kapkomet

Now that's funny.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) Stalking? You consider a person replying to your posts to be stalking? You better have some actual evidence that she's following you around to other boards, sending you harrassing emails, and figuring out where you live before you start making accusations like that. Balta,

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 08:00 PM) Unfortunately the ignore feature doesn't completely remove her existence for me from the board. Other forums have anti-stalking laws that moderators do good jobs at enforcing. It's pretty sad that ST doesn't but then given the nature of some of the mods here it's not to be expected. I'm just surprised they didn't pull the thread to cover the tracks like they've done before. Acceptance of conservatives at SOXTALK? Non-existence. At least there's tolerance. They can't even exercise acceptance on a sports forum yet they expect America to accept their alternative lifestyles dealing with sex & drugs? Who're they crapping? You preach acceptance and then call everyone out who disagrees with you. Shut up, soprano, ball-less wonder.

Juggs, make your farewell post. I'm tired of it. You have no balls.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) I don't read posts from such weak-minds. They are on my banned lists. Plus it doesn't say much for those who aspire to the level of intelligence exhibited in a TV sitcom. We are the wheel: http://www.yahoo.com/s/271139 Scientists have tricked male fish cells that were destined to become sperm into switching sex and becoming eggs instead. Researchers: The technique could one day be used to QUICKLY produce animals with desired traits, speed up breeding programs and help repopulate dwindling populations of endangered species or creating sushi on demand. But yet you respond to what you didn't read AND changed the subject yet again, because your feeble little mind got pwned? GMAFB.

QUOTE(Tmar28 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:52 PM) those aren't real Holy crap! :o What a BRILLIANT observation. Thanks for saving me from my own stupidity.

Speaking of "turd blossom", that's about what this budget is worth. He's trying to be fiscally conservative, and slashing the s*** out of everything, except defense. It's almost time to pay the piper.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) Good old Turd Blossom taking care of business. http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm Turd Blossom. You know what, though, I say go for it. Again, *IF* the President is this 'wrong' on this issue, expose it, distance yourself from it, and run your election. I bet they have a better chance if this really is 'wrong'.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) :rolly Damn, Juggs, you just got pwned bigger then life. I think it's time to change the subject like you always do after you get pwned. How's it feel to get your little nuts squashed? LMFAO!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) Just pointing out the obvious. Didn't put anything back on any one. I think we need a democratic vote. Juggernaut, stay or go? Since you're into polls and all, and the "voice of democracy rules all"... we should make you drink your own medicine. But of course, that wouldn't be fair in this little corner of the world known as SOXTALK.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 06:18 AM) The difference is that in the late 1970's the federal government did determine what is the proper procedure for domestic electronic surveillance of any kind. That's what FISA is, period. This issue came up to the Supreme Court in the 1970s and they said that the Federal Government needs to determine procedures to help make sure that fourth amendment rights are protected. That's what FISA is. I caught a little bit of the hearings on the way to work. I was surprised to hear Kennedy ask some serious, rather non-partisan questions. I missed the bulk of his time, so didn't get to hear his grandstanding, but instead ask the Atty General why it was that they didn't take the approach similar to the Ford Administration in the 1970s when this issue first came up... which was being an honest broker with its oversight committees. Kennedy didn't seem to have his mind firmly made up on whether or not this is a crime, although he didn't seem to think it ethical or right. I was surprised to see Kennedy not play the firebrand - but then again I just caught the last few minutes of his time. Then Grassley came on and I found it sickening. He was ready to blame everyone for this problem. The media, whistleblowers for leaking the situation, outraged Senators who know for not leaking the situation if they felt it so bad. It seemed that to him everyone was at fault for this but the President, the NSA or anyone in the administration. I put on my Chiodos CD instead. As much as people may or may not want to believe it, this issue is deadly serious. If a crime was committed here, if the law was broken (and in my opinion it clearly was), we need to hold those responsible accountable. If not, we need to take a serious look at what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do when it comes to surveillance - especially regarding the people protected by the U.S. Constitution. It seems like a small issue, but its a larger principle that's at stake. That much I can agree with. But my point is, there are some who want to say "GUILTY AS CHARGED" so bad they can taste it, and it taints reality. Let's find out what "reality" here is, then figure it out and do something about it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 10:07 PM) You all miss the point. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING. Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant. That's my issue with "your" arguments.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 08:57 PM) Link with video. Oh, come on. The Democrats and "liberals" did that themselves by disclosing this program if you want to be technical. But I'm sure they're heros for standing up against our DICKtator president, right?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) Well, the Republicans here will be happy to know that despite the fact that Specter says he thinks the program was illegal and the fact that he's holding those hearings, he's already doing everything he can to make sure nothing actually happens because of them. He's first of all prevented the Attorney General from having to testify under oath, the obvious reprocussion of which is that if he chooses to lie to the committee, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and he's also preventing video of previous statements by the President and AG from being shown (they have the transcripts, but video always works vastly better in a TV world as you know.) I still can't see what all the fuss is about! I really wish the real facts would come out, damned or be damned.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:02 AM) Chris Matthews...from that liberal bastion of MSNBC...blames the church burnings today on "Liberals." This man really seems to admire O'Reilly. Wow. Pardon this interruption for a brief Indie comment. Bwroooooaaaaah Bwroaaaaahhhhh Bworaaaaaahhhh..... "liberal" church person and "liberal" politically are two different things. VERY different. We now bring you back to your regularly scheduled Dem only thread. bweeep bweep bweeep. /carries on

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) You lost me at ... Iran is supposed to open the first oil market in the world where the currency is NOT dependant on oil. Iran is opening the first oil market in the world where you can buy it WITHOUT the USD$. In case you hadn't noticed, that's huge.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) They don't have the capacity to make up for it, despite what they say. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) Do you actually believe that any of those countries has a shred of spare capacity left? About the only spare capacity left in the world during peak times (i.e. the summer) is in Iraq...and it's constantly being blown up. Hell, there was some sort of gigantic, major attack which did so much damage that the government wasn't saying explicitly what was hit. There simply isn't additional production available anywhere in the world to replace what would be lost if just one Middle East country decided to cut its oil exports by a significant amount. Yay! I beat ya to it.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:01 PM) Oddly enough this is one area where the global economy benefits the world. No where was this more prevalent that recent Ethanol sales. While the USA plays tag with OPEC, Ven, & other oil producing nations the rest of the world said F this s***. We'll move to Ethanol. Just like that Brazil signed a mulit-billion deal to supply Ethanol to Taiwan. That was just one of the many deals. As for the USA well Ethanol has been downplayed because American's like to drive big cars & don't like to drive 55 so it burns to quickly. Needless to say American farmers were not happy about the missed opportunities. I believe some policy changes are in the works with respect to future Ethanol production in the US. I think so too. There's a big ethanol plant going in right where my parents live in Indiana. Well, far enough away that they shouldn't have any issues ... but 4 miles away I think it is. It's supposed to be a pretty big $$ maker down the road for the city/county.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) But how long could they afford that? If Iran shut down all oil production, it wouldn't take long for the Saudis, the Kuwatis and the Nigerians, et. al., to ramp things up, assuring themselves of a little extra profit in the meantime. They don't have the capacity to make up for it, despite what they say.

I didn't mention the auto manufacturers, but they hold the rest of them.

Seeing as how I'll have about a week-old kid, it ain't happening for me. Dammit, I wanted to come this time.

I would like to see the whole list. Dallas/Fort Worth HAS to be on that list about 5 times too, and I hit about 3 of them on my way to work.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:20 PM) Interesting. I didn't realize that. That could make things dicey. They are making so much off oil, why use the new stuff just yet? Might as well wait it out. That means the only way it really gets going is if they have competition. Other companies would need to build their own versions of PV solar cells, wind power generators, ethanol refineries, hydrogen power condensers, etc. Let's hope some of Bush's $10B+22% goes to companies outside the big oilers (I'm not holding my breath). Your premise is exactly right. That's exactly why we haven't seen a good deal more competition. Now, don't get me wrong, the oil companies don't own all of them, but they do own a good deal of them.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:15 PM) Hopefully that is the lineup, as that's the one I originally called. JD deserves to hit in the 3-hole. If he does, he'll have a huge year. I agree - he got put there in the playoffs and did quite well. He'll have his ups and downs, but damn, this lineup is good.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:08 PM) They could also put enough money into alternative energy research that we'd very quickly be able to implement non-oil energy generation in lots of aspects of our infrastructure. If one of those companies gets smart, they'll plow back a bunch of those earnings and do just that. Why? Because they'd ensure that they'd not only be first and best in those areas, but they'd guarantee their long term future in the energy markets beyond just oil. It's smart for so many reasons. Which is why I can't understand why they don't do more of it. Actually, the oil companies hold the patents to a lot of the "new" technology, which should answer your own question as to why it has not been explored more.