The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

I'm not so much worried about their "rights" (I could give a s*** about their rights) as I am about making sure things get done the right way.

It sounds less reasonable when you say it Kap's way.

[kapkomet]

It sounds less reasonable when you say it Kap's way.

Well, I'm saying the same thing, although poorly, if you look at my post above about the trial part.

 

[KipWellsFan]

As agent Moss said to Jack Bauer, it's the rules that make us better.

 

Ha! Moss is a moron. The show is only like 13 hours old and Moss has already been fooled like 20 times. 24 is terrible, yet I just keep watching...

[Balta1701]

Ha! Moss is a moron. The show is only like 13 hours old and Moss has already been fooled like 20 times. 24 is terrible, yet I just keep watching...

As of next week, we'll now be up to 4 former Star Trek actors guest starring this season.

[Cknolls]

"Mike Ditka used to tell people to strap it up. You start games off by telling people to strap it down. Which should I do, strap it up or down?

DJ: "Whatever you do, just don't strap it on"

 

(10 seconds or so of silence. I imagine the look on Hawk's face).

 

"We got another email here..."

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

 

I remember that one. That was a classic moment.

[Rex Kickass]

Ha! Moss is a moron. The show is only like 13 hours old and Moss has already been fooled like 20 times. 24 is terrible, yet I just keep watching...

 

What I don't understand is this is like the sixth 24. Doesn't Jack Bauer ever get like a day off to eat and sleep and go to the bathroom? Damn, 6 days would totally wear me out.

[Balta1701]

What I don't understand is this is like the sixth 24. Doesn't Jack Bauer ever get like a day off to eat and sleep and go to the bathroom? Damn, 6 days would totally wear me out.

You do realize there's been periods of years between the seasons right? There are students here who pull more all-nighters than that in a month.

[Rex Kickass]

You do realize there's been periods of years between the seasons right? There are students here who pull more all-nighters than that in a month.

 

Oh no, I didn't. I never watched it.

 

 

[Cknolls]

Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris

 

 

 

Who wins?

[Balta1701]

Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris

 

 

 

Who wins?

Hand to hand or are there weapons involved?

[Balta1701]

There's no telling if Gates and the President will win it...but it seems like they're gearing up for the fight of their lives.

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the offi cials said.

 

More cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

 

As a former CIA director with strong Republican credentials, Gates is prepared to use his credibility to help Obama overcome the expected outcry from conservatives. And after a lifetime in the national security arena, working in eight administrations, the 65-year-old Gates is also ready to counter the defense companies and throngs of retired generals and other lobbyists who are gearing up to protect their pet projects.

 

"He has earned a great deal of credibility over the past two years, both inside and outside the Pentagon, and now he is prepared to use it to lead the department in a new direction and bring about the changes he believes are necessary to protect the nation's security," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

 

Gates is not the first secretary to try to change military priorities. His predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, sought to retool the military but succeeded in cancelling only one major project, an Army artillery system.

THAT would be change we can believe in.

[lostfan]

That's something Gates has been trying to change at the Pentagon since he got there, but something he didn't have the authority to do on his own. There's a lot of redundancy with these weapons programs but there's just so many entrenched interests and agendas that it's like turning an aircraft carrier (maybe coincidentally, it just so happens Gates is not a fan of carriers in a modern navy).

[bmags]

Why would we do that? Defense spending doesn't count against the budget right? /green

[kapkomet]

Why would we do that? Defense spending doesn't count against the budget right? /green

Obviously, neither do bonuses or earmarks.

 

[bmags]

Obviously, neither do bonuses or earmarks.

 

You are defending these bonuses on a bogus legal precedent. Maybe SS2K5. But let me tell you how outrageous it sounds to me, (after the labor unions of the car companies you demanded renegotiate your contracts) that a company like AIG hands out bonuses by contracts in spite of the fact that the company and its contracts would not exist without the federal government. You want to talk about a lack of patriotism. The thought of spitting in the face of our citizenry who donated their money to protect themselves from the consequences of the IDIOTS who took 30% profit over logic that it could all could fail and all those connected could fail, and have US bail them out and then STILL maintain profit because of their contracts only relevant because of our money is dispicable.

 

And earmarks I'm not against it's just politics of politically minded people hoping to gain some points in the polls. It's not that big of a deal, I benefit from it, you do too. It may not be the role of the fed. gov't but I don't give a f***. Some things need funding that people don't realize. It's easy to throw out funny names and snark and act above everything, but Alaska and Lousiana, you are disproportionately gaining from these projects you hold your noses at. So without parsing of words. f*** YOU YOU f***ING HYPOCRITES

[kapkomet]

I do not have a problem with funding things if it goes through the appropriate processes (going through committee, getting into the budget, and voted on). This buy off of votes, though, is bulls***.

 

[southsider2k5]

You are defending these bonuses on a bogus legal precedent. Maybe SS2K5. But let me tell you how outrageous it sounds to me, (after the labor unions of the car companies you demanded renegotiate your contracts) that a company like AIG hands out bonuses by contracts in spite of the fact that the company and its contracts would not exist without the federal government. You want to talk about a lack of patriotism. The thought of spitting in the face of our citizenry who donated their money to protect themselves from the consequences of the IDIOTS who took 30% profit over logic that it could all could fail and all those connected could fail, and have US bail them out and then STILL maintain profit because of their contracts only relevant because of our money is dispicable.

 

And earmarks I'm not against it's just politics of politically minded people hoping to gain some points in the polls. It's not that big of a deal, I benefit from it, you do too. It may not be the role of the fed. gov't but I don't give a f***. Some things need funding that people don't realize. It's easy to throw out funny names and snark and act above everything, but Alaska and Lousiana, you are disproportionately gaining from these projects you hold your noses at. So without parsing of words. f*** YOU YOU f***ING HYPOCRITES

 

I don't like the bonuses, anymore than I like the labor contracts or earmarks. I just think it is funny that people are willing to rush to the defense of something that is costing them a trillion dollars, or even nine billion dollar, but are all up in arms about $165 million.

 

Also, we didn't "donate" a damned thing. The general populace didn't have a choice. It was our elected officials that decided it for us. I believe in most of these situations, public opinion has been decided to let all of these groups go at it on their own, just like the individuals in the general public have to.

[bmags]

Also, we didn't "donate" a damned thing. The general populace didn't have a choice. It was our elected officials that decided it for us. I believe in most of these situations, public opinion has been decided to let all of these groups go at it on their own, just like the individuals in the general public have to.

 

I disagree, because these were our elected officials, I don't think it's far off to call it donating. These congressman are re-elected at a very high rate, so that tells me we are satisfied with their decisions.

 

It's like AIG is Jimmy Stewart at the end of it's a wonderful life, except instead of putting the money in to keep the bank level he spent it all on his kids and went to florida.

 

It isn't the amount of money being spent I care about. It's people who were largely responsible for the collapse coming away with millions.

[NorthSideSox72]

It isn't the amount of money being spent I care about. It's people who were largely responsible for the collapse coming away with millions.

I'll go with caring about both.

 

[bmags]

I'll go with caring about both.

 

well right, but compared to the billions given this isn't the straw that broke the back for me, but the giving of bonuses is just so absurd. They must be the most insulated, self-loving people in the world.

[kapkomet]

well right, but compared to the billions given this isn't the straw that broke the back for me, but the giving of bonuses is just so absurd. They must be the most insulated, self-loving people in the world.

How do I say this and be nice? You better not get in the real world then, because it's pretty lonely out there unless you love yourself.

 

[Balta1701]

I do not have a problem with funding things if it goes through the appropriate processes (going through committee, getting into the budget, and voted on). This buy off of votes, though, is bulls***.

Do you think things that go through committees aren't also used as ways of buying off votes? Since we're on defense spending, that's perhaps the perfect example. Very little of that is funded through earmarks, but since the materials and bases are in so many districts, adding in an extra B-2 or an extra carrier for $10-$20 billion gives us an extra plane/boat that we really don't need, but it makes sure stuff passes.

[kapkomet]

Do you think things that go through committees aren't also used as ways of buying off votes? Since we're on defense spending, that's perhaps the perfect example. Very little of that is funded through earmarks, but since the materials and bases are in so many districts, adding in an extra B-2 or an extra carrier for $10-$20 billion gives us an extra plane/boat that we really don't need, but it makes sure stuff passes.

Sure. But it goes through a process that's (more) open, not this shoving s*** in at the last minute that no one knows about.

[Balta1701]

Sure. But it goes through a process that's (more) open, not this shoving s*** in at the last minute that no one knows about.

So in other words, you have no problem with the concept of buying votes, you just care about the mechanism of how its done? It sounds like I've rapidly killed your principles there.