Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 471 To 480 Of 657 Comments
Be fair Mr M. -- it is a well known fact that Iraqi termites are notoriously attracted to any pile of cash bigger than a 4-door car. The money probably just got eaten, and since they mostly come out at night (mostly), I'm sure everybody was asleep and didn't hear the chewing. Perfectly rational explanation.
When I first started reading back in 2004 about inexperienced, politically-connected college graduates being put in charge of vital aspects of the CPA, I had trouble believing it. At first, I thought the Admin were such dogmatic zealots that they really believed the hard work and dedication of some right-minded kids would magically make it all work out, like a sappy movie.
Then I started to understand it wasn't that, but they simply hadn't bothered to think about staffing, and after the competent professionals left and requests for help from the CPA were met with "just take care of it", the CPA boots on the ground did the best they could dangling in the wind. Like they're doing for the troops -- we're not going to get involved, make it work, and good luck.Criminal negligence might be the most civil thing I can think to call that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.12.2008 @ 14:07
AXELROD, OBAMA, AND THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
@my manager:
. . . these were jokes, right? the links . . . you're making fun of the paintings and the people at these links, right?
Please tell me you're joking . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.12.2008 @ 17:56
I still don't see where y'all are getting the Immaculate Obama argument that you're now shooting full of holes. Who said he was was incapable of telling a lie? Not him. Not his people. Not the biased liberal MSM (if they did I missed it, and I try to watch all the way to the fringe hippies so I would have expected to catch some extreme silliness like that). Not the blogs. Not his supporters.
The only people I ever recall that claimed he and his "disciples" thought he walked on water were the Right -- and it certainly appeared as if before, during, and after the election it was being used mockingly. As in, of course he's not a saint, and only a fool would think he was. Heck, he lied to Browkaw (I think) about not smoking last week. Sure, he used the lawyer-dodge of careful choice in vocabulary, but I'd call it a lie, and so did everybody I know -- and none of them dropped dead from shock. Most of them (myself included) chuckled knowingly, having told the same obvious psuedo-lie to avoid having to explain that we still wanted to have a friggin cigarette, and having been busted just as easily.
I honestly don't think I've seen a more perfect illustration of the Straw Man fallacy in reality.
If some credible or sizeable person/group in the Middle/Left of America truly believed in his inability to ever be anything less than 100% completely forthright and truthful, I honestly missed it and please tell me. If not, I back to as long as he's not taking, giving or agreeing to bribes . . . so what? I keep hearing "cover-up". What's being covered up?
I understand the Opposition is excited at the prospect of getting their attack on, but much like the "He wasn't born in America" meme this is (without anything more) absolutely NOT the hill the Right Opposition wants to stage the assault from. Between this and the "we'll scuttle a million-plus American blue-collar jobs at Christmas to bust Unions immediately after giving the bankers a wheelbarrow full of gold" nonsense The Elephants in the Senate are pulling, it seems to an outsider like the Right is intentionally trying to alienate even more voters, and doing an effective job at it too.
Despite any philosophical differences I may have with Repubs, I've always respected (or feared) their unrivaled skill at controlling the message, feeling the pulse of the populace and driving the public -- much like McCain during the campaign, this is an entirely different beast than I remember.off-topic: saw McCain on Letterman the other day. Where the hell has he been for a year?!? THATS the guy I wanted to vote for -- straight-talk John is back! Well, Palin would've nixed it for me, but McCain/AnybodyElse I'd have pulled the red lever over Obama/Biden in a heartbeat . . . and I like Biden. One of the few Blues I have the slightest respect for.
Welcome back, Senator. I know I speak for alot of non-Reds when I say we missed you.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.12.2008 @ 09:51
@ Andrew:
It is certainly starting to seem clear that Rahm spoke to Blogo (no even going to try and spell it out), if for no other reason than for Blogo to be swearing up a storm because the Administration-to-be won't play ball I assume he made an offer to somebody and was told to go to hell (unless he really is completly out of his mind), and Rahm seems to be clamming up in most peculiar way.
Even if that's the case, I'm still having trouble being outraged at the Obama crew. Either Rahm told Blogo flat-out they wouldn't play ball, or worse case he told Obama and Obama told him to tell Blogo they wouldn't play ball. Well, I suppose that the true worst-case is that they were willing to play ball, but Blogo wanted too high a price and they decided to walk rather than make the deal.
The more I think about it, it seems pretty clear that Rahm must have told Obama. I can't see him making that call for Obama without the big man's signoff, and Obama did want that lady to get the seat (I forget her name), then apparently changed his mind and appointed her to an Administration position, coincidentially right after when Rahm would have spoken to Blogo. Under the circumstances, that seems like he had somebody (Rahm fits the when-and-wheres) ask Blogo to consider appointing her, Blogo named his price, and Rahm would probably have brought it back to Obama who rejected it and appointed her to the Fed position instead.
So I'm back to the Administration (specifically Rahm and I'll include Obama too) having spoken to a shady character and refusing to do shady things with him. As long as they didn't actually try to buy the seat I'm not upset about it. Seems like the sort of thing that you would kind of have to lie about if asked point-blank, sort of a "how often do you masturbate" type of question-with-no-acceptable-answer.
Heck, if this is the worst type of lie I get told by this administration I'll be pretty happy with that.
Now, if they WERE trying to buy the seat, then I'm pissed. It would have to be "bribe" instead of "horse trading" though. Like Fitzgerald said, interests for interests is how politics work, and its not ideal but its also far from condmenable.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.12.2008 @ 16:50
Just so I'm on the same page here, the worst implication against Obama is that he knew Blogo was a slimeball and both (a) didn't turn him in and (b) denied knowing he was a slimeball (lied to the American public), presumably to avoid dealing with why he did (a)?
If I got the full info from the Blogo taps already released and from Fitzgerald (who at this point doesn't seem like he's a "I'll coverup your dirt for a favor or some grease" kind of guy), Obama isn't suggested at all in any kind of concession to Blogo, and Blogo cussing him out for NOT making him an offer seems to be clear.
. . . then the only point (I stress so far, as there may well be more info) is to illustrate that Obama isn't the second coming of Christ? Not playing dirty, not taking/giving bribes, but just doesn't drop a dime on those that do?
I can live with that, especially as I never thought he walked on water in the first place. Hate to say it (and perhaps this says more about me than him), but I respect him even more if that's true. He can deal with some unsavory characters and not get sucked into that lifestyle.
Assuming the above scenario is true . . . how would the anti-O crowd suggest he have handled it? Obviously, calling the authorities would be the most upright course of action, but is he going to be able to function effective as a politician if he does? He goes to lunch with another senator to try and get legislation passed, and the 2nd senator pays for the lunch with his re-election campaign credit card (a crime if they didn't deal with that). Obama chooses to pay for his meal himself, refusing the other pols offer to pay, and stops dealing with that person.
Granted the above hypothetical is poorly constructed, but nevertheless should Obama report the other person? I suppose he should, in a perfect world. I'm not offended if he didn't though. Obviously selling Senate seats is far, far more serious, and if the hypothetical substituted "assaulting and killing hookers" for "misusing campaign funds" then simply staying out of the mix isn't acceptable. I suppose then that the issue for me is whether the Blogo bribe soliciting merits calling authorities, and I guess I can see the practical reality of not doing it, especially in that environment (politics). Mabye I've just become so jaded that simply seeing a politician NOT engaging in dirt is acceptable to me, which would be a sad statement.I'm not sure how much of this "getting the MSM to stop the Messiah propaganda" is grounded in reality though. Saying that he is for "hope and change" and is a "fresh breeze" and all that other stuff seems to be a far cry from "his tears cure cancer" and "his children were concieved immaculately". Obama has admitted to past drug use, and other unsavory behavior in his past. He stil smokes (occasionally) cigarettes. Thinking he's going to be a more honest President, with more integrity, isn't the same thing as "incapable of observing sin without vomiting".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.12.2008 @ 07:13
JACK BAUER: 'REDEMPTION'? OR DESCENT INTO SILLINESS?
I'll have to watch the older seasons at some point . . . I hate jumping into a series like this right in the middle, and I could never watch 24 while The Shield was still running. Since it seems that F/X just dropped it, looks like its time to see what all the 24 hype has been about.
I'm going to miss The Shield. Hopefully 24 can take some of the sting away.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.11.2008 @ 02:07
DON'T YOU WISH YOU WERE A FLY ON A WALL?
Completely off topic . . . but does anybody in this non-Leftie house have any idea what the fu@k is going on with Joe Lieberman? Does the Right see Obama saying he "bears no grudges" and won't weigh in on demoting him to Dem towel boy as a sign of power and control . . or of being a total puss?
Oh, and you're wrong about civil liberties Mr. M. Your two choices mentioned above are (1) give up liberties and stave off an attack or (2) preserve liberties and suffer bombings. What about the far more likely option -- (3) give up liberties and STILL get bombed?
For all the talk on this site about respect for history, and the intent of our forefathers, selling out the Great Writ with absolutely no demonstrable payoff is (or should be) inconcievable for Conservatives. Forget your technicalities about the prisoners may not be covered by our legal code (and you're wrong on that too) . . . its what makes us the best humans on the planet, that we base our entire existence, our society, our identity at least in some small part on morality, on recognizing that some things are malem in se, that there is such things as "right" and "wrong". Sell that, especially for nothing demonstrable, and we're just pigs ... which is fine and dandy but that means you can stop that inspirational oratory anytime.... Man, I've been waiting to snark off at you for weeks. Thank you. I needed that after work tonight.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.11.2008 @ 10:56
TWITS IN MCCAIN CAMP MISFIRE IN PALIN ATTACKS
@ ScottD:
You raise alot of points and issues, but one that cought my eye in particular was:
"9)Ignoring Obamas place of birth, lack of birth certificate, . . . ."
If this concern is based on the alleged "Photoshopped scan" of the birth ceritificate that was discussed by Corsi and many web sites earlier this year, while the concern over possible suspicious details in the scan may have had merit, FactCheck.Org has hi-res photos of the document, with the raised seal, the cert. # visible, no haloing on the text, etc. They also talked to Hawaii officals, look into why the "photoshop watermark" in the scan reads 2007, and even has a pic an oppo-Obama researcher found of a birth announcement for him in the relevant local paper of the time:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlThere may be reasons to be suspicious of Obama, but the Birth cert concern seems to have been addressed in a pretty credible manner.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2008 @ 18:56
Not only another great post, but I almost made it to double digits in the comments before the fanatics shattered the mood. I agree with the whole shebang (at least up until retire). Reasoned discussion, even passionate debate from across the universe can never be off the table, and thank you to the commenters that put into words what I couldn't put my finger on last night and today -- this is the way adults deal with exchanging power and control (excluding the Fox.com message boards -- they're running approx. 10% that the election establishes conclusively the End Times have begun, and they're not speaking metaphorically).
Rick M.-
While your posts are always impressive displays of skill even if I disagree from word one, this last week or so you've really been formenting reasoned discourse at a "save post to hard drive library of great thinkers works" level. I'm slowly drifting from impressed to awe, and honestly it makes me feel a little . . . icky. Please post something nonsensical in the near future so I can go back to respectfully impressed. My worldview's been shaken up quite enough in the last 24 hours as it is.Your patience will be rewarded shortly. I feel a rant coming on.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2008 @ 16:11
. . .
That was possibly the most insightful and moving internet post I have ever read.I don't know what you did prior to helming RWNH, but a salute to you and your efforts to make your vision of a better America come to pass.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.11.2008 @ 14:59
