Balta1701

QUOTE (danman31 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 05:05 PM) Salmons continues to be worthless on offense. 3/5 from the field, 9 of the Bulls first 12 points. We need everyone else to stop being so worthless.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 05:05 PM) I think the Bush critics were much less rabid in my mind. You didn't see latte shortages the way you're seeing ammo shortages these days. Then what was that milk price spike last year?

H. Christ. That's it, I'm out of this forum for the night. Otherwise it'll break my brain. Go Bulls.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 05:02 PM) they dont want to spend the money and dont want to come out and say that IF only they'd outbid the $6 million the D-Backs spent on Jon Garland and his 5.71 ERA in the NL...that would have solved our problems.

Christ that went south fast.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 04:34 PM) I agree that those are nice. I also don't mind seeing the retro uniforms every once in a while... even the ugly ones from the '80s. But I'd hate to see the home unis changed. They're spiff. 80's retro uniforms for these guys would sell great.

Is Colon hurting perhaps? His fastball velocity has dropped so low that Gameday thinks every pitch is a changeup.

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) You think Bud would notice if thousands of us just sent in blank ballots with "Change the voting system" in the write in box... As long as you vote for the White Sox's LF as a starting OF, go ahead.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) Plus, I mean... how are we going to do it? Unless it was on a limited basis (special forces, covert ops, etc.) Even then, the presence of U.S. troops on the ground in Pakistan has been a way of motivating and encouraging recruitment for the Taliban every time it's happened, it seems. That's the obnoxious part...if we do nothing, then that government probably collapses and we have a growing potential civil war in a nuclear armed country. If we take action, we may set off a civil war in a nuclear armed country.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) To a large extent, the US intervening is what got things to this point anyway... The question is, what could we have done differently/better?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack I disagree with you on both of these. If Khamenei (Spell it right, there's 2 of them) didn't want Iran to be a nuclear power, then he'd have shut that program down. And I don't believe Ahmadinejad actually understands that part. I do think Khamenei does.

Dave Bush just lost a no-hitter after 7.1 on a home run by Matt Stairs (Brewers/Phillies)

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) It's getting to a point where direct military intervention in Pakistan might be necessary. I've been saying for years this where the biggest problem was, not Iran or North Korea. The problem is...its entirely possible a U.S. intervention could explode things.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? More than that, it depends on who you think is in charge of Iran's military. Iran's military is under the control of the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) lf, from what I understand, Make-Me-Ameany-Jad doesn't care because he thinks Israel's death will secure his place in heaven the moment he gets retaliated upon, at least that's how the "propoganda" material I remember goes. Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Good job. Ok, on that note, I'm out.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Really? You know damn well that if we were to get hit sometime in the next 3 years, it's going to be because "George W. Bush was a facist asshole who "tortured"". It's as clear as day what this whole thing is setting up for. It's just like Obama going over to Europe, in front of the adoring French and saying "I'm not George W. Bush, I am Barack Hussein Obama, so love me". So, being "stupid" or "nice" or whatever adjective you want to use, it's the same damn thing. That's not how you said it in the post I was replying to. You said "Being nice got 3000 people killed". That implies that you're saying torturing someone could have stopped the attack that already happened that killed 3000 people. That is complete bullplop.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) I don't like the idea of retroactively going back and prosecuting people for giving s***ty legal advice (can be read as "an opinion you disagree with) either. It sets a bad precedent for any time an administration changes over. I feel like Obama is trying to play both sides of the fence here and making himself look weak or indecisive. I'm going to go all Murphy's law here. That same logic says Adolf Eichmann was an innocent man. He didn't personally kill anyone, he followed orders, he did his job methodically, did it very well, made sure the trains ran on time, and he was judged after the administrations changed. People went back and applied a different set of moral standards to the work he did after the fact.

Simmons on Gordon:

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) History shows us that "being nice" got us 3,000 people killed. Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps.

Kick some Tail, Colon.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/ But of course, Obama's tact here REALLY is to put any blame on future attacks back on the Bush administration because of "torture". And judging by all you liberals, it's working. You don't want to think that the Messiah can be wrong about anything. This guy brainwashes you all better then anyone I've ever seen. Just keep drinking the kool-aid and don't ever stop and ask yourself what the truth really is. And as I always say, it's about somewhere in the middle, but you all want to blame Bush so bad you can't stand the thought that they could maybe be right on some of this stuff. It couldn't be, could it? Oh, the BROKE THE LAW, HANG THOSE f***ERS. They didn't break laws. But you all want to believe it so bad you can't stand it. It's actually somewhat remarkable to me that you bothered to post that after I already pointed out the flaw in it with my post before you. I will make it more clear. If you read both that full article, not just the part you want to hear but the full thing, the guy says...everything that was gotten out of the torture could have been gotten without it, the U.S. has been put in a worse position by the torture, and if he had the choice he would not have done it. This meshes EXACTLY with the FBI version I posted, which I pointed out. He says that a small bit of intelligence was obtained under duress. But both also state it could easily have been obtained without slamming the guy against the wall. Basically, if you actually read the things you're trying to cite, it makes a solid case that the FBI was close to the end of their interrogation of the guy, the Administration decided that it was time to get more, the FBI was ordered to stop, and the last few questions were answered while the CIA and the contractors were beating him senseless. They both say that any answers that were obtained under duress could have been obtained without the torture, and that it was totally unnecessary as a method of gathering intelligence in this case. Citing a case where the people doing the interrogation universally say the torture was unnecessary does not even remotely suggest that it was necessary. It suggests the exact opposite, and the very memo you're trying to cite undermines your entire case if you read the whole thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) Many people are just incredibly ignorant of basic science. The Senator doesn't seem capable of understanding basic geological processes, and instead believes that oil in the Arctic means that the Arctic was really, really warm at one point with lots of life Which is, actually true. But that doesn't exactly translate to "The rest of the globe was wonderfully pleasant" at the same time.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) I don't disagree that a nuclear Pakistan is a bad thing. I do, however, feel that mutual nuclear proliferation has led to a more stable relationship between India and Pakistan over the last 15 years, and I feel it exclusive to that relationship only. But...that very same nuclear proliferation has not led to a more stable or safer world.

One of the guys who did the legal, pre-torture interrogation of Abu "totally crazy" Zubaydah has an op-ed piece in today's NYT. It seems to give a lot more context to that memo released yesterday, and basically agrees that the torture was useless and shouldn't have been done.

By the way, DJ was talking during the game last night about Fields spending a lot of time in the video room yesterday and thinking that he'd found a little mistake he was making in his technique that he could correct. It seemed to make an impact.