Comments Posted By Richard Bottoms
Displaying 221 To 230 Of 362 Comments
HAVE WE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE FACT OF AN IRANIAN BOMB
In any event, if/when Iran gets nukes the world will find out what nuclear tension really means. I believe it will make the first Cold War look all warm and fuzzy by comparison.
Let's see some real commitment then. Like if Iran gets the bomb all conservatives between 18-35 will offer to join the Army (or encourage their children to do so if they are too old) to swell its ranks sufficiently to go fight the war they seem to want.
It's been all talk on the Iraq and Afghanistan front, now's the time to man up. Do it and I'll re-enlist myself if they'll have a 54 year old back.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 1.10.2009 @ 11:35
'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE
Obama wishes to put us under an authoritative government bureaucracy so effective as to control nearly every aspect of our lives.
And in your scenario the Supreme Court does what? Goes on an extended fishing vacation?
It's silly. It's paranoid. And it will keep independents thinking the GOP is full of crackpots, which from my perspective is a good thing.
The only downside I see coming is another Oklahoma City, which is not inconsequential.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 29.09.2009 @ 15:08
My sentiments exactly.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 29.09.2009 @ 11:16
DEFENDING POLANSKI: 'IT'S NOT RAPE-RAPE'
I'm confused. When celebrities speak in support of green power and against global warming they are brainless fools who represent no one.
When some of them speak up for Roman Polanski they are now the vanguard of opinion for all liberals everywhere. I think not.
Polanski is slime. He'll get his day in court finally. His own arrogance in stepping foot into Switzerland did him in.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 29.09.2009 @ 15:17
WHY IS THE PRESIDENT GOING TO COPENHAGEN TO LOBBY FOR THE OLYMPICS?
It is obvious you are ignorant of Chicago and its stinking corruption. Or maybe, you endorse it. That’s the only conclusion one can draw from your excusing the president’s promotion of this two bit sideshow while what’s happening in the real world demands his attention.
Certainly one could assume the president would be completely cut off from communications while traveling inside the flying military command center that is Air Force One and that anything that distracted him from an early retiring to bed would tax his constitution.
But I wouldn't.
Yes stinking corruption is the exclusive province of Chicago and no other city has such problems.
1. I deleted your violation of copyrighted material.
2. So you are saying that New York is bidding for the olympics too? I was unaware of this. New York is not in line to receive a couple of billion for the olympics which shows that you are truly befuddled by what my argument is. Chicago is corrupt. Chicago is receiving the olympic money. Obama is going to Denmark to promote the corrupt city of Chicago's bid to get the olympics. I would hope even a simpleminded hack like you could understand it now. Your bringing New York corruption into the discussion was just plain weird.3. Of course Obama can stay in communication with anyone and everyone. Why I must repeat everything twice to you means that either you are extraordinarily dense or you were dropped on your head as a child. The problem is one of perception - Obama dropping everything to attend to a matter that is not worth the weight he is attaching to it.
4. I don't expect you to answer any of these points but rather to raise additional strawmen. So I would simply request that you not visit this site and comment anymore since I don't want to make the effort to go to my C-Panel and open the file to ban you. You just aren't worth the extra mouse clicks.
ed.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 16:14
Obviously, to you and the President, the hundreds of American soldiers dying in Afghanistan this year in a war we are starting to lose now is of lesser importance than the bling of Chicago getting an Olympics down the road.
And obviously you can't conceive of a president who likes to think about things instead of going with his gut.
George Bush had seven years to find a strategy for Afghanistan. Obama must of course undo GW goat screw in seven months of be deemed a failure.
And since he's not in bed by 9pm every night or spending weeks at a time clearing brush at a fantasy-land ranch, he actually can handle more than one problem at a time. Even without the Cheney training wheels.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 13:44
Maybe this all just political payback.
Ain't no 'bout a doubt it.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 13:19
~ GCS
...its hard to blame him when Putin and Blair personally helped win the next 2 Olympic locals by appearing in person at the selection committee meetings.
Actually for some folks, it appears not hard at all to blame and denigrate him for doing exactly what he ought to be doing which competing in the marketplace for the prestige and tourist dollars of this event.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 12:18
This is the administrative equivalent of wearing bling. All flash, no substance, no class.
Certainly no other world leader world lower himself to lobby for an Olympics.
Except:
"I myself want to make an effort to help the bid succeed. Let us work hard together," Hatoyama said in a message read at an event to send off Tokyo's Olympic bid team to Copenhagen.
England, Russia, Brazil
Correspondents say the impact of star personalities on Olympic bids was demonstrated when lobbying by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2005 helped London win the 2012 Games, and Russian President Vladimir Putin led Sochi's bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics in 2007.Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed hope on Monday that he would "return from Copenhagen with a victory".
So cut the crap. You just hate the president.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 11:18
Chicago can do whatever it damn well pleases but let’s draw the line at placing the burden for financing Daley’s glory on the backs of people who don’t live there.
Has there ever been a US Olympics in history that was financed 100% by the city that hosted it and zero taxpayer dollars? And no, the Salt Lake City Games weren't either before you go there:
Mitt Romney, president of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC), made reducing the size and cost of the Games a priority during his tenure. Of course, there's only so much one man can do.
The 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which began Feb. 8 and run until Feb. 24, are the biggest and most expensive Winter Games ever, featuring 2,400 athletes and a price tag of $2 billion. While private sources such as TV networks will foot much of the bill, federal, state and local taxpayers will pitch in about $625 million, roughly $1 of every $3 spent.
Twice as large and nearly six times more costly than the last Winter Olympics held in the United States -- the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, N.Y. -- the Utah affair represents a significant step up from the 1998 Winter Games held in Nagano, Japan, for $1.14 billion. In fact, Salt Lake City's estimated $1.93 billion budget nearly equals that of the much larger 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney (which cost $1.97 billion) and approaches the gold-medal standard of the 1996 Atlanta Games, which set an Olympic spending record of $2.4 billion.
The staggering tab -- $114 million per day, or $817,000 per athlete -- reflects the overall growth of the Winter Games, as well as higher technology and security costs. It also stems from a venerable tradition in which each Olympic city attempts to top the pomp and pageantry of the last, often through lavish perks and extravagant -- if borderline ridiculous -- opening and closing ceremonies.
Why did you change the subject? The issue at hand was your lying contention that I said we couldn't afford the Olympics. I called you out. You change the subject without a word. That means I won, and you lost big time. In fact, you were never in the game since your comment was total bullshit anyway - as you well know.
Now I remember why I have banned your ass at least twice. You are the very definition of a troll - not interested in engaging in debate but simply throwing out wildly exaggerated notions of what I've written and when I respond, changing the subject so fast a reasonable person's head spins.
Unless you reform, you will be banned again.
ed.
Comment Posted By Richard bottoms On 28.09.2009 @ 10:25
