Evening Reading

So Quake Live is finally out. What's this business about a position in queue? Is this bologna or video games?

A little news:

From The Chatty
  • reply
    February 24, 2009 6:00 PM

    pseudo State of the Union thread here!

    Live stream available on http://www.hulu.com/ and finer news organizations everywhere.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:01 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:01 PM

      u summuvabitch! :)

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:03 PM

      I've heard him talk enough, I want to see some action. Then maybe I'll consider him a great president. I think everybody has jumped the gun and has labeled him this great guy, but I think I'll wait until I see some actual evidence of this.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:04 PM

        he's been in office just over a month, is anyone really saying he's great yet?

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:06 PM

          Have you been paying attention to the way people talk about him? I mean, seriously?

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:09 PM

            I'm pretty sure a good 95% of that talk is tongue in cheek.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:10 PM

            Is Obama a great president, or the greatest president?

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:49 PM

              Neither, yet. I'm not saying he can't be, I'm saying he isn't at this moment.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:12 PM

            really? seriously? wow, just wow. epic. fail. etc. lolcats.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:16 PM

              I think in truth it might be a bit "have you been paying attention to the way people talk about the way people talk about him?"

              Like, he DOES seem to be liked, but a lot of the "omg people think he's jesus" stuff comes from his opposition making it up and projecting it onto his followers IMO. Of course there are always the crazies who actually DO think that too.

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 6:18 PM

                have you see the newest Harris poll? http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=19295816#itemanchor_19295816

                • reply
                  February 24, 2009 6:21 PM

                  yes yes g0nk, every one of obama's disciples worships him because he really is jesus. this is nothing new, they/we/i have been doing this since he announced his candidacy.

                  this story is fucking old already. we get it. people who are skeptical of obama think that the people who like obama, see him as THE SAVIOR (tm). GOD. JESUS. ALLAH. all in one.

                  instead of focusing on what people think about the fucking president, how about we just judge him on the policies that he and his party enacts.

                  enough of this "HAVENT YOU BEEN LISTENING TO WHAT PEOPLE SAY AND HOW THEY TALK ABOUT HIM?"

                  ITS NOT RELEVANT.

                • reply
                  February 24, 2009 6:32 PM

                  I thought I clearly said that there ARE crazies who take this shit too far. I thought it was implied that the opposition likes to latch on to said crazies and make them popular, but I probably should have spelled that out. That's a bit of what you're doing with the second link, IMO.

                  The first link is pretty "meh" if you actually read it. Obama shares the top 10 responses with FIVE other presidents. Obama is clearly on top because of the timing of this poll as well. You can't honestly think McCain and Chesley Sullenberger are on there for any reason other than recent media coverage. In fact if we're talking about which political wing idolizes their politicians more, is it more telling that at #1 we have Obama (who is one of the most famous people on earth right now) or that at #4 we have Reagan?

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:13 PM

            Just today at work my coworker admitted he didn't wish Obama to be assassinated, but merely arrested. Progress!

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:53 PM

            That is exactly my point. He hasn't done anything for him to deserve the praise he gets from some people. But that's just my opinion and a few people on here are already jumping on me like I'm saying he's a bad President.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:55 PM

            How the hell can anyone take that poll seriously? God's on there for fuck's sake.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:43 PM

              Because... *GASP*.... some people believe in God.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:05 PM

        Have you been awake for the last month? He's done a TON.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:06 PM

          Okay.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:11 PM

            ...

            • DM7 legacy 10 years legacy 20 years
              reply
              February 24, 2009 6:13 PM

              Don't feed the 2009's please.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:50 PM

              You didn't really explain anything besides he's done a TON, what kind of response were you expecting?

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:15 PM

        until he starts curing aids and cancer, i will treat him as if he kills babies and little kittens

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:23 PM

        You're rektify7, aren't you? Account created the day after rektify7's last post? Suspect.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:25 PM

          Correction, 1 week after his last post.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:51 PM

            Nope, sorry to burst your bubble. Been a long time lurker, decided to join.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:03 PM

      "the union has failed, as such i hereby dissolve the union. "

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:04 PM

      I'm actually going to watch so I know why the markets tank/recover tomorrow. Especially after that last abortion of a speech Bush gave that boned the DOW.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:05 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:07 PM

      They should have had everyone in the room ready to go at 9pm EST.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:11 PM

      No wonder it takes so long to get anything done in congress, they all have to suck each others dicks before they do anything...

