NorthSideSox72

I am surprised no one has posted this yet... http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/ill...f.ap/index.html Its amazing, really. Aside from the fact that he didn't know, what about the morons in his administration who put him out there without him knowing it was going to be a spoof?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) Dude, give me a chance to re-read what I post. Sorry, having a jumpy day.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 06:01 PM) You were wrong about that too, because the article was wrong. Well, only partially correct. They only modified the larger planes, which is about 15% of the fleet. Yes, management did some things that in retrospect wasn't a good idea. Having said that, again, the climate is a whole lot different then it was even 6 years ago. There's a right way and a wrong way to run a business. The airlines got suckered, but to sit here and say that they are not talented at what they do is not right, either. The article said nothing of large planes. But whatever. And I am NOT saying there are not a lot of talented people at the airlines - I am sure there are, just like all industries. What I said, succinctly, is that the airlines as a whole did indeed sign those agreements. They can look in the mirror, good and bad, on that subject. Fuel prices and terror, on the other hand, were mostly beyond their control (except for fuel hedging).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) Holy s***. You people amaze me. You don't have a damn clue, so quit pretending like you do. What do I not have a clue about? Last time we had this argument about airlines, you tried to tell me that only a few airlines had armored their doors, which I then showed you was incorrect (they are all updated). Now, tell me what part of what I said is wrong? I'm not saying that every individual airline professional is responsible for the industry downfall. But I am saying, using simple logic, that the management of these airlines SIGNED these agreements that put them into this position. How am I clueless on that?

Is anyone else tired of the consistent pattern, where 95% of the discussions on this board devolve into s***-mortaring from the wings? I'm all for lively debate, and intense argument, on heavy issues. I enjoy it, in fact. But it drives me nuts that a few Dems on this board (only a small few, but that's all it takes) want to criticize everything Bush does on first glance, with no substance at all. And even worse is what the right-wingers do (in much greater numbers than the left-wingers), which is to immediately label any criticism of Bush (even when well-supported) as sour grapes, and then make some dismissive blanket statement making all who disagree with Bush and/or the GOP on that position out to be buffoons. So here is my call out to my fellow 'busters on Sox Talk - can we try to stick to substantive arguments? I see them here everyday, but they seem to get drowned out (by both sides) by rhetoric and blanket indictments. And then, I get so frustrated, I find myself doing it! So please, can we strive towards intelligent debate? /rant Sorry, had to get that out. The idealist in me was boiling over. EDIT: One more thing. I've taken some of those online tests to see where I am on the spectrum, in net, and I am usually close to the middle. But here, I seem to end up on the left more often than not. What is up with that?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) this goes back to what kap said earlier. im seeing a lot of blind personal hate for the president, and not any reason why this deal should not go through that trumps the reasons for the way things are usually done (take the LA port referenced in kap's post i am responding to, for instance). people are just s***ting their pants about it right now because they have run out of things to b**** about, since cheney's hunting accident turned out to a worthless weapon to attack the presidents administration. i'm sure that in a week or so, the liberal media or george soros or a disgraced dan rather will bring up something else. b****, b****, b****; but it looks like this deal is going through anyways. money talks louder than votes; it did BEFORE this administration, and it will afterwards, whether a republican or a democrat is in office. if you are going to be outraged by this deal, then you should be pissed off that 99% of the s*** you have in your house is made in china, made in sweat shops. talk about selective issue-spotting. jesus. Have you actually read the posts in this thread, or do you just read the first sentences and dismiss anyone upset at the deal? Because a number of people here have made specific, valid points of criticism, not just gotten upset because it was the UAE. Why can't the right-wingers actually defend this action, or any other action by the administration? Why is it that every time someone points out a mistake he has (or may have) made, the right-wingers react by saying "all you do is b****"? You ask for substantive arguments - and they are all over this thread. And yet your post lacks that entirely. And the idea that anyone, GOP, Dem or indie has run out of things to be upset about is a joke, right? This administration provides enough material weekly that even the moderates/indies on the board like me have a constant flow of things to complain about (with eyes wide open). If you doubt that, check the poll numbers.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) Well, for me, I don't want Thome playing first base. Anything that can increase his chances of playing a full season is good. He should strictly be a DH. So Gload could be the back-up first baseman. Let Mack handle all the other positions. Thome is an excellent defensive 1B, and most players hit better when playing a position. Plus, I bet Thome is happier getting a few games in on the field.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) Agreed. I don't know why people hate Gload so much. Yeah, he can't play the outfield. But he has some good value. A bench of Mack, Ozuna, Widger and Gload would easily trump the 05 Bench. Sorry Willie Harris fans. I like Gload, but your bench can't just be about bats. With the Sox likely to carry 12 pitchers, you only have 4 bench spots to cover the diamond. Widger, Mack and Ozuna are your 3 in. Who is the fourth? He needs to play OF, and Gload doesn't seem to be that good out there. Do you want Gload playing OF 2 or 3 times a week? Because that is what that roster slot would be doing. But like I said, if he shows up in camp and can show he is defensively at the same level or similar to Borch in the OF, then I'm all for keeping him instead of Borch. I just think that is unlikely.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) Took me long enough to get to 5 digits. That's 9,950 small steps for the Republican party.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) We have that...in Konerko, Thome, and Machowiak. And that's why, unless he can show he is a solid OF defender (which would seem to be a big jump for him), he is not useful to the Sox. But I do agree with Qwerty, he's a solid player offensively and defensively (at 1B), and he's likely to get on somewhere.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) No Rex. What put the airlines where they are is the brutal combo of terrorism, sky-high fuel prices and a bloated cost structure which was created to appease union agitators when times were better. A cost structure allowed by said talent.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) Most sense you've made about Gload ever. BUT, I could be mistaken here, but isnt Gload out of options? I knew you'd pipe up soon on this one. How could I forget my first big argument on this board? Especially with you here to remind me. Good question. Anyone know if he is out of options?

Before the Thome acquisition, and when it looked like Thomas may stick around to DH, I was a big supporter of keeping Gload around. Some on this board insisted he'd never make the team, that he was hated in the organization, etc. But he could back up PK, add a lefty bat, play outfield (if necessary), pinch hit, and seemed to have the beginnings of some real hitting talent. He made sense. But with Thome around, I just don't see why we keep him. Thome hits lefty, plays a very good 1B, and has Thomas' power. So what does Gload provide that we need now? Not much. I'd say we should keep him in AAA as an insurance policy on Thome, or maybe trade him if someone is willing to give up something good for him.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Yes you will, and do. Oh come on.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I believe FoxNews is slanted to the right. But I also believe the major networks, CNN and MSNBC are very left leaning. I didn't realize what thread I was in. I'll delete this post if requested. When a network runs a caption box asking if one party is "declaring war" on America, they have lost all credibility as a "news" source. They are now a 24/7 editorial service. You won't see stuff like that on CNN, or the networks, or in any major newspapers (in their news sections, not editorials or columnists), against the GOP or any party.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 07:52 PM) Good ol' Fox. Wow. I honestly just don't understand how some people can think that Fox News is anything even in the vicinity of objective journalism. Its a joke. There may be validity to the argument that the major networks' news leans slightly left... but Fox is still trying to find the right field line from the seats.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) Alright. Enough drama. I believe it was during the period prior to the Tookie Williams execution, that I posted a poll that showed a vast majority of roughly 80K people were in favor of capital punishment. That poll, like the that was shown in this thread, was an MSNBC poll. Shortly after posting that poll, the liberal Soxtalk contingent swarmed in and unanimously dismissed it as irrelevent because it wasn't conducted scientifically, including, if memory serves, the very person that posted this poll. I was curious as to where all those same people were to shoot down the relevence of this one. Texsox, as a reminder, I think that MSNBC poll I posted was the precursor to the little "button pushing" spat we had. I just couldn't let this pass wothout pointing out the irony. I'll add one more reason to your list, YAS, of why the poll is B.S. The question itself is worded to gain a broader positive response than the poll generally implies. The question, if you read it carefully, asks if "it matters". That is NOT the same thing as asking if it is bad. So that 89% number, even if the poll was conducted more scientfically AND if people had more information, is a crock.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) it doesn't matter how you kill the person, it's the fact you're killing them. in it's current state the baby could be removed from the mother and live. it certainly isn't just a fertalized egg at this point. I agree. For lack of a better definition of life, my line is drawn at the point where the baby could live on its own (thus, an indepedant life form). So, I feel the only time any sort abortions after that point of viability should be allowed is if the mother's life is in danger. If it comes down to the mother versus the child, that choice needs to be left to mother/father. And this is the way the law is currently structured, correct? There aren't any scenarios where a late term abortion could be performed when the mother's life wasn't in danger, are there? Now, I am not up on the details on this, but I understand this is regarding a specific method or methods for the procedure, right? So my question is, if anyone can answer it... Are there other procedures available, should that mother/baby choice arise, that can get the job done effectively?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) Religon of peace................... And the Catholic Church has such a sparkling record itself. Can we focus on the guilty, please, instead of taking the lazy and dangerous road to bigotry? Every time, Nuke. Every time.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:15 PM) By profiling "at times" I meant profiling with "reasons" I then stated some those reasons, but you wanted to call me a hypocrite so you ignored them. ok fine. You live in your utopian world where you only pull over kids if they are driving erratically...and I'll live in the real world where a cop looks at all factors...including skin color. See my cop would pull over 5 white kids in a car at 2:00 am in Cabrini Green...cause he knows something is up. Him pulling them over and getting them out of there might just save their lives. You on the other hand would let them drive around and maybe get killed cause they weren't driving erratically or doing anything else related to crime. or wait can we only make profiling examples with black people?? I saw your reasons, and they included race. I don't live in Utopia. But I can most certainly choose the right thing to do. I just don't even know what to say about your statements that a bunch of white kids are likely to get killed because they are near Cabrini. Its racist and ridiculous. I drive by Cabrini all the time, including at night. If you want to continue amplifying race as an issue, then by all means, make your decisions based on race. I for one refuse, and in the long run, I am convinced thats how we can make it a non-issue.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) How about the fact that they sold weapons to Saddam in violation of the arms embargo. Does that make them not trustworthy? If you find a reputable report that the French GOVERNMENT sold weapons to Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions, I will concede the point.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) I am in favor of profiling at times....hence why I wasn't speaking of myself in calling people hypocrites. I think most here could have put that together. No it wasn't an illustration.... Linky Were you aware that it was the policy of the Justice Department - and I'd like you to comment as to whether these continuities are still in place - before I go to Justice, were you aware that it was the policy and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory? Cops targeting blacks cause they're black is a little extreme. Just as is grabbing every single arab looking person at an airport is extreme. However, when you add some factors in. Paid with cash...One way ticket...No checked baggage..young Arab male...then I'd say a couple extra questions are warranted. Pulling over a car cause there are a group of blacks in it...NO, there is no reason for it. Pulling over a car with a group of blacks in it looking like gangbangers and trouble makers, driving around at 3:00 in the morning in the middle of suburbia?? yeah...pull em over and check em out. If there's a group of white boys driving around an all black neighborhood, looking like gangbangers and trouble makers...guess what a cop is going to pull them over too. Cause they are there either for trouble or drugs. Same with hispanics. That's part of a cops job...to snuff out trouble before it happens..not after bodies start piling up. It's all profiling. It's seeing something out of place and checking to see if it really is or isn't. It's done all the time. It's how crimes get stopped before the happen. It's how murders get stopped before they happen. Gotcha. So, using your logic, you are a hypocrite - you think profiling is OK "at times". And its not "all profiling". If I'm a cop (not a stretch for me, BTW), and I see a bunch of rough lookin' kids out cruisin' at 3am, I'll try to find a reason to stop them. But guess what? I do it on BEHAVIORAL factors, and other factors directly related to crime. For example, the kids are out at 3am. Maybe they look like they are drivind erratically and have been drinking. But what does NOT come into play is race - of the drivers or the neighborhood. Its illogical (see my earlier posts) and morally wrong. And while prevention is indeed part of law enforcement, that prevention still needs to work within the bounds of the law. DWB does not fit that rule. So in the case of domestic security, race is and should be irrelevant. There have been a lot more terrorist acts commited on US soil by caucasians than Arabs. And what evidence is there that this charge about the 2-Arab rule is true? I just highly doubt there is a rule about fining airlines for having over a maximum number of a certain race being checked. Its ridiculous. But if there is such a policy, I'll be the first in line to rally against it.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) good thing the french are so trustworthy So, because France doesn't agree with the Iraq war, they aren't trustworthy? That's logical.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) When this first came out, before their were any facts on the company....people were against it. I was against it and the first reason was because it's an Arab country. There's my view. I don't have a problem with asking an extra question or two to young arab males at the airport. I do have a problem with airlines getting fined if they have 2 arabs being questoined at the same time. Then by your logic, you are either a hypocrite, or you favor racial profiling in general. So since you are apparently OK with profiling, you are OK with cops targeting blacks? This was your argument, by the way, that if you are against this deal, you are a hypocrite because it was profiling. And do you have any evidence of airlines being fined for questioning 2 Arabs at once, or is that just an "illustration"? I was against this deal, and am still against it, because the company is controlled by a government who seems OK with terrorism (and might even support it), and a company whose ports are obviously questionable in their security record. And further, now learning more and more, it seems even more clear that this deal did not follow process, and was effected by some underhanded dealings without our own government.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Granted this is 2 years old but just shows you the attitude of the people of the UAE. Why do we want a company that is owned by a goverment, where the people hate Americans, control our ports?? "Arab/Islamic hostility toward American policy translates into enmity for the U.S. as a whole. A March 2004 Pew Research Center poll of four Muslim countries found unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbering favorable views by 61 to 21 percent in Pakistan, 63 percent to 30 percent in Turkey, 68 to 27 percent in Morocco, and a remarkable 93 percent to 5 percent in Jordan. A Zogby International study taken three months later found even deeper hostility toward the United States in six Arab states: those with unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbered those with favorable views by 69 percent to 20 percent in Lebanon, 73 percent to 14 percent in the UAE, 88 percent to 11 percent in Morocco, 78 percent to 15 percent in Jordan, 94 percent to 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 98 percent to 2 percent in Egypt." Source: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12645 1. This is about the company in question, not the people of the UAE 2. Never trust a Zogby poll. His methods are shoddy at best.