EvilMonkey

QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) My wife LOVED Tres....i thought the food was pretty good too. I can't believe T-birds is gone. Man...i thought that hole would live forever. I forgot about the Hangar but then i don't think i ever went in the place. Gatsby's was a waste of space..i never like that place though one of my friends had one of the funniest drunken moments ever in that bar. Bill, I think Gatsby's is the place that Vonda got her, me and Johnny thrown out of at the one family reunion. I do remember it being a waste of space.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 08:54 AM) And the people's republic of Switzerland. And those commies in Germany require military or civil service from all their youth citizenry as well (Or at least did until budget constraints led them to a great reduction IIRC). There are very positive ways to accomplish what's envisioned here. We had one Presidential campaign that talked about Country First a lot, I seem to recall. His nomination speech talked a lot about providing service. Now the other candidate, who won, is talking about providing an avenue for this service in exchange for some financial aid to go to college. I just don't see why this is so controversial. This just seems like a lot of panic or fake outrage. If you're against national service, I guess I can understand... but I fail to see the problem of a country asking something in return for its own largesse in programs that people choose to be a part of. You know what? We are not Germany. or Switzerland. Or Cuba. Or any of those other contries that REQUIRES some sort of military or civil service. And we shouldn't be. Should service be encouraged? yes! Required? no. And FYI, there is no 'aid' tied to this program, this one is a 'do it or else'. We just don't know what the 'else' is yet. Here is a link to Obama's CoS talking about it a while back. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/...n-will-media-ig You may not think this controversial now, but as with the other plan talked about in here, the devil is in the details. Just who is going to 'lead' these people? How are they going to be trained? WHAT are they going to be trained in? Is the actual militry budget going to be cut to fund this? What if you don't want to do this, will they cut off some sort of benefit or send you to jail? What if you do it poorly? And wouldn't this be eerily similar to a draft, something the Democrats kept screaming that the Republicans were going to do? What is to prevent these from becomeing 'indoctrination camps'?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) Here's why I don't think there's really any kind of treachery going on in Minnesota. There probably aren't enough corrections to matter. I would be very surprised to see the votes change in the recount by between 200-300 votes. We'll either see a larger change, or a smaller change, I would wager. Small vote changes of 500 or so are fairly common in larger races between unofficial results and certification, because errors are made. Is there a chance of shenanigans here? Sure there is. However, if these were real shenanigans, I think you'd have seen votes change by about 1000, not 500. Even 1 vote is treachery enough, if it changes the outcome of the election. The statistical anomoly that every recording error just happens to benefit Frankin, and that in cases where those 'errors' occured, they ONLY occured with the Frankin/Coleman vote and Obama vote, but not any of the other votes on the ballot, are very damning.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 07:38 AM) Seems to me that the AK and MN senate messes are different animals. In AK, these absentee and mailed in ballots were expected, mathematically based on region of origin, to probably lean heavily Begich. So no surprise on the gap closing there. But I have to admit, the fact that every error correction published seems to have helped Franken, makes me raise an eyebrow. I especially liked this part: For example, there was Friday night's announcement by Minneapolis's director of elections that she'd forgotten to count 32 absentee ballots in her car. The Coleman campaign scrambled to get a county judge to halt the counting of these absentees, since it was impossible to prove their integrity 72 hours after the polls closed. The judge refused on grounds that she lacked jurisdiction. Ooh, wait, I have 48 more in the trunk I forgot to count also, if you need them! Regardless of the outcome, that person deserves to never work an election again. Ever.

Once this program gets established in whatever final configuration it does, how long until it gets somehow transformed into Obama's National Civilian Security Force that he has previously talked about? You would have a structure in place of people registered with the government for their community service, and this could just be another one of those things to meet those obligations. http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/article...al_service.html programs like this exist all over the place. in more Marist type regimes like Cuba. Basically, what Obama is talking about is creating a Committee for the Defense of Liberal Ideology and Political correctness funded by a half trillion taxpayer dollars. National Security for this crowd is not about stopping terrorists from killing our children. National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters. Their version of National Security is to force you to act for the common good of society and not in your own best interest. Since this goes against human nature, the half trillion dollar “Civilian National Security Force” will have to force Americans to change their nature and create a new citizen that is self sacrificing and collective in nature-an ant-like new man, like Che's and Fidel's new man.

