Soxbadger

Eh, not sure you can say good or bad either way. History is filled with unintended consequences. If only the US was more willing to accept Mao and less willing to support Chiang, and so on and so forth. The problem is that we look at things through a Westerners view. Our belief is that once the despots are overthrown, the people will want more peaceful relations. But there is no guarantee. These revolutions could spur worse, the despots could turn out to be the ones who were keeping some semblance of society, its just impossible to tell. That is the real risk, we are stepping into the unknown. For the better part of the last thousand years, Western society has been moving towards separation of religion and govt. We are now faced with civilizations that want to integrate religion more into govt. This causes a problem because religion is based on belief, not on rationality. Therefore normal dialogue and normal settlement can often not be reached. At the end of the day, when people have common problems (money, food, etc) you can try and fix them. When one sides problem is that you dont believe in Allah/Jesus, there just is no diplomatic solution. Part of this is because Islam is the newest of the most established religions. It used to be Christianity was the new guy on the block and back in those days, Christian nations were far more violent towards non-believers. Now it is Islam's turn. In my opinion there is likely no good answer.

So, instead of going out and stopping the criminals, we instead create rules that punish everyone? I dont support that type of Govt.

Here is what I posted a few days ago The Indiana fans on this board responded its not a big advantage, I disagree. That being said, if both teams play their best game, Wisconsin wins. If Wisconsin shoots sub 40%, itll be rough. (edit) And as it turns out, I believe the tourney is in Chicago next year.

Im not sure Sean Payton will get fired, probably suspended. But the cost of keeping him is that the Saints are likely going to lose a significant amount of draft picks.

Who has a history of violence? People?

How do you know they wont be peaceful? Because all I see here is the slippery slope reasoning that removes protest in general. Protests are dangerous, the only way to protect people is to stop protests. Isnt that the natural end to this? Freedom comes at a cost, sometimes we will be less safe, sometimes bad things will happen, but that is the bargain.

Yep brings you back to a simpler time when the rich hid behind their castle walls as the peasants tilled the field. People are upset, people are mad, its from all parts of society. So during these times, the hope would be that the 8 most powerful countries would face the people and tell them that they hear their concerns. Not hide away behind the military might of the most powerful country in the world. What message does that send? We sit int he US and condemn the actions of other nations as they deal with protests. And yet we have a chance to show the world how to handle protests, how to allow peaceful assembly and we hide in fear. Its okay, bad things might happen.

I cant recall, it seems like something that I wouldnt even do. Hallways, balconies, stairwells, anywhere outside, but sink, I just cant recall.

Right, so we are afraid. Professional anarchists, whatever, we give into threats, we let them win. You dont need a summit to commit crimes. If these people are so terrible and have been planning for so long, Id expect they still show up in Chicago and put on a show. Itll send the same message, who cares where they are meeting, if your goal is to create mischief you dont need world leaders there.

Its sends a bad message. Are we now afraid of protests?

In my opinion its a more difficult situation and less likely for clear quick results. Libya presented an opportunity for action where it was possible that a small involvement could potentially result in large gains. That being said, do I want the US to stop the killing of civilians, of course. But at what cost, Syria (imo) will be messy and do you think that Obama will get bipartisan support for this? Do you think Democrats will want to risk losing elections over the people of Syria? The answer is no, so barring Syria doing something blatantly stupid that the whole world condemns (and even then im not sure Obama could get Republican support, only if it was an attack on the US), it just really is unlikely that any politician is going to take such a risk. Maybe someone else will pick up the slack (or maybe try and force our hand with a NATO resolution), but unfortunately the people of Syria will suffer because we are to busy feuding with ourselves.

Oh hai crowd, I guess you wanted to front run? Its one of my pet peeves, crowds that dont get into the game unless the team is wining.

No but I believe wrapping him like a mummy is legal.

Bulls fans arent yelling about calls. When Deng was pushed down youd expect a large chorus of boos, trying to force the refs to call the game more favorably towards the home team, IE home court advantage. The fans have been pretty quiet, cant have that.

Bulls fans just sitting on their hands. Rose has 0 fts, even if he doesnt deserve them, the crowd needs to try and force the calls.

haha yah thats why my first post said "This is for Walking Dead"

Yeah in the age of DVR, Id rather use spoilers and not ruin someones show. By midweek people stop using the spoilers.

Its a life changing decision, Id expect it to cause some sleepless nights. Hes obviously conflicted.

This is about Walking Dead.

Bulls just not matching up great, youd think after 3 losses youd start to figure out the problem.

These are the times I wish Thibs would put Rose back sooner.

Portillos There was an Pollo Loco on my street but it closed.

haha Its as if Wade has no understanding of how refs call a game.