Balta1701

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Toronto, and Seattle I put Texas ahead of both of them.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:32 AM) I would have to say that this is terrorism because the crime of personal property destruction is directly linked to the protest of the Huntington Life Science Laboratory. So based on that definition, any crime which destroys property related to a poltical protest would be considered terrorism? Then the question I fire back is the one I hear when hate crime debates come up...how do you judge when something is related to politics? (Note to DHS guys reading this post: this is a hypothetical, and I'm not going to do it). If a Judge somewhere were to be robbed and beaten up, should the people who beat him up be charged with terrorism? If it merits a harsher penalty, of course they'd deny that their motives involved politics, so how would you judge?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Indeed. The deal originiated from a buyout that UAE did over the British company. We already had given the sovereignty away... On some level though, isn't there a difference in the amount of concern we have about the British working with a hostile power compared with the UAE doing so? If, for example, a hypothetical British company, let's call them British Petrol, were to have tried to buy a major U.S. energy producer, let's call them Hamoco, the way CNOOC tried to buy one, do you think we'd have had nearly as many problems as we did with the CNOOC deal?

Let's also not forget that JC is playing for a contract next year too.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) I always thought having junk mail sent to someone's house was more of a prank then terrorism. Granted a mean prank - but I don't think that it is "terrorism." Broken windows, threats of murdering your kids? Yeah, that's not legal. I don't know that I would call it terrorism either though. This reminds me of those debates over Hate Crime legislation...how exactly does one define what is and what is not terrorism, and can a person be punished more stringently because some action is defined as terrorism instead of just vandalism?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) ideally you are right. thats kinda niave (sp?) though. in reality, the point of our country sending an ambassador is to promote OUR interests. so, if you want a bumper sticker saying for it, "f*** everybody else". other countries have the same mentality. china, england, russia, blah blah blah. The counter argument is that there are different ways to "Promote our interests", some of which may be more successful than others. This is the ol' carrot versus the stick debate. Yes, sending a crazy man to advocate for our interests might work, in the sense that he'll be crazy in advocating for our interests. But, it could just as easily backfire, in the sense that if he advocates a more radical policy than that which our allies would support, it could very easily split us from the countries which should be allied with us. On the other hand, giving ground to get more countries on our side could do more good than staunchly refusing to negotiate. This is the game of international relations...there's no definitive answer to what method will work in certain circumstances.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) BTW, it will still have US Customs agents all over the place. We have border patrol agents all over the Mexican border too. And I bet that in 2001, there were a few security personnel at Logan airport.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) I think that they cant check for it due to the fact that HGH is not covered under the current urine drop tests. They are working on a test for HGH in urine, but for right now the only way they can spot it is via a blood stick. Which the players association doesnt have to allow under the current agreement. I know that was the case under the old agreement in place before last November...are you sure they didn't change it when they agreed to the new tests, the 50 game suspension, and the tests for amphetimines?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) I think he will retire when one of the following events happens: They either come up with a Human Growth Hormone test via Urine or the MLB Players Association allows for blood draws. I dont think he is on Horsey Testy Juice anymore, but Human Growth Hormone. Sure. You know, I never got an answer to any of my questions back in November about whether or not the MLB's new drug testing agreement provided for any means of testing for HGH. Did anyone else find that bit of info anywhere?

Former DHS Director Tom Ridge thinks the White House needs to better explain its justification for this deal. Meanwhile...current DHS Director Chertoff's explanation about why Congress and the American people shouldn't be worried about this? "That's classified". Congress is supposedly planning to hold hearings.

LAT

American League...you guys are in trouble now.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 07:19 AM) With the Cubs it's all about pitching health. If Wood and/or Wade Miller give them anything this year, they can win the weak NL Central. The Cardinals have lost most of their middle bullpen, 2nd base is weaker (Junior Spivey and Aaron Miles), and their corner outfield spots are up for grabs. Rolen's health is a question mark, too. The Astros are weaker IMO, and the Brewers are a year or two and a starter or two away. If the Cubs get off to a good start, I can definitely see them contending for the Central. Beyond that, I don't think so. There's your real key. The Cards won 100 games last year without Scott Rolen. They get Rolen back and get almost a full, productive season out of him...and suddenly it won't matter that they've lost strength at their corner outfield slots. He doesn't come back strong, or he spends significant time on the DL, and it'll come down to Pujols, Carpenter, Mulder, and Izzy. That may still be enough to win that division, but that'll depend a lot on the luck of the other teams. Yadier Molina could also be mighty important...lot of room for improvement with the bat for that 23 year old.

We also don't know how being at least 1 full year off of steroids will hurt him. We saw Giambi have his first season off of the juice fall apart with a tumor, then we saw him recover last year and still hold onto some of the steroid-related strength. Bonds improved even more than Giambi thanks to the stuff...the question is how his body, which is even older than Giambi's, will hold up without the added chemical assistance.

Interesting piece on the U.S's. construction of the "Damn these are going to be here for so long they even have a Subway and a Starbucks but they're really not permanent" bases in Iraq and the U.S. media's refusal to ask any serious questions about them.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) Yes I am aware of pot being an illegal drug. Think that most jobs, if they even test, do so when you are hired and then not really again. I don't know why sports would or should be any different. You might be doing illegal drugs after getting your job but unless your performance is hindered (and Williams' never was) then it shouldn't come up. Ricky Williams was never caught by the police, just the piss man. I'm just saying the piss man shouldn't exist If Ricky Williams wasn't a famous NFL player with gobs of money...do you think he would have as easy of a time not being caught?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) I think Bonds would've been a great player regardless. He was a multiple MVP award winner long before anybody thought about steroids. Steroids don't give you the sick plate discipline/eye he has. But, yeah, his overall career will always have a ? over it. You know, I'm even going to take some issue with that statement. It's never been backed up with the evidence of say, global warming or evolution by natural selection or something like that, but there are repeated reports out there that steroids may also have some significant effects on visual acuity. But, since they're quite illegal, and they have this habit of causing significant amounts of harm, no one's ever going to be able to perform a truly unbiased, double-blind study in a large population to see what each and every effect of each and every steroid is. Hell, even if all they did was strengthen your wrists to the point that they could respond quicker, they'd have an effect on hand-eye coordination...your wrists could catch up faster.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 07:04 PM) Do you suppose their favored nominee would publically voice opposition to the Iraq War? Or express sympathy towards Iran's nuclear program? I'm merely suggesting if the United States uses its position within the United Nations to heavily influence Annan's successor, don't be surprised if the appointee cators to our ambitions--present and future. On the other hand, is it possible that through efforts to bend the U.N. more to our will, we'll wind up splitting ourselves from the people we should be working with, and strengthening those we should be working against?

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) As sick and wrong you think it is, it helps the family cope with the death of a loved one. I never said I thought it was sick or wrong.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:23 PM) Yeah, but look at the MLB totals between those two seasons: AL NL MLB Year 1,776 1,262 3,038 1992 2,074 1,956 4,030 1993 You could make the argument that Palmeiro's jump was indicative of a wider league-wide jump in power. I'M not necessarily making that argument, just saying it could be made. You could also say that the league wide jump in power totals could be related to the same force which drove palmeiro's numbers.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) Maybe he did, but he didn't appear freakishly large. Plus, he was a base stealer and a more complete player when younger. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for his Pittsburgh years at least. Rafael Palmeiro never appeared freakishly large either. There are plenty of steroids out there which can help you add muscle mass but in a limited fashion, that can keep you healthier and make you recover faster from all those bases you steal, maybe help your eyes a bit, etc, and do so without turning you into a ripped giant.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) An incredible hitter who PROBABLY could've done most of what he's done without "chemical enhancement". Sadly, we'll never know. I don't believe that at all. If you assume he didn't use the juice until the balls started flying like crazy off of his bat in like 2000, he probably would have hit somewhere between 500-600 home runs in his career. But, since there are plenty of steroids out there which make you stronger but don't make you explode...if he was willing to use the cream & the clear, why should we believe that he didn't use any sort of enhancement in his first decade in baseball?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) Doesn't help a murdered victim much. Neither does the death penalty.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) Don't count on it. He is an incredible hitter. He's a miracle of modern chemistry.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) I'm talking middle of the order. Ozzie has said last year he likes to break them up in the heart of the order. Whatever though, this is really a pointless argument. Except for when we were facing Santana, that's what Ozzie did most of the season last year...Everett was at least a switch hitter, so he hit lefty quite often. Anywho...right move. The numbers back it up. And our lineup is going to be murder on pitchers next year.