Balta1701

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 08:15 AM) I wasn't expecting Loaiza to be a perennial Cy Young winner, but after that magical season he had with his cutter, I never thought he'd have the problems that he did the next season. I think we were all amazed by that. I still can't figure out what happened. It looked like he still had all his pitches, but everything was just ridign upwards and he wasn't going hard inside.

Are there any of us in Missouri? Can we get someone to show up dressed as a Rally Crede?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 09:57 PM) Name 4 more deserving rookies in the AL please. Chacin Iguchi Street Gomes

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:17 AM) The Bears have Orton and Grossman at QB. TO would not come here. Right now...I don't think Owens is going to have a lot of choices. He's going to have to find someone who will sign him to a 1 year trial deal and just shut his mouth, otherwise he may never play football again.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:15 AM) because a receiver like TO (or Moss even) will mask the mediocrity of some QBs. look at Culpepper, suddenly when 3 defenders aren't committed to Moss nearly every down it's a lot harder to find the other receivers. McNabb's completion percentage went from something like 58% to 65% when TO got there. suddenly opponents are actually worried about the Bears' passing game, and now Thomas Jones is becoming more productive. But when Moss was hurt for a couple games last year, Culpepper's production didn't really suffer that much. Which is why they thought they could improve without Moss this year. Something else had to be bothering Culpepper.

QUOTE(BMac41 @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 08:23 AM) I think they can go 16-0 I think they "Can" do it. That doesn't mean they will. The odds are still strongly against it.

I know this doesn't apply to everyone at this site, but for those of you in states like California, Virginia, Maine, Texas, New Jersey, and probably a few other places...it's election day. GET YOUR ASSES OUT THERE AND VOTE. (This has been a rude public service announcement sponsored by Balta enterprises).

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:07 AM) Is there a SOP when deciding who stays longer..? Do those with children get to come home before those without? Or is it voluntary? Length of service? Rank? Or does it not matter at all. I don't think it matters at all. From what I've been able to see, there's no real pattern other than "Who is useful" and "Who is scheduled to come home at the wrong time." If you're in a key skilled job, you may well be stuck there for longer. If you're scheduled to come home 3 weeks before an election, you probably shouldn't even pack.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 05:14 AM) Well, if we're not sending as many troops over for the next rotation as the current one what does he want to call it then? A lengthening of each tour.

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 10:30 PM) no surprise, the guy is an idiot, great player but sometimes he just has to stop all together. i bet the vikes take a look at him next season maybe the raiders, hell id like to see him as a 49er, eagles are basically done with, cowboys are gonna take the division and that division is especially strong Some reason why the Giants won't win that division?

I'd love to believe it, but there have been way too many leaked plans or public statements about when we're going to start withdrawing troops that have been undermined by the constantly worsening situation on the ground. If it happens, it's a good thing.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is happy.

Since others have mentionned SD, let me just say that I can't see them holding up to the Colts at all. SD's big problem for 2 years on defense has been that they can slow the running game down to a crawl, but they give up a ