kapkomet Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 07:15 PM) Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS. Instapundit (one of the top right wing blogs): ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Anthony Calabrese thinks there's probably less here than the AP story suggests: I am a long time reader -- also a tax lawyer. While my practice does not involve real estate investments, I think it may be much ado about nothing. Generally, if you transfer property to a company in return for an interest in the company, there is no federal income tax on the transfer. If the company was an LLC (as stated in the media reports), the company was probably a partnership for tax purposes. There would be no LLC level tax as profits and losses would pass through to the partners. So I can see no real tax issue. The only issue is that Reid might have been hiding his ownership of the property, but holding investment property in an LLC is fairly common in order to protect the owners from torts or bankruptcy. I think this is simply an issue of someone forgetting to file a form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS. But since he has a D behind his name, the blognation is in full effect defending it, just like they all got pissed when Hastert did... But of course, its different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Instapundit is a Republican blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 03:10 AM) Instapundit is a Republican blog. Instapundit didn't defend Reid, he pointed out that a commenter who claims to be a tax lawyer was defending him, and then said "That seems right, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on a single wire story. No doubt we'll learn more in coming days." Sounds like he is excercising caution before going all nutzo criticizing Reid. Later, he posted this" MY EARLIER POST on the Harry Reid scandal was somewhat skeptical. But this post by Ed Morrissey suggests that there may be more to the story than I thought." The link in his post is here. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) I have worked for Republican campaigns ya know.... I'm just pointing out that you and NS have a comment about almost everything posted in here and it's usually a counterpoint. Maybe that's how the "Dems Only" thread goes too. I don't know. I don't go in there. I just think it's counter to what this thread was originally intended to be. Again, maybe I misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) I'm just pointing out that you and NS have a comment about almost everything posted in here and it's usually a counterpoint. Maybe that's how the "Dems Only" thread goes too. I don't know. I don't go in there. I just think it's counter to what this thread was originally intended to be. Again, maybe I misunderstood. No, you're right. But I think a lot of us can sometimes see both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) I'm just pointing out that you and NS have a comment about almost everything posted in here and it's usually a counterpoint. Maybe that's how the "Dems Only" thread goes too. I don't know. I don't go in there. I just think it's counter to what this thread was originally intended to be. Again, maybe I misunderstood. My post before the one you replied to was actually a favorable response, not a counterpoint. But, you are correct, I am not a Republican. Of course, I'm not really a Democrat either. I guess I'll go swim around by myself in the Indie thread. Except that one seems to have disappeared! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 FYI, with the projected budget deficit of $247.7 billion, Bush delivered on his promise to cut the deficit in half, except he did it 3 years quicker than he promised in 2006 instead of 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Another good one here... it turns out whoever is putting up stories for the democratic party can't tell the different between an American soldier and a Canadian one. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008234.php October 07, 2006 I Love Canadian Troops, Too! Readers of CQ know that I follow Canadian politics and have become something of a Canada-phile ever since the Gomery Inquiry. Canadians, I have found, are friendly, gracious people, and their country has a well-deserved reputation for hospitality. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the Canadian military, which has a long tradition of honorable service, and they are currently adding to and enhancing that reputation in Afghanistan in the fight against radical Islamist terrorists. Too many Americans seem disinterested in our northern neighbor and close ally. I'm always delighted when Americans take an interest in Canadians -- even when those Americans are Democrats. Michelle Malkin reports that the Democratic Party made a big show of "supporting the troops", and to be fair, they didn't specify their nationality: That picture looked pretty strange to one of Michelle's military readers, and a little poking around turned up where that uniform is worn -- in Canada: When looking at the two pictures, one can easily see that the devices worn in both photos match, especially the red wreath. The second photo is found on the Canadian Army website and is a picture taken during Remembrance Day in 2005. The beret color seems a giveaway as well. Rifle-green berets are worn by the US Army Special Forces groups. No matter what color beret worn in the Army, however, the beret itself will carry the insignia of the unit, and this beret has a strange lack of insignia. It almost appears to have been photoshopped out. Also, take a look at the soldiers in the background. I'm not as certain about this as I am with the soldier in the foreground, but the uniforms worn appear also to be Canadian Army. The shade of green looks wrong for American uniforms, and I'm not familiar with the red border on the collar in the US Army. If the Democrats can't tell the difference between American troops and foreign soldiers, perhaps we have to wonder whether their support means much in any circumstance. We certainly have to wonder whether a political party so out of touch with the greatest military force in human history has any business leading it. However, if they wanted to just show a little love to the excellent men and women in the Canadian Army, I'm on board. UPDATE: Charles at LGF found the original photograph, and confirms that the insignia got photoshopped out, and rather crudely. Note the crop job that attempted to turn this proud Canadian into an American (hat tip CQ reader Michael G). The Democrats have some explaining to do. All joking aside, this is a pathetic embarassment, and especially the obvious photoshopping of the insignia. They can't argue that they support our troops when they can't recognize them. UPDATE II: It's a poppy, not a red wreath, as at least a couple of e-mails have pointed out. As Bar Code King points out in the comments (and I forgot), Commonwealth troops traditionally wear these on Remembrance Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Another good one here... it turns out whoever is putting up stories for the democratic party can't tell the different between an American soldier and a Canadian one. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008234.php I saw that one a few days ago. They had also posted the picture befoire it was Photoshopped, and they had removed the insignia from the beret and some shoulder pips. They had to know it wasn't a US soldier. Quite funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) I saw that one a few days ago. They had also posted the picture befoire it was Photoshopped, and they had removed the insignia from the beret and some shoulder pips. They had to know it wasn't a US soldier. Quite funny. Is it even worth noting that it's actually illegal for either political party to use actual in-uniform U.S. soldiers in campaign ads, and there are more than zero Republicans who have gotten soldiers in trouble by doing exactly that in recent years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS. What liberal bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 A little old, but appropriate... >Many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us >that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us >all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. > >These activists may be alone or in a gathering . . . . . most of us >don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, >or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette: > >1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a >conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They >will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people >who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will >probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to >humanitarian. > >2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in >the nose. > >3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry >and they may try to hit you, so be careful. > >4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings >about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell >them if they are really committed to a non-violent approach to >undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a >solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe >what they are saying. > >5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are >correct. > >6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much >harder. Square in the nose. > >7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot >realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making. >8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting >victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is >unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 My new favorite quote of all-time "It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional." Justice Scalia http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUD...-10-21-20-02-29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 07:17 AM) My new favorite quote of all-time Justice Scalia http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUD...-10-21-20-02-29 Scalia is easily my favorite SCOTUS justice. Not only is he a voice for the right wing but he's funny as hell when he speaks on certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 How the liberal media plans to cover the last 2 weeks: (Rex will be helping to facilitate #9) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/sto...9592&page=1 The Note: Pending: Six Days of November Surprises WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 How the (liberal) Old Media plans to cover the last two weeks of the election: 1. Glowingly profile Speaker-Inevitable Nancy Pelosi, with loving mentions of her grandmotherly steel (see last night's 60 Minutes), and fail to describe her as "ultra liberal" or "an extreme liberal," which would mirror the way Gingrich was painted twelve years ago. 2. Look at every attempt by the President to define the race on his terms as deluded and desperate; increasingly quote Republican strategists saying that the President is hurting the party whenever he enters the fray. 3. Refuse to join the daily morning Ken Mehlman-Rush Limbaugh conference calls, despite repeated invitations. LINK 4. Imbue every Democratic candidate for whom Bill Clinton campaigns with a golden halo. 5. Paint groups that run ads or do turnout for Republican candidates as shadowy, extreme, corrupt, and illegitimate; describe their analogues on the left as valiant underdogs, part of a People's Army (with homage to Rich Lowry). 6. Care more about voter disenfranchisement than voter fraud. 7. Take every Republican quote expressing some trepidation about the outcome and banner it. 8. Drop any pretense of covering good news from Iraq (uhm&.) or good news about the economy, including some upcoming positive macro numbers (Quick, Note readers: name the current Secretary of the Treasury.). LINK 9. Amplify Obama-mania as a metaphor for the Democratic Party being the party of excitement and the future. 10. Fail to follow Bob Novak's analysis of the difference between Democratic and Republican oppo plants. LINK 11. Lock in the CW (which, shockingly, could be wrong) that the winner of two out three Senate races in Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri will control the Senate. 12. Carefully document what appears to strategists in both parties to be the case — while a few incumbent Republicans are clawing their way back into contention (including and especially, perhaps, Tom Reynolds), the number of endangered Republican-held seats is growing, not shrinking. As in: "In a measure of the party's growing optimism, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to announce Tuesday that it will begin airing advertisements in 11 new districts, including eight the party had not considered competitive until recently, party sources say," write the Los Angeles Times' Brownstein, Hennessy-Fiske, and Jarvie in their story looking at the expanded field of play in the battle for control of the House. LINK...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Hillary>Obama, at least according to Dick Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he thinks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could win the presidency. He said Sen. Barack Obama might be viewed by voters as too inexperienced. Cheney handicapped the Democratic field of potential candidates in an interview with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity. "I think Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate," Cheney said. "I think she could win. I hope she doesn't. I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president." Cheney said Obama, an Illinois Democrat, was an "attractive guy. Don't know him well, met him a few times. I think at this stage, my initial take on him was he's been two years as a senator. I think people might want a little more experience than that, given the nature of the times we live in. But certainly, he's an attractive candidate. If he decides to run, he'll be a player on the Democratic side." Obama said Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so. As for himself, Cheney said he would not budge from his oft-stated decision that he will not run for president. "It's firm, final, fixed, irrevocable," the vice president said. "I don't know how else I can say it. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." Cheney also said he was optimistic about Republican hopes in the Nov. 7 elections. "I think we'll hold both the House and the Senate." Last week, Cheney raised eyebrows when he sounded less sure about GOP prospects. "I think we'll hold the Senate and I also think we got a good shot at holding the House," he told Rush Limbaugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:15 AM) Hillary>Obama, at least according to Dick Hilary>Obama for the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) Hilary>Obama for the GOP. WINNER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 The GOP knows how easy it will be to defeat Hillary and are trying their best to get her the nomination, harder than the DEMs. And since I avoid posting here so I don't inflame the conservatives, I will leave you wth this > 2008 Democrat Convention > 7:00 P.M.--Opening flag burning. > > > 7:15 P.M.--Pledge of allegiance to U.N. > > > 7:30 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast > > > 7:30 till 8:00 P.M.--Nonreligious prayer and worship--Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. > > > 8:00 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast. > > > 8:05 P.M.--Ceremonial tree hugging. > > > 8:15- 8:30 P.M.--Gay Wedding-- Barney Frank Presiding. > > > 8:30 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast. > > > 8:35 P.M.--Free Saddam Rally led by Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon. > > > 9:00 P.M.--Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-- French President Jacques Chirac. > > > 9:15 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast. > > > 9:20 P.M.--Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund. > > > 9:30 P.M.--Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay--Sean Penn. > > > 9:40 P.M.--"Why I hate the Military"--a short talk by William Jefferson Clinton. > > > 9:45 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast > > > 9:50 P.M.--Dan Rather honored with the Truth in Broadcasting Award, presented by Michael Moore. > > > > 9:55 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast > > > 10:00 P.M.--"How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers", by Howard Dean. > > > 10:30 P.M.--Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad. > > > 11:00 P.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast > > > 11:05 P.M.--Al Gore reinvents Internet > > > 11:15 P.M.--"Our Troops are War Criminals"-- John Kerry > > > 11:30 P.M.--Coronation of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton > > > 12:00 A.M.--Ted Kennedy proposes a toast > > > 12:05 A.M.--Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home > > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 LMAO. That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 12:00 PM) LMAO. That's funny. I do what I can for y'all Remember Kap, Vote Kinky, Why The Hell Not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 haha, 2008 convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Guess who owns next door to Barak... Its indicted Blago buddy Antoin Rezko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts