Rex Kickass

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) So the big story of the day is that Obama completely did a 180 and is now NOT going to release all of the torture pics to the public. Interesting. FWIW, it's a pretty stupid decision on his part. I understand the reasoning behind it, but its wrong.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 13, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) That is why there are two pilots, yes (though some smaller commercial craft have just one). Yes, modern commercial aircraft can land themselves, thought he technology to do so reliably is not on all aircraft. I don't know all the details. But right now, you essentially have a pilot, and backup pilot. I'm saying, have the planes fly by wire, and have a backup pilot. Many jet airliners do have autoland, but there needs to be a human on board to make it work. Fly by wire is just as dangerous, because who's to say that those data packets wouldn't be hacked? Pilots are right to complain about low pay, and its something where a little regulation could end up fixing a bad seniority system... do that and the pay issue would probably mostly right itself.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 6, 2009 -> 07:01 AM) Everyone knows this. If you're gonna be craven and cut a deal to save your ass, fine. But if you start reneging on your deal within a day of making it, don't be surprised if it suddenly blows up in your face. Specter is smart. If he supports EFCA, there is no real primary, because labor will back Specter hardcore. And that shuts the door on Tom Ridge.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 5, 2009 -> 02:19 PM) That has nothing to do with "far right" or "centrist", it totally has to do with Tom Ridge being a very popular political figure in PA politics. I think the GOP regains this seat with a Tom Ridge/Arlen Specter match-up. Ridge/Sestak? That's another story IMHO.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 6, 2009 -> 06:04 AM) I'm not a fan of hers, and I'm definitely not part of the anti-gay marriage crowd, but I'm getting sick of seeing Carrie Prejean get ripped (mostly on the net) for speaking her mind, however awkwardly. It's really unnecessary, and it's kind of embarrassing - much more so than watching her speak. It absolutely is horrible what's being done to her. She has a right to oppose this issue, as dumb as I might find that position - it shouldn't change her position or her job as Miss California. It's just as awful as denying the rights of gay people to fair employment, housing, etc.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 5, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) "We'll take care of you, Arlen, come on over!" "Ok! Now maybe I have a snowball's chance in hell at retaining my seat!" "Hey Arlen, welcome! Now get on board with us on health care, card check, and everything else we want to ram rod through or f*** you." "Oh s***, what did I do?" You reap what you sow. If you intended to be an independent, become an independent. Last I checked, there were two of those in the Senate today. Neither party is going to forbid someone from their caucus. If Feingold suddenly decided to caucus with the GOP, you'd see him welcomed with open arms as well, even if he didn't tow the party line on a single issue. But don't talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and expect to be treated like nothing happens. He flipped on EFCA which he supported before this year, when he feared a primary challenge from the right - so when he switched parties, you'd think he'd come back to the position he'd consistently represented before, or at the very least say he'd vote against it but wouldn't support a filibuster against it (a much less cravenly political way to be seen), but he decided to say that he supports it. Don't say you're proud to be a Democrat and then say that the Democrat lost an election he won and that the results should be overturned. Don't promise as part of your deal that you'll be a loyal party member and then completely disavow that statement four days later. The guy has been a Dem for about a week and he's managed to isolate himself from the party completely. Party politics means that you have to tow some of the line some of the time, if not you get relegated to the back bench. And don't get it wrong, it was never about principles, it was about electoral viability on his end.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) I was more so referring to an alternative to gas for cars and such. Sugar Cane says hi.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Nope, it's the NATIONAL Football League. No dice London. So then they aren't World Champions anymore?

Incomplete. Ask me in three years.

Product of the future http://www.meatcards.com

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:11 PM) Yes, they have been screwed up. And yes, it's true that Chrysler is the bottom of the big three. But they would have not outright liquidated (Chapter 7). And FIAT was not the only suitor... but it's the one the government took. Please name another suitor? The only one I remember hearing about was GM, and that seemed like a brilliant idea! Keeping the company in private hands clearly didn't work, it wasn't going to stay solvent as a stand alone company... so who was gonna take it over?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 1, 2009 -> 09:17 PM) You cannot believe everything you read on blogs, my friend. There are deals being made right now where the right opportunities exist, and the government doesn't need to be involved, contrary to everything that's being pushed in the media right now. I guarantee that Chrysler could have easily been absorbed in a reorganization without government help. But that's not how it happened, so we won't ever know, except I do know that there's some serious White House strong arming going on to force a cram down the exact way they want it. That's a fact that cannot be disputed. There are ALWAYS two sides to every story in deals like this. Isn't that what happened when Daimler spun it off to Cerberus? Chrysler had been looking for a buyer for a year. There was a reason FIAT wouldn't even bother to get involved (and frankly any buyout there would result in a bigger disaster when FIAT implodes in 18 months). Chrysler had been seriously f***ed for years.

