some of his ideas are completely absurd, like going back to the gold standard, at least he knows what he actually stands for. I think these guys are just like modern Republicans, they just want to TALK about saying "no" and then when they see something they like, completely bend over and blame Democrats for any adverse effect (especially concerning the deficit) Great article in Slate yesterday, talked about how the new "populism" is essentially being for and against every issue at the same time. http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Don Draper I would disagree. I think there is a clear point of view about what is wrong and what is right with Don Draper. He just fails by his own standards frequently. I think a much more morally ambiguous character in Madmen would be Roger Sterling.

First Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay". Let's all remember that. I love that the MINUTE Kap wrote this, the market came roaring back from its lows and finishing up slightly for the day.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) It's really not OK. But the manufactured outrage over something that has been going on a while now is a bit trite. The whole health bill got held up by a few Democrats looking for some goodies, and yet it turned into the Republicans killed the bill. Then one idiot takes it to the next level to get what he wants. And I was pissed about the moderate Democrats who were holding out for a cut or so they could get the lobby money that they'll desperately need in a reelection effort (Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln). What bothers me most about this, is that Shelby is shutting down the Senate over two earmarks, and there doesn't appear to be a single one of the 40 other Republican senators that has a problem with this and is willing to cross over to stop his hold. Frankly, I'm not outraged, I'm happy. This is classic overreaching. Just like Rep. Ryan's slash Social Security to balance the budget in 2050, and the Republicans saying no to EVERYTHING, even their own proposals - I'm starting to think the Republican wave has peaked. Pity its only February.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) Thankfully the Democrats led the way on this to prove that it works. Of course, they alllll do it. That makes it all ok! Jesus, its wrong when anyone holds the entire Senate hostage for an earmark. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand.

So job losses of 20K last month, the U3 (to 9.7%) and the U6 (to 16.5%) both drop... because it turns out that annual adjustment ended up overcounting job losses. More jobs created than we thought in November, more jobs lost than we thought in December. Fairly mixed numbers, it seems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) You do realize that the money spent by the outside groups that SCOTUS just legalized doesn't count at all in those numbers right? There are still some advantages to the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC cash advantage. If it's still there in November, that is.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 02:16 AM) The problem is you cannot separate the public option from a legislative question. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. GOVERNMENT (Aka, the LEGISLATIVE BODY) is the one imposting the rules. You claim this is a Center Right country, but I show you a poll released yesterday that says that 60% of Colorado (which is not a particularly liberal or conservative state) supports a medicare buy in. But that's ok, keep moving those goalposts.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) Rex, you are far smarter than this. OK, you take him seriously. All I'm saying is that if my governor went to my political event and said things supportive of what I support... and used extreme language to do it, and then the next day said - oh I didn't mean it, I'd feel pretty personally insulted. Sorta like when my state senator decided to vote against marriage equality and then introduced a resolution a month later encouraging a DADT repeal because lots of folks in her district that would have voted for her are looking to primary her ass.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 11:30 PM) When you have a lurching to the far left (by American standards), and the population is center right, this is what you get. Asked in Colorado - Poll released yesterday. Colorado is a purple state. Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans? Favor - 58%, Oppose - 36% Democrats Favor - 85, Oppose 12 Republicans Favor - 29, Oppose 63 Independents Favor - 59, Oppose 34 http://coloradoindependent.com/47082/poll-...colorado-voters When the concept of a public option is separated from a legislative question, its still highly popular. There are plenty of issue polls to completely dismiss the idea that the country is "Center Right". But even assuming your assumption of being center right is correct, this hold isn't about ideology, its about earmarks. And if a Democrat did it, it'd be wrong too.

And a bump. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) has placed a hold on every single pending Obama nominee through the end of 2010, holding the nomination process, until he gets his state a number of new earmarks, including a 40 billion dollar tanker plane construction contract and a 45 million earmark for a testing lab for IED's. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02...al-earmarks.php

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 08:31 PM) Which is exactly why GOP won't win, and in addition, the Dems need to stop whining about the SCOTUS decision. They get theirs as well. Although, the Dem committees all have some outstanding debt currently. Although, if they paid it all off, the Dems would still have about a 10 million cash on hand advantage. I think, the way it stands, the Dems have enough of a cash advantage to hang on to weaker majorities in both houses, although I hope Reid loses his seat, and a better majority leader takes his place.

Democrats have a 2010 edge in fundraising. DCCC: $ 3.8/ $ 16.6 NRCC: $ 3.2/ $ 2.6 DSCC: $ 3.4/ $ 12.5 NRSC: $ 4.1/ $ 8.3 DNC: $ 4.5/ $ 8.6 RNC: $ 6.8/ $ 8.4 TOTAL DEMOCRATIC: $ 11.7/ $ 37.8 TOTAL REPUBLICAN: $ 14.1/ $ 19.3

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 06:09 PM) I like how the most important point ALWAYS gets missed (on purpose, I might add) whenever this crap comes up. This is a GOP leaning polling firm. What's the point that I'm missing from their headline?

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 05:41 PM) No, not everyone. Not even close. So what did people do to try and stop him? Show me where someone took him serious and proposed how he should be stopped from doing that? Rex, you're making a paper tiger here. He didn't take any action, unless you count the states rights resolution in the spring of 2009. But plenty of people took these comments seriously, a quick google search would make it easy for me to show you how many people took it serious. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15...-probably-wont/ http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._75_opt_to_stay http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...tter_not_secede So yeah, a number of people took it serious. So, here's the question - which is it? Was the governor making a joke at the expense of all those tea baggers who support him? Or was he being serious about states rights and the right to secede from the union? Because I gotta say, if he isn't doing one of these, he sure as hell looks like he's doing the other.

Why not just rename it "Selfish Poor People Threaten to Die Without Expensive Healthcare Treatment"?

Republican Voters prefer a deficit to a balanced budget if it means bigger tax cuts. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...f_taxes_are_cut

Yes, I would. Everybody did at the time, in fact.

The GOP has gotta be glad that they are up against the Democrats this year instead of a competent party. This week, they had a top budget committee Congressman propose a budget that slashes and burns Social Security and Medicare completely and still doesn't balance the budget until 2050. Then John Boehner's fundraising makes it onto the pages of the Wall Street Journal, because they are banking on big business dollars to help deliver their message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...2216461790.html

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:57 PM) Some would call it joking. Rick Perry at a Teabagger event, in response to a reporter's question on April 15. That reads like some Seinfeldesque material there!