kapkomet

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) Reading most of this thread, its become clear that you cannot distinguish between those that believe global warming is a farce and those that believe global warming exists but the extent of human involvment is unknown and therefore question whether the "debate" is truly settled. Watch the Stossel piece I've linked. Don't think of it as some scientific research piece proving one sides point that we aren't causing any of it. Instead try to be open-minded and understand his entire point is - what happened to the debate? Why don't we have a choice anymore on what to believe? Should we ever get to a point where side A can completely shut out side B because the majority of the scientific world thinks one way (which btw I don't believe is true. The majority of science tells us that we are in a warming period, I'm not sure a vast majority agrees humans are to blame, or at least agree by how much humans are to blame - another oversimplification of the debate). Rehashing old arguments - science has been proven wrong before. Pesticides were supposed to kill us all 10 years ago. Y2k was going to ruin the world. I'm not saying we should use this to prove science is dumb and we can't learn anything. But we can use that argument to say look, nothing is 100% until it happens, so why allows douches like Gore to continue to spout nonsense about the debate being over. We should be concerned about the earth getting warmer. It probably will have an effect on radiation levels and sea levels - we'll probably have to change and adapt regardless of who is right or wrong. But it's another thing to argue that we need to throw billions and billions into a problem we may or may not be able to help anyway or that we need to change how we live just because someone tells us we are the cause of it all. Well put, IMO.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) Rockies, because Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious, annoying fans I've ever seen. Their feats of ineptitude and idiocy are unparalleled in baseball, and this includes Cubs fans. Tell us how you really feel. And I agree, FWIW.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) To summarize, Blago tried to add $8 billion in new taxes, Stroger is trying to add $888 million in new taxes, Daley is trying to add $293 million in new taxes, while the CTA is pushing for another $150 million in funding from a 0.25% sales tax hike. It's ok - it's all for the children - we need to redistribute wealth from the rich folk and make sure there's no incentive to be successful. That way, we're all puppets and can have everything ran for us.

He's just blowing smoke and we need to sit down with him and hold hands. That will make him come around to our thinking on all subjects.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 01:36 AM) kap, please set up a new Invision board for the UN If only...

There is a HUGE value to a "forum of all nations" but it is not the UN.

And Harry Reid actaully has the pussiness to say he's the reason that this letter was auctioned? What a f***ing tool. I'm sorry... you did nothing but make a total ass out of yourself, Harry, and now you're like a cockroach chasing a firetruck to stay on board what ended up being a good thing, all while attempting to throw someone under the bus (IN THIS CASE) who didn't deserve it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) Classy. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm There's your 2006-2007-2008 Democratic Partiy in a nutshell. Thanks for the soundbite, Bohner...

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) Which of my criticisms is unfounded? Everyone sucks. SUCKS SUCKS SUCKITY SUCKS SUCKITY SUCKITY SUCK SUCK.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 06:05 PM) Jack Egbert -- will be exposed, I think, once he gets to better competition. I think he's a fluke and he has a lot to prove. Donny Lucy -- Career backup at best. He's lousy with the bat, as was shown when he came up, and needs to do a lot of work. Good defender, though. Ryan Sweeney -- needs steroids. Only partially kidding. He took a huge step back this year. Needs to learn how to turn on the fastball. Hit pitches hard. Lance Broadway -- I think he's crap. He definitely has a lot to prove. He did really good in September, especially in his spot-start, but his stuff isn't all that hot and he isn't a safe bet to do much, IMO. Could be a surprise, I guess. Gavin Floyd -- Probable fifth starter, unless he manages to once AGAIN lose a job that's gift-wrapped for him. I don't think he's any good. Heath Phillips -- Sucks. Adam Russell -- Fastball disappeared, or Slowed, after leaving ST. Reliever at best. Robert Valido -- Crap. Dewon Day -- Crap. Brian Anderson -- Crap. With injuries. David Aardsma -- Still got good stuff, but he's got some issues with control. People say it's in his head. Ryan Bukvich -- crap. Nick Masset -- I think he sucks. Lots of people think he's got a better chance of being a good starter. All I know is he's never put up consistently good numbers and it's in fact the other way around. Andrew Sisco -- knock on him is that he's lazy; he's also got ridiculously bad control. He's got potential, but he's getting old. It'll be awhile before he is "restored" to quality. He's just not good now. he's being made a starter, though. Someone needs to blow some sunshine up your ass.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) I don't think "political" talk radio is as popular as it's made out to be. I think some personalites are big like pill poppin Rush. Here in Chicago the "right' radio station the wind 560 was ranked 30th overall. Maybe in the south this is a big thing. I tried to listen to the wind 560 once and Micahel Savage was on. I was stuck in traffic and Micahel Savage was talking about how the gays were taking over the world. I didn't know if should laugh or cry. PROVE IT! Seriously, I agree with you on this point. Who cares, and why do conservatives get all stupid when it comes to this particular issue?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) Wiped off the page of time" translation from wikipedia. I've read this other places too news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6][7] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop to exist",[8] or to "obliterate totally",[9] or "destroy completely".[10] Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[11] The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the myth: One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.[12] According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13] Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[14] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[15] On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[16] Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[17][18][19] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.[20][21][22] In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/en/), refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[14] A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states: He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.[23] The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wiped out" by Reuters: Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.[24] The net effect is the same. Isreal is not to exist. Thanks for defending Aima-Nut-Job and showing your true spirit here.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) If he said it prove it. Show me. If not wanting to go to war and not wanting to invade countries that haven't done anything to anyone is "extreme". Than I guess that I'm an extremist. I think it's just a dumb word that republicans wanna call anyone with a diffrent view. Much like people from the left who run around calling everyone "fasict". And why do people on the right compare everyone remotly to the left of their political views to The Clinton's? Your obsessed with the Clinton's. Google it. It's all over the place what he said.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) Not that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great guy, but he never said that. You think that the president of the United States would get his facts right when he keeps on quoting something that was never said. Its been used as this great propaganda tool. The term "wiped of the map" dosen't exsist in the Persian language. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said things similar to that, like he hopes that the current Isreal regime collapses. Things that don't quite get people so pumped for war. It may seem like a stupid thing to breing up, but it's been used so much to get people excited for war. I don't think Iran has any plan's to invade another country. I think George Bush can't wait till he get's to invade Iran, so more people can die. He said it. Make sure you check your facts. As far as the rest of your post, what the hell ever. Then people wonder why the extreme views exist in this country today. PSSSST! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) Since when is exposing the truth 'smear'? Or did Kerry speak truth during the winter soldier hearings? If "truth" vets a (D), then it's "smear". If "truth" vets a ®, then it's "truth" and it's ok.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) If that is the other option, if China or Russia were willing to go to war to prevent the U.S. from conquering Iran, then Iran gets the bomb. Which is why you're seeing what you're seeing today (Putin going there in person). There's a lot more behind this then everyone wants to see on the surface.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) Here's my problem with his statement: Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved? I think that is exactly right.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 03:55 PM) My gut says it's not too late. I keep thinking of where Kerry was in the polls at this time and he wasn't much of a factor. The number of people contributing to his campaign and the sheer number of people going to see him speak make me think he has a good chance. After all of this, I hope so. Anyone but the b**** is beginning to be my mantra. I need to go back and read his stuff again, it's been a while - I told you this before, the last time I read his platforms it was sparse because it was the beginning of the campaign.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 03:55 PM) I have it backwards? Look at the name - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That was what they called themselves. What does a swift boat have to do with Kerry's testimony or hipocrisy? Zero. It was about his conduct that won him a medal of honor for his actions on a SWIFT BOAT. Now, later on, they went on to disparage Kerry for an assortment of other Nam stuff, some of which may have actually been true. But I am afraid you are mistaken as to what that organization was, originally. And that has nothing to do with "how I see it" - its right there in their bloody name for crying out loud. I don't remember the timeline being that way. But maybe you're right. All I know is that they were exposing John Kerry for basically lying about his service record, hence the name "FOR TRUTH" - which goes back to my point.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) That was an aside. The swifties' crusade was about Kerry's medal of honor, and his conduct during the mission(s) related to it. And in that crusade they had nothing but B.S. to fling at him. I don't see how you can support that, but be so angry about people like myself (being without military experience) saying the war is a terrible mistake. You have it backwards, but of course, you'll see it that way. Swiftboat was about exposing John Kerry as a hypocrite that he is. As far as the other comment, ok, so the war was/is a "mistake". I disagree that the war itself was a mistake, but I 100% agree that the handling of the war was and continues to be a mistake. Now - instead of crying about it, why can't we unite to solve the problem and come up with a solution besides "get out of there"?

Let's see. What would you call it when the leader of a country says that "Israel needs to be wiped off the map". If they follow through with it, it will be world war three. Let's villify the person who says it as a "fear mongerer" as opposed to really dealing with the problem. That always helps.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 07:24 PM) If they really catered to Democrats, don't you think we'd actually be able to get things passed in Congress? No, because neither party wants the other to take any credit.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Now see this is what I don't understand. When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner. When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *? Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't. Why the gigantic double standards today? I see a pattern here, but obviously, most won't.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) Iowa was rendered pointless long ago. Ba Da Bump Bump. *rimshot*

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 01:22 PM) The question is: how much worse can he do than most of the professional candidates will? For serial. That is a question for the ages. Only time will tell. Maybe he will win South Carolina and change the face of the election. We can only hope.