A WSJ article on how the election In Minn. is being stolen. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 04:53 PM) You would be one of the few that truly believe this if by the government staying out you mean no student financial aid. The financial aid is the ruse that the government is using to "get into people's lives". Once someone accepts that $4,000 Pell Grant, the government is asking them to give something in return. So people could keep the government out of their lives by going to a private school and turning down any financial aid. Or they could work a job and earn that $4,000. Plenty of nice options. The financial aid incentive wasn't always there. And as all of you are so fond to point out, this isn't written in stone yet and may not be there at all when he finally brings it to fruition. The more vocal of the anti-war libs (again, not on here) have been yelling for years that all the 'incentives' we give people to join the armed forces isn't really a 'choice', because poor people have no options and have to take it. How is this any different (assuming the tax idea actually stays in the proposed plan) if looked at thru those eyes? Again, thru that thinking, the poor people don't really have a choice, they have to take the money, and the strings attached to it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:56 PM) Probably. When I said "in committee", I didn't mean official discussions, I meant the other people in the committee and did exactly what you just described. Only a small minority fo Congress are THAT stupid, just like the civilian population. Yes, there were two people on a committe that invited a few people to come and speak about that. I don't remember who they were, but I do remember that they were FOR it, at least until their fellow committee memebrs probably laughed them out the door. Doesn't mean it is dead yet, but don't expect that one back anytime soon. There could possibly be riots if something like that were to happen, and even most politicians aren't that dumb. yet.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) You seem to want to apply the bats*** fringe complainers (who complain about EVERYTHING the other side does) to the Obama campaign as a whole, and to any of us who voted for him. I really think it was ever Obama's intention, or his words, to have some sort of ban on any and all current and former lobbyists having any role whatsoever in his administration. That would be incredibly silly and impractical. Also, do you think anyone in their right mind honestly thought that Obama would change EVERYTHING? No one said anything of the sort here, and Obama's campaign certainly didn't. There are only so many things that can be changed. Yes, Obama's main theme was change. Yes, I think he can indeed change a number of important things. No, no one I have seen has ever said that Obama will change every single damn thing. Are you going to flip out if Obama walks the same path from Marine 1 to the White House that Bush did? How his Obama himself expressing his distrust and dislike of lobbyists bats*** fring anything! Obama repeatedly emphasized the problems of lobbyists in politics. Made it a point to show how it was bad every time McCain even shook the hand of one as if the lobbying cooties were contagious. He made a huge showing of giving back donations from lobbyists because “Giving back these donations is part of our best efforts to ensure we stay true to our commitment to not take money from federal lobbyists,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. http://tinyurl.com/24vkmt Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have fulminated against "lobbyists" and "insiders," and claimed that they will end "business as usual" in Washington if elected president. How is picking a former lobbyist with ties to a current lobbying firm in any way ending business asusual. http://tinyurl.com/2qmjv7 Hell, Alexrod is a lobbyist in all but name. Only some very loose rules in illinois lets him get away with not registering as one for ComEd. Yes, every 'promise' he makes and then changes on, before he even gets into office, i am going to talk about. Do I think he was going to change everything? No, I thought he would change almost nothing. But he SAID he was going to do a heck of alot of hopey and changy things. We'll see. Dems had 8 years to play all nice, and all they did was a little bit after 9/11, because they would have looked like uncaring asses if they didn't play nice for just a little while.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:57 AM) Sigh I don't care if ex-lobbyists work anywhere in the government and I never did, I care if lobbyists are running the government. All I care about is whether the people that get picked are qualified. And I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans. YOU may not care, but vilifying lobbyists was a major theme of the Obama campaign. And now they welcome them in with open arms to help them shape the admin.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) Not going to bother reading my post, eh? I said nothing of that sort. Nothing is "different". I asked legitimate questions. You don't want to answer them, hey, that's fine. But your cop out answer isn't even relevant to my post. Obama railed against lobbyists, and thier influence in campaigns. Iguess you can sleectivly not remember that, but every time it came up that someone doing anything for McCain was or is a lobbyist, that's all we heard about is how they will have no voice in shaping his administration. So how is picking this guy, who was a lobbyist and who's firm are huge lobbyists, to pick your FCC head somehow magically 'different'? Ok, he is ot a lobbyist 'now'. but he was, and his firm is. And he is nothign BUT a Washington insider, so again, how is that 'change'?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) Well for one thing, I don't recall Obama ever saying that no lobbyist would have a seat at the table (maybe he did and I simply don't remember). I think he's made it a theme that lobbyist wouldn't dictate policy, but I think its near impossible to assemble teams like this without some folks in it who have done some lobbying. Second, reading that article, it seems like this guy is pretty ideal for the job. I'm not sure what the uproar is about. Third, this guy is not a registered lobbyist, again per that article. He was once a lobbyist in 2001. Yup. It's always different.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 01:13 AM) do you guys think with the phils not getting Matt Holiday they'll want dye even more and possibly give up victorino?? i mean it makes since with burrell one and holliday gone they can use he bat after howard. Why would they give up Victorino? For Dye?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:55 AM) He doesn't even have a cabinet yet. No way he has picked the FCC chair at this point. OK, I read that wrong. he is heading the FCC transition team, almost as bad. It still shows how lobbyists are playing a big role in Obama's admin, despite his saying that they woulnd't have a place at thetable. The more things change, the more they stay the same. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10084046...s&subj=news

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) I was going to say something like that. Your CoS is supposed to be a partisan guy. Otherwise there is no point in having one. How about the head of the FCC? And in a breaking of a campaign promise to keep lobbyists out of his government, he wants to appoint one to head the FCC. One that has a fondness for the so-called Fairness Doctrine. DC insider Henry Rivera, a former Democratic FCC commissioner, and partner in the lobbyist law firm Wiley Rein, is being picked by Team Obama. While not currently registered as an active lobbyist, he has been engaged as such as recent as 2001. His law firm is also heavily involved in efforts to lobby on telecom issues. Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman, and is arguably one of the schmooziest lobbyist telecom legal firms in Washington. They employ several former FCC commissioners as well as a significant number of former FCC employees. Of course, Rivera and the other lawyers at the firm are not the only people at the FCC, or other governement agencies, to leave government for high-paying lobbyist jobs, but how is this 'change'? Looks like just another Washington insider, with an agenda.

I'll bet the protests would never materialize if it were mosques, CAIR or LaRaza that had funneled lots of money in support of it.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) That is a f***ing disgrace!!!! Regardless of the date, it never should have happened. I guess it would be ok to go around and arrest everybody that has a McCain-Palin sign in their yard or bumper sticker. I'm sure they have lists, so don't go too far. And hide your guns, stockpile ammo now, and closeout your 401k before they take that as well.

I would trade him if the deal was right. I don't know what deal WOULD be right, but for a good enough package, he gawn!

And just like that dissent is no longer the highest form of partiotism, but rather a jailable offense. A guy is arrested for wearing a McCain/palin tshirt at an Obama rally. Gotta love the crown reactions as well. And in the City of brotherly Love. yeah. Everyone there cheering this should be ashamed of themselves. Reverse the situations and the cries of fascism would be running from the front pages of the NY Times and every liberal blog in the country. but I guess it is ok, since it was a Republican who was the victim here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94N1TkuLWss

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:50 PM) i guess at least Franken hasn't been convicted of a felony involving bribes. i suppose if both are in the senate Al will actually have someone to look down upon and lecture to about responsible governing. Just multiple counts of tax evasion, which he of course blames on the accountant.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) That's OK we can still make him look bad. All McCain supporters need to start yelling FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! He can't stick to a plan for 2 days without bending to the wind! Must have been some negative poll data. I also heard we all better join the NRA because he's going to take away our guns his first week. Evidently he has eliminated Congress and the Courts as well. If he gets to appoint any Supremes, he can certainly start down that road. Besides, he doesn't have to wait for that. BTAF has the power to institute regulation that don't need to go thru congress regarding firearms manufacturing and distribution, so a few well placed individuals there can find a way to curtail a majority of the 'scary' firearms thru regulation, resulting in a defacto ban on certain styles of guns without having to try and pass any laws.

More improvement in solar collectors. http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey...tappvar=page(1) More at the link, but that is the meat of the story.

If they can't figure out how to mark a ballot correctly, they are too dumb to vote and should have just stayed home. Al Frankin is a very polarizing candidate. I can see many Democrats not voting for him because he is an ass, but not wanting to actually cast a vote for the other side.

Apparently they are now removing the word 'require' from the website and using more friendly terms like 'encourage'.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) Yes, it was. And quoted in this forum somewhere, earlier. Different county. And it was 100 new votes for Frankin, AND 100 new votes for Obama. Those two together make it even more impossible to do. And there could be no reporting error there by a human, since it was the optical scanners, which transmit the totals themselves.