So if they went bankrupt, the same bondholders now crying foul would be receiving a similar if not worse deal. Especially, if the company went into liquidation.

Let me get this straight: Bailing out Chrysler: a mistake. Letting Chrysler go bankrupt: a mistake. Doing nothing and letting Chrysler liquidate: a mistake.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 1, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) Will any nomination be referred to as a liberal jurist?......Or will they be centrists?.......I think I know the answer...... Because they probably are. We are a center-left country after all. And because the truth is, they may be to the left on social issues, but I'd wager Obama will continue the proud tradition of nominating justices with a proud tradition of protecting money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) It was bound to happen. You can give the guys who are keeping the company afloat the worst deal out of everyone involved. Its shortsighted, and only encourages the further contraction of lending, especially in dangerous sectors, such as automotive. No it's fine, won't these bondholders get 100% of their loss back from the government anyway in the form of AIG Credit Default Swaps?

I know. Kinda crazy. I think we could see two or three Obama appointments by the midterm elections.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=103694193

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) If nothing else, it's interesting to see what issues each party uses to draw the line. For the Democrats rank and file, it was the Iraq war. For the Republicans, it seems to have been the stimulus package. It's also interesting to note, tactically speaking, that one reason there hasn't been any talk of a primary challenge to Bayh, or Nelson, etc., is that the Dems currently aren't in the business of putting up primary challenges that turn safe seats in to unsafe seats. The GOP has been doing exactly that. Actually, hell yeah there will be a primary challenge for Bayh. But Bayh won't get blown out of the water, because the Democrats have had a good long history about disagreeing on anything and everything. Sometimes, not having the best consensus in a party can be an asset. Because if you don't agree 100% with the party line, there's still a place for you in the Democratic party.

I'm guessing the Dems offered Specter 0 to switch over. Specter needs the Democrats more than the Dems need Specter. In fact, the real bargaining chip is the new organizing resolution of the Senate that would give Republicans the seat back that Specter currently holds. Until a new organizing resolution is passed, Specter maintains his seat on his committees, a new one has to pass to give those seats back to the GOP. If the Dems were smart, the GOP would only get that seat back when Coleman concedes. Who gets a sweet package to switch over now? Olympia Snowe. Will the last moderate Republican to leave the party turn out the lights behind you?

I found this story on a blog last night, and I really hope it was true. I miss Bea Arthur already. http://slacklalane.blogspot.com/2004/08/na...bea-arthur.html (This also showed up in the Irish Examiner and IMDb, but those pages no longer exist.) God'll get you for that Maudey. Rest in Peace.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) First things first, we need to bring back the Bea avatar. I don't know that Sox Talk can handle the avatar. Because I found the most amazing one ever. And it's too hot for TV!

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 25, 2009 -> 07:07 PM) Poor Rex Kickass. I don't know what to do. Today, I almost actually wore my Bea Arthur t-shirt to the beach actually.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:37 PM) That is immaterial to the question at hand. Someone tried to make the point that Obama had critics before Bush did in relative stages of their service. Its simply not true. I think the Bush critics were much less rabid in my mind. You didn't see latte shortages the way you're seeing ammo shortages these days.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) You would have to read all of this and the other thread. I've said before, war's a dirty business, and you have to do some things you don't want to do. It's not this pretty, nicey nice crap some people want it to be. Define "torture". You can't. They can't. No one can. The law is not clear, it's gray on purpose. But you cannot go back after the fact and change the rules, like Obama wants to do. It's not about "torture", it's about blame shifting. I JUST posted that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe everything Cheney has to say, nor do I Obama's drivel. You're absolutely right. Obama clearly only got elected to the Presidency to blame Bush. Oh and America, too.