Cknolls

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 11:20 AM) I think Olbermann is smarter than you think. And although he wears his politics on his sleeve, it's hardly any worse than anything you see on Fox. Quite the opposite, he usually goes the extra mile to make things balanced on his show - from what I've seen. His newscast is, in a lot of ways, a throwback to the way news used to be done. Thats why he'll be asking for an investigation into the leaks about the CIA prisons and the NSA programs. Right? Don't hold your breath. At least O'Reilly calls Bush on issues in which he disagrees. You never see Olberman do a show and say anytthing negative about a Dem or a Lib.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 09:16 PM) I loved watching Olbermann when he was doing Sportscenter. He was the best sportscaster Ive ever watched. However, Ive lost all respect for him now that he's a shill for the Democratic left. Agree whole-heartedly.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 02:11 PM) And I wish I watched it more often... Olbermann has been picking on Fox News hosts Gibson and O'Reilly recently - in an obvious attempt to piss them off and get the ratings leader in cable news to talk about him, Countdown and MSNBC. Apparently it worked. So much so that John Gibson went out of his way to deny the things he was quoted as saying. Olbermann called him on it last night and asked him to resign his post. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/..._30037.asp#more This is such a brilliant thing to do for Olbermann because by getting Fox to respond to his little catcalls and insults, it only draws attention to himself and gets himself more viewers. Countdown is MSNBC's biggest draw at the moment and if Olbermann and crew do smart guerilla marketing like this, they'll be beating CNN by this time next year. That is the only way he will get ratings. He is the drudge report on T.V. Have you ever seen Keith say anything bad about a democrat or a liberal? Maybe if the said dem or lib is agreeing with the pres or repubs.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 02:37 PM) Actually, my sense of humor is alive and well. I even laugh at jokes told about Clinton that are actually funny. Calling someone a rapist, even if it's "supposed to be in green", both is not funny and not constructive. Not to mention the fact that a great many people won't ever value your opinion on anything after you drop a couple of references like that. I know you probably don't care if I value your opinion, but I also know that there are lots of fair-minded people on both sides of every debate here who probably don't like the level of descussion being dragged down to sophmoric levels. Or worse, as the case may be. Actually one of his ladies that he had relations with said that he raped her.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 01:10 PM) No, no. That's good, constructive political analysis. Call Clinton a rapist -- that'll get people to change their minds, for sure. Whatever happened banning for unwarranted personal attacks? Obviously you people left your sense of humor at home. The rape comment should be green. Lighten up people.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 06:23 AM) Always coming back to Clinton and Monica . . . How about the Barret report? Why won't they, (Dems), let the independent counsel release his report in full with no redactions,save the classified material. Is it because the wonderful Clintons used the IRS as their personal auditing house? I wonder. Is it a crime to intentionally audit people for no reason? Every woman that Clinton raped, oops, did I say that? Every woman he had relations with, was audited, as were many conservative think tanks and foundations. Coincidence?????????????????

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 11:55 PM) Or an impeachment. Never going to happen. But you can dream can't you.

QUOTE(timotime @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 10:06 AM) pirro never stood a chance. she had so many gaffs it was unbelievable. it's pretty much hopeless for the GOP in NY state. Sounds like ILLINOIS.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 01:19 PM) US News: What's the problem? If there was a heightened level of radiation at one of these sites, it would be nice to know. I'm sure if you lived in an area showing elevated radiation levels you would want the gov't to investigate. Why don't these pricks that are leaking everything to the media quit if they are so concerned and go public. They will be the first ones to say Bush didn't do enough if something were to happen in this country. Can't have it both ways. Do they work for the ACLU or the intelligence agencies?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) Yes, there probably is something like that much stuck in the Eocene age Green River formation. However, it's even less concentrated than the stuff in Canada. Which means...higher costs for extraction, more pollution, and it even has the negative part of being right in the middle of the U.S., so that all the pollution those plants would belch out would float east and wind up right over Chicago. WindyCity will blow east baby.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) What do you find interesting in that post? Perhaps I missed some news snippet about Martha's Vineyard. Did they pitch a fit about offsore wind turbines or something? Actually, a lot of power alternatives will make things much more pleasant, if you ask me (though that's just a nice side effect). Every one of the new generation of alternative energy producers (wind, solar, hodroelectric, hydrogen cells, etc.) has drawbacks of course. That's why a combination of them is ideal. The payoff would be huge, in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, reducing our needs in the Middle East, cutting polution and the problems that causes, etc. The Kennedy's blew a gasket because of talk of erecting wind turbines in the sound off of their play pad.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) That is absolutely not a fair comparision. Supply of oil had nothing to do with that - it had to do with refinery capacity at that point. How do you think they refine the oil from prudhoe bay? Pipe it down to New Orleans?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) Actually, people do think about accessing those canadian oil shales/tar sands, but there are some severe problems with them. In fact, tehre are at least 2 major companies who have operational plants mining those oil shales. What are the problems? Well, first of all, it costs a ton of money to bring that stuff out of the ground and process it into a usable form. We're talking something on the order of $100-$125 a barrel before it even becomes close to cost effective. So the price of gasoline basically needs to double before they become cost effective. $5 a gallon or more in the U.S. That sort of thing. (The 2 companies that are working up there now are gambling that the process will become cost effective in the near future, and if they have the technique mastered beforehand it will give them a competitive advantage then.) Secondly, those 180 billion barrels of oil? Well, they're not all recoverable. Why? Because it takes an enormous amount of energy to refine and process that stuff. So what they actually end up doing is consuming a significant portion of the recoverable energy just to keep the plant and the process running. Third, those plants are ungodly polluting monsters. The oil shale coming out is dirtier and more polluting than Coal. And you have to burn a ton of the stuff just to generate the energy it needs to process it. Think about this...if we were to supply the entire world's supply of oil based on oil shale...you'd have to increase emmissions by something like 25-50% just because of the fact that it takes so much energy to process the stuff. You'd be dramatically increasing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, you'd be dramatically increasing the amount of soot/other pollutants pumped into the air, and you'd be dramatically worsening the health of a lot of people. It is a last resort. But it's not a pleasant one. I just read an article a couple of weeks ago that said there may be in excess of 100 billion barrels of oil in the shale deposits of colorado,utah and wyoming.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) Actually, people do think about accessing those canadian oil shales/tar sands, but there are some severe problems with them. In fact, tehre are at least 2 major companies who have operational plants mining those oil shales. What are the problems? Well, first of all, it costs a ton of money to bring that stuff out of the ground and process it into a usable form. We're talking something on the order of $100-$125 a barrel before it even becomes close to cost effective. So the price of gasoline basically needs to double before they become cost effective. $5 a gallon or more in the U.S. That sort of thing. (The 2 companies that are working up there now are gambling that the process will become cost effective in the near future, and if they have the technique mastered beforehand it will give them a competitive advantage then.) Secondly, those 180 billion barrels of oil? Well, they're not all recoverable. Why? Because it takes an enormous amount of energy to refine and process that stuff. So what they actually end up doing is consuming a significant portion of the recoverable energy just to keep the plant and the process running. Third, those plants are ungodly polluting monsters. The oil shale coming out is dirtier and more polluting than Coal. And you have to burn a ton of the stuff just to generate the energy it needs to process it. Think about this...if we were to supply the entire world's supply of oil based on oil shale...you'd have to increase emmissions by something like 25-50% just because of the fact that it takes so much energy to process the stuff. You'd be dramatically increasing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, you'd be dramatically increasing the amount of soot/other pollutants pumped into the air, and you'd be dramatically worsening the health of a lot of people. It is a last resort. But it's not a pleasant one. This is similar to the argument of using oil and gas to refine ethenal to use less gas. It is not very cost effective, but it helps the farmers, and we all love to help subsidize our farmers.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:35 AM) I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort. :headshake For anyone who thinks this is solely about some Caribou, then I think you've got your head in the sand. Unfortunately, the way the environmental lobby comes off in the media (in great part because of their own poor marketing tactics), you'd think the only reason we protect open space was to avoid killing off some specific wild animals. It's about a heck of a lot more than that. And by the way, if you read a previous post of mine, it refers to the Goldman Sachs report (which I am now going to see if I can dig up) that basically says the positive economic impact of that oil on the average US consumer would be so small on a per-gallon of gas basis, that they wouldn't even notice it over an entire year. Use the money to do something useful - reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources. Like windmills off the coast of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. Oh, no, I forgot the surly drunk from Massachusetts lives there and that would ruin his view of the water from his burka lounger on Hyannisport.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:24 PM) Seriously, what is the problem with drilling in ANWAR? Might disrupt some caribu? SO WHAT? I agree that we should be trying to find some kind of alternative fuel. I would love to tell OPEC to shove their oil where the sun don't shine. But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu. They (greenies), said the same thing when the Alaska Pipeline was being planned. And lo and behold the number of caribou has increased since then. Some say it may be due to the warmth of the pipeline itself. Nobody knows how much oil is underground there; but it seems the consensus is anywhere from the low two digit billions to the mid twenty billion barrels. That amount of oil, if available, would have eased the burden on the suppliers in the Gulf after the hurricane.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:12 PM) f*** yea! Let's increase taxes so you poor f***s can have some more government handouts! Right on Kap.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:33 PM) copier Dec 17, 2005 -> 02:59 AM Post #11 Winston-Salem (High A) Group: Members Posts: 542 Joined: December 30, 2002 From: Saint Charles, IL Member No.: 8 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more. Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending? agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all. I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending" The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill. The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold): States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17)- D 2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R 3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004 4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R 5. Alaska ($1.82)- R 6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R 7. Montana ($1.64)- R 8. Alabama ($1.61)- R 9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R 10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D 2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004 4. Nevada ($0.73)- R 5. Illinois ($0.77)- D 6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D 7. Colorado ($0.79)- R 8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D 9. California ($0.81)- D 10. New York ($0.81)- D Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid. This post has been edited by jasonxctf: Dec 17, 2005 -> 03:08 AM Party in power controls the purse strings.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) Earmark=entitlement. Didn't think so. Anyway, I think the earmarks are a joke. And stevens should be put on that island before they build the bridge so he can't get off.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) Ted Stevens is a douche. Ditto the other 99 senators.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:14 PM) Yeah...who cares about medicare and the like? We need to keep tax breaks for the rich during a time of war. I own stocks, hence receive dividends. I do not consider myself rich. Try another talking point.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:45 PM) Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing. I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession? Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years. Revenues have increased dramatically since the tax cuts were enacted. States are seeing a likewise increase in revenues flowing into their treasuries. It must be because the DEMS voted against the tax cuts.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:45 PM) Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing. I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession? Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years. I didn't know we measure recessions by dow levels.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) Too bad the raping of Medicaid, Medicare and student loans was passed 51-50 with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. God forbid we limit the rate of the increase in spending on entitlements.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:42 AM) I lived in states previously where I's could vote in both primaries, which I kind of liked. Now back in Illinois, and I am not sure how that works here. Anyone know off hand? If I didn't register as affiliated, can I vote in primaries? Yes you can vote: but you have to declare which party's ballot you would like on election day.