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:13 PM

        Heh, yeah. It always amazes me how many of these people have shit-eating grins. The only thing that would make it better is if they had to wear uniforms detailing all of their corporate sponsors.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:13 PM

      anyone's watching nbc? some senators are pitching a tent :)

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:16 PM

      He survived the Running of the Senators and has made his way to the podium! Yay!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:16 PM

      I wish he'd yell "Sit down honkies!"

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:19 PM

      lol joe started standing up before obama had even finished his sentence. calm down joe!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:19 PM

      Yea he knows where the first ladies box is, LOL

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:22 PM

      Fucking SNAP!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:24 PM

      lol @ John Kerry w/ his "that should be me" look on his face.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:25 PM

      "I know there are some skeptical" *camera cuts to McCain*

      This thing is lolworthy.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:25 PM

      Bwhaha at immediate pan to McCain.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:26 PM

      "Because nobody messes with Joe." Haha, classic.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:26 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:26 PM

      every time a president makes a SOTU or other speech to congress, i want to strangle everyone who interrupts with applause, no matter the party of the president. i just want to hear the speech :(

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:26 PM

      Aww, Joe Biden's smile could reverse any sort of national depression.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:27 PM

      ???? New meme alert.... "Nobody Messes With Joe"

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:28 PM

        did someone say my name? : Joe the Plumber

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:28 PM

      HIJACK - Meanwhile, the GOP starts their 2012 campaign a bit early with Bobby Jindal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gop_reaction

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:29 PM

      Sit down!!

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:35 PM

        Yes! Sit the fuck down at let him talk.

        That is Pelosi behind him, right?

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:36 PM

          No -- that's Joe Biden (his VP) and some random poor guy who won a contest.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:30 PM

      I really dislike TelePrompter speaking.

      Left, right, left, right left, right left, right left, right left, right left, right.

      It's like a damn tennis match.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:34 PM

        This is something I've always managed to ignore. Now it's like the FedEx arrow, I can't unsee the tennis match. =(

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:31 PM

      Haha. Joe looks like he hates standing up.
      "What the fuck, we just sat down you assholes."

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:33 PM

      Address to People Who Like to Clap

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:33 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:35 PM

      Why does this not show up in latest chatty

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:38 PM

      is joe asleep or is he texting

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:39 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:40 PM

      The line under "to" in the watermark graphic keeps blinking in and out...it's a message to terrists!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:40 PM

      Pelosi needs some pom-poms. LOL.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:42 PM

        because she's a woman?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:43 PM

      Comparative States of the Union:

      State of the Soviet Union: Crumbled into naught but memories "Resurgent!" - Putin.
      State of the Worker's Union: Suppressed by Heartless Capitalist Dogs
      State of the Union: A single result table
      State of the Credit Union: $++
      State of The Union: Fighting The Corporate Ministry in the WWF
      State of the HMS Union: Wrecked in Fiji
      State of the Onion: Tasty in Burgers

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 8:20 PM

        State of the Bunion: Big, Red, and hurts like a sonofabitch

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:43 PM

      DAMMIT HULU.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:44 PM

        it fuckin shit its pants on me too!

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:47 PM

          Doin fine here!

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:48 PM

            Aye I had to reload it. It just froze all of a sudden. Its probably due to so many people watching it via the site, as its the highest resolution stream I think.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:51 PM

              NYTimes.com has a decent stream too that I switched to when hulu froze. Hulu had the same problems during the inauguration. :(

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 6:53 PM

                Not bad. I'm going there if it dies again. Its pretty on the mark with the Hulu stream too. ABC's stream is a few sentences behind for me for some reason.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:44 PM

      maybe if we clap hard enough the recession will go away on its own

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:01 PM

        I like that plan & would expect better results then the crap coming out of DC in the last year or so

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:48 PM

      is Joe doing a crossword or something? he keeps grabbing a booklet and a pen.. heh i can just see him thinking about 14 down and be like "Ahh shit, need to stand again!"

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:51 PM

      Fuck Obama he's going to take away our videogames. >:(

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:51 PM

        [deleted]

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 6:52 PM

          parents should put away the video games for a bit and read to their kids. nothing earthshattering

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 6:53 PM

            yeah, same shit he said before. not taking away video games per se, but parents shouldn't relay on video games and TV to autopilot their kids rather than spending some time with 'em

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:54 PM

              rely, even.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 6:59 PM

              But what if I play video games with my kids? What then, Mr. President??

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 7:07 PM

                going from last time, that's probably cool.

                i remember the first time he said it, it was pretty squarely aimed at parents who'd just buy their kids a 360 and leave them to that as a substitute

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:57 PM

        I used to get irritated at this too - but then I remembered that I'm 30 and do what ever the fuck I want to...what do i care if some 12 year old isn't allowed to play some game...means less "gtfo noob" comments and what not

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:02 PM

          yeah, fuck those annoying 12 year olds, they can diaf for all i care!!!!!!!!!!!!! (just joking you know i love all y'all little chitlins)

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:51 PM

      from my cold dead hands, you will take my video games away

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:52 PM

      Obama said put the video games down. BLASPHEMER!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:52 PM

      I wish they would clap less, but I think this during every State of the Union

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:54 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:56 PM

      [deleted]

    • Ebu legacy 10 years legacy 20 years
      reply
      February 24, 2009 6:56 PM

      I need the edited, applause-free version. All 10 minutes of it.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:56 PM

      wow he's robin hood.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 6:57 PM

        the united states has been robin hood since the progressive tax system has existed, this is nothing new

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:04 PM

        robin hood stole from the government and gave to the people ... not from those who earned the money to give spend on government programs

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:08 PM

        Wasn't Robin Hood a hero who stole from the evil corrupt usurper king to give to the needy? Sounds good to me.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:11 PM

          more or less, though it was not the king (he was off at war in the crusades) but the sheriff ... more or less the same situation

          Yet, most people don't get that it was the corrupt government that was oppressing the poor with high taxes that Robin Hood was steeling from and helping the people/citizens.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 8:16 PM

            Yes, but there was an usurper king John, brother of Richard the Lionheart! I know this because I loved the 1938 Robin Hood movie as a kid.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:57 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:57 PM

      we need to prop up home prices so they're affordable to everyone!
      sigh

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:32 PM

        how can something be proped up and affordable?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:57 PM

      <McCain> Ah shit I'm on TV, better stand up and clap while saying hi to Jackie Chan

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:58 PM

      Them turrists is gonna win if they find out we're payin' fer war!!!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 6:59 PM

      I like how more and more people stand up and clap during the soldier praise clapping session because they realize oh yeah they're the ones who overthrow governments when they get angry

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:02 PM

        Ahahaha, well said. No one want's out of work pissed off, highly trained killers being mad at them for good reason.

        Stay on *that* side of the Rubicon you fuckers!

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:07 PM

          don't worry, clapping will keep them at bay!

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:10 PM

          they're all dick suckers so they all clap loudly for the president or other people in the room, but when it came to praising the soldiers they were like "meh who cares" and then "oh wait a second"

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:02 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:09 PM

      CLAP CLAP CLAP..... Strong American Quip...CLAP CLAP CLAP

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:09 PM

      Sounds good.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:09 PM

      My friend's status on FB says "B.O. is going to B.S. the U.S. tonight." :( I dont understand, even if there's stuff to disagree how is it BS'ing at all?

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:11 PM

        Some people think politicians lie. That could be it?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:10 PM

      weak obama......weak

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:12 PM

      Keep watching to see the Republican response, which will feature 2012 presidential contender Bobby Jindal, current governor of Louisiana.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:12 PM

      the best part was how he talked about unity in the government and everyone actually clapped happily and agreed. so that is good, if they cant stop being cock suckers, at least they can work together and get things done

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:14 PM

      I see nothing :(

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:14 PM

      Fox News with another brilliant insight!

      The first address to congress by a black president!

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:15 PM

      lol at signing autographs

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:17 PM

        I seem to remember past POTUS signing autographs at similar events

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:27 PM

          Always do. Even people that completely hate whoever the President is will try and get an autograph.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:31 PM

            really? I am dumb then move along. I don't recall seeing this but then again I never watched a whole SOTU before either.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:32 PM

              well, technically, if this was your "first" you still have not watched a whole SOTU ... ...

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:21 PM

      HE GET'N MAD GROUPIE LOVE, MAD OF IT

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:25 PM

      hahaha holy shit Jindal rounding the corner to make a beeline to the camera and then stopping arbitrarily

      "Oh hi, didn't notice you there!"

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:25 PM

      bobby jindal walked up to the camera like a smiling dork

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:26 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:26 PM

        It's just weird. He's not even talking about the speech. How is this a response?

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:28 PM

          The response is written in advance, it's not an actual on the spot response.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:29 PM

            I don't care. This is just terrible. I mean, I thought Sebillius was bad last year, but damn.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:29 PM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:30 PM

          That's what is retarded about these responses regardless what party gives them. Frankly, they should take some time to actually come up with a response instead of some canned speech.

          Personally, I don't even think they should do them.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:27 PM

        well he's got 3.5 years to figure it out

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:31 PM

          Him and other southern governors are taking a heavy risk when it comes to the stimulus with their pledges to reject the stimulus money that goes towards unemployment benefits. They are basically gambling that the stance in favor of fiscal responsibility will gain them more than they'll lose by screwing over the poor.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:31 PM

            It's not a fiscal responsibility stance, it's a head-in-the-sand stance.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:43 PM

            They can reject it but pretty sure their state legislatures will override them which they expect anyways.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:30 PM

        [deleted]

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:29 PM

      Bobby Jindal is a fucking goober. If Palin and Jindal are the great Republican hopes then I feel very comforted.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:30 PM

        The story he told was very Kenneth from 30 Rock.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:42 PM

          That's what my wife said. She was OMG! It's Kenneth

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:30 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:32 PM

        I hope Jindal doesn't run only because I can't stand 2 years of listening to him whistle when he says a word with an S in it.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:33 PM

        Hahaha yea this is incredibly bad, like he's talking to a class of third graders

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:34 PM

          It reminds me of Officer Friendly.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:34 PM

        Sarah Palin is a fucking nutjob/idiot but Bobby Jindall is great.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:35 PM

        what a dork. at least he's getting better as the speech goes on.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:36 PM

          You must be watching a different speech.

      • reply
        February 25, 2009 6:48 AM

        goober? He's a Rhodes Scholar. I only saw the very start of his speech, he looked nervous but he is generally a very good speaker.

        • reply
          February 25, 2009 6:50 AM

          well that speech sucked ass so he's not making a good impression.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:31 PM

      jindal just dissed volcano monitoring? HAS HE NOT SEEN VOLCANO AND DANTE'S PEAK?

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:36 PM

        Volcano taught me that you can fight lava with concrete barriers and fire trucks.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:45 PM

        Yeah, I didn't get that either.

      • reply
        February 25, 2009 5:08 AM

        jindal vs the volcano

      • reply
        February 25, 2009 5:17 AM

        A volcano is like a hurricane with LAVA YOU DUMB BASTARD

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:31 PM

      who is this brown guy and where is the republican

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:34 PM

      "But Democrats in Congress.. they rejected it.]/

      hehe he speaks like someone reading his kids a bedtime story.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:36 PM

        this was exactly my thought

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:37 PM

        Kinda like how the people rejected Republicans in the last election...

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:47 PM

        He also failed to mention that what the Dems rejected was a GOP plan that involved doing nothing but cutting taxes for wealthy Americans and hoping for the best. No spending, no reforms, no investments... just tax cuts for the wealthy.

        • reply
          February 25, 2009 7:02 AM

          lol, nice over simplification.

          • reply
            February 25, 2009 7:23 AM

            Cut the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%
            Permanently set the capital gains rate at 15%
            Increase the death tax exemption from $2M to $5M, and then set the rate at 25% after that.

            There are tax cuts for everyone in their plan, but it is absolutely one of those "give most of it to the rich" plans, and I am one of the people who defend the republicans on the "percentage vs dollar amount" tax cut thing when Dems say "but it all goes to the rich!"

            • reply
              February 25, 2009 7:45 AM

              You know who pays that rate beside the rich? Most businesses do, so your company is most likely paying about 25-30% in taxes not including all the overhead to pay the employee benefits etc... It cost so much to do business these days its almost not worth it. Cutting the cap gains would cause lots of investment, and might help increase the overall confidence. We should be arguing over how to shrink our governments bills not about lowering taxes or not. Our gov is too big has too much power and wastes too much of our precious time and money. And by gov I mean all the way from our local cities to the states to the federal (with the feds being some of the more copious offenders) government.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:35 PM

      You go Jindal... how dare those Dems think that building a 300 mile rail line will create jobs. I mean, those things are just built by nanobots, right?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:37 PM

      That was ... creepy

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:38 PM

      "Now is not the time to dismantle our defenses, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops."

      I guess he missed the part where Obama just said his budget would include money for more troops, as well as pay increases and benefits.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:41 PM

        I noted that too and wanted to sign this post. typical fox news / republican logical nonsense. the democrats are wrong on this issue. the republican party does not support murdering children.

        oh okay

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:45 PM

        so, how does that work with Obama wanting the DoD to cut 10% of their budget?

        what will they cut if they are increasing pay & benefits? Armor? bullets? guns? Technology?

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:47 PM

          obviously the DoD can't possibly increase efficiency and reduce spending in some areas that are lower priority, much like how any other entity operates when trying to cut costs in certain areas while increasing production in others

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:49 PM

            sure they can, though "increase efficiency " typically means using less people, not more ... apparently Obama wants more more warm bodies, not more efficient bodied or systems

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:50 PM

              Nice straw man there

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:51 PM

              he did mention the cost of maintaining outdated weapons, so I'm guessing there will be a plan to phase some of that out

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 7:53 PM

                And we totally need to continue maintaining 50,000 troops in Germany to protect against invasion by the Soviet Union that collapsed 20 years ago.

                • reply
                  February 24, 2009 8:09 PM

                  Or is it to protect the german's from themselves (bad attempt at a joke)

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:54 PM

              it can mean all sorts of things, which includes cutting individuals who underperform, who're in underperforming divisions, or whose role/division is no longer a priority due to changing times. And there are plenty of ways to cut costs beyond just people. Certainly you know this.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 8:23 PM

            The DoD could increase efficiency in just about every area.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 8:24 PM

              I know this is a terse statement, but really, its awful.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 8:28 PM

            isn't the military budget higher than the entire worlds combined? i'm sure they can cut 10%.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:49 PM

          Well ignoring the fact that Obama just had a meeting this morning where the issue of fixing the procurement system came up, given that we can cut 10% of our DoD budget and still spend more on defense than all other nations combined, I am pretty sure we are not going to be reduced to fighting our enemies with harsh language.

          If we are going to get the budget under control, everything is going to have to get some cuts.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:52 PM

            sure, though how about we start with areas that are not constitutionally defined or traditionally as the role of the federal government --- as opposed to areas that are?

            It's also funny to talk about cuts right after pushing a major "stimulus" bull and proposing one to three more major new spending initiatives

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:54 PM

              constitutionally there was no armed forces, in fact it was a huge deal to form a national army and a lot of republicans were against it

              how come it's always okay to beef up the military to massive size but when it comes to programs like the arts, math for kids, and childcare it's always wasteful government spending?

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 8:16 PM

                i agree with this entire post 100% yes

              • reply
                February 24, 2009 10:11 PM

                probably because you can't have one without the other. also: public education is a failing institution

              • reply
                February 25, 2009 4:37 AM

                [deleted]

              • reply
                February 25, 2009 7:21 AM

                I consider spending on public spending on art to be kinda a waste, not so much them putting up art but more how the govs go about this. In denver we have 2 "famous" works of art that frankly should be dropped into the deapest depths of the ocean. The Horse at DIA, this thing has cost us taxpayers around a million bucks, and it even killed the creator, its ugly as sin and should have never been done. The bean shape penis near downtown Denver, the city spent a hundred or so thousand dollars on a ugly penis looking thing made out of "beans", i understand art being subjective but to waste this money like that is a joke. These artists were award contracts without any drawings or conceptual design. They were handed big contracts to do whatever they want, on my dime thats not going to make me happy when we get a hell horse and a penis (it doesnt even look good otherwise i wouldnt care). So again what i see as the problem here isnt the art but the government yet again. If you dont see the pattern of how the governemnt is behind most of our problems then there is no hope for us.

                • reply
                  February 25, 2009 7:23 AM

                  Oh man I forgot about the bean penis. WTF was the artist thinking?

                  • reply
                    February 25, 2009 7:49 AM

                    You know I cant for the life of me figure that out, I've stopped by a few times and tried to "see" it but it just eludes me. I mean he could have modeled longs peak or someone and had a real winner, but oh well.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:55 PM

              You and Evil Benius can talk about the role of the federal government until you are blue in the face, but fixing this problems takes pragmatism, not ideology.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 7:55 PM

              what's funny about trying to cut spending in areas you deem unnecessary while increasing spending in areas you do deem necessary? that's what businesses do every day

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 8:04 PM

              10% cut wouldn't even scratch the surface of wasteful spending at the DoD

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:50 PM

          F-22's?

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 7:51 PM

          i thought you wanted less government spending?

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 7:58 PM

            YE- NO- I- AH-

            BRAIN BLUE SCREEN

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 8:06 PM

            everyone, with few exceptions & I am just going to disregard that very small group, believes there are some roles that the US Fed Government should do, or another way of putting it -- should spend money on.

            there are roles that each and every one of us can point to and say "the Fed really should not be doing this" or "the Fed really should not be involved" ... this does not mean that we want no Federal Government.

            Conservatives (and I don't exactly fit here, but of the two major parties I do) fit with this, they believe that one primary role of the US Federal Government is to serve and protect, with a big emphasis on protection.

            It's like purchasing stuff in my daily life. Some areas I am cool with skimping on ... there are particular things that I want to spend as little as I can on, yet when it comes to other areas (like computer parts) I don't get the top of the line, newest, and greatest, but I do not skimp on quality ... thus I spend a little more up front on electronics, but they last me a good long time.

            Defense spending is that one thing for Conservatives -- they believe that a specific level of certainty of safety is a key foundation to being and living free.

            Try putting yourself in one of the conflict zones you know something about ... how would your ability to pursue whatever you feel like in the areas of a career be effected if you lived there?

            How much and the USA roll in the world from a military and defender of democracy/theweak/etc can and is debated. We can and might should spend less on the military too, I really don't know, but I do know that if there is one area that I personally would be the last to decrease it is our military (well, it might not be the last, but I cannot think of anything else at this moment).


            There is one other element in there ... and it's a macro(ish) economical view of the world ... at least a big picture one.

            The less we have war in the world the better off the world is, disarming the USA will not cause less war, but if an armed USA can cause less war with the military it will help the USA & the other countries in the long run.

            Think of great people in history that have made great scientific advances, what if those individuals were born and lived in that hotzone you thought of earlier? Do you expect that we would have the same result from their work/discoveries? In some cases, yes, in some it would have probably just taken more time, in other cases no.

            The US military does a lot more for causing other countries to be better off then just "fighting" ... they also build a lot of stuff like schools and infrastructure. That is just practicing for them for other building and such they might need to do at other times.

            anyway, my wife is calling me to go watch some TV ...

        • gmd legacy 10 years legacy 20 years mercury mega
          reply
          February 24, 2009 7:55 PM

          we are feeling some pressure at work right now from our sponsor, bitching a lot about how much we cost ! (but they can't find anyone better)

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 8:23 PM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 8:23 PM

          We had our ship budget slashed by 20%.

          Less training time basically, fewer shiny improvements.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 8:27 PM

            Instead of 100 gallons of Chef Boyardee stirred with a wooden oar, you'll be down to Wal-Mart brand.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 8:25 PM

          my guess is we'll see less future fighting systems in development. They are costly, don't benefit the current mission, and often have to invent an enemy to justify funding.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 8:28 PM

          We can definitely cut spending on more advanced fighter aircraft because what we have now is already vastly superior to any competition.

          • reply
            February 24, 2009 9:00 PM

            I had a long, involved post typed out rebutting you, but it's pointless so fuck it. Suffice it to say that you are just wrong on many different levels.

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 9:02 PM

              I'm interested in a rebuttal, even if I probably wouldn't have time to reply to it!

            • reply
              February 24, 2009 9:16 PM

              Must have not been that great then. How can I be wrong on many levels? I only had one statement, there's not much to it.

              • Ebu legacy 10 years legacy 20 years
                reply
                February 25, 2009 8:24 AM

                Shallow posts can still be epically wrong.

          • reply
            February 25, 2009 4:35 AM

            [deleted]

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 9:37 PM

          even though national defense spending is one of the ONLY places government expenditure contributes directly to GDP without crowding out private investment...

          • reply
            February 25, 2009 5:05 AM

            Our defense budget is so insanely huge I'm sure they won't have trouble cutting weight without sacrificing our national defense.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 10:52 PM

          Hey guys wassup in this dogpile subthread

        • reply
          February 25, 2009 5:11 AM

          I think Obama's secret plan for cutting defense spending is to stop invading Arab countries

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:39 PM

      the pbs analysts think jindal's speech sucked and was out of touch and stupid

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 7:41 PM

        He got better as it went along, but in general it was just typical Republican talking points against typical Republican views of liberal policies. I mean, he took an Obama quote from a couple of weeks ago to paint it like Obama thinks we won't recover from this recession.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 8:41 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        February 25, 2009 7:24 AM

        It was fucking terrible. Why can't this party find a fucking candidate who speaks like a normal human being?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:42 PM

      leave it to the Republicans to outsource their response...

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 7:48 PM

      I'm not sure that Bobby is going to do well in 2012.

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 8:04 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 8:50 PM

        If they run Jindal in 2012 it will just further cement the republican party as the party of the bible belt.

        • reply
          February 24, 2009 8:57 PM

          He's dark. That's all they care about. All he needs is a vagina and a set of tits, and he would be their perfect candidate.

          • reply
            February 25, 2009 5:04 AM

            To run, not to vote on. I think a good chunk of the republican party voters are quietly furious that there's a black man as their president.

            • reply
              February 25, 2009 5:06 AM

              Quietly? Send me your email so I can forward you all the bullshit my dad sends me, LOL

              These nutjobs are anything but quiet.

          • reply
            February 25, 2009 5:14 AM

            If they were running for president now then I'd agree with you. In 4 years I bet the republicans will be over their 'we need more minorities' phase. Too bad for them that Romney is Mormon and a political weathervain, he would be a nearly perfect candidate.

            • reply
              February 25, 2009 5:16 AM

              Yea, I despise the current Republican party but I would be tempted to vote for Romney if he was running against a guy like Kerry

              • reply
                February 25, 2009 5:32 AM

                If the Romney that ran for Governor of Massachusetts was still around he'd be a tempting candidate (although I didn't vote for him and I certainly wouldn't vote for him now). If was weird watching him since he came in as fairly socially liberal (wasn't anti-abortion, helped pass a huge healthcare bill) but by the end of his term he was just another fire breathing social conservative who went around the country touting the evils of same sex marriage.

                • reply
                  February 25, 2009 5:44 AM

                  How much of that was real and how much was an act to appease the far right?

                  God I hate the fringe groups, they fuck everything up for the rest of us.

                  • reply
                    February 25, 2009 5:56 AM

                    Does it really matter? In a couple of months he did a 180 on a bunch of issues to appeal to the right. Even if none of that is true I don't want someone who bends over to appease his base running things.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 8:04 PM

      so is this going to be a regular occurence. obama fucking up primtime tv with boring speeches?

      • reply
        February 24, 2009 8:08 PM

        Maybe, but the writers claim that Season 4 will be much closer to the excitement of Season 1's primaries and Season 2's general election.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 8:31 PM

      I guess Hulu decided not to keep a copy of it for later viewing... anyone know where I can watch a replay?

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 9:28 PM

      what in the sweet fucking hell was jindal spouting off about? katrina doubts? holy crap what a poor wandering mind, representing a total quagmire of confusion.

    • reply
      February 24, 2009 9:34 PM

      why is it such a problem for people to fly in private jets? criticizing them is a terrible idea.

      • reply
        February 25, 2009 5:07 AM

        I believe he's criticizing bank executives for flying in private jets after accepting bailout cash to keep their enterprises afloat.

        • reply
          February 25, 2009 6:23 AM

          Obama should stop flying in his own private jet then which is also funded by taxpayer dollars.

          And yes, I am trolling here.

Hello, Meet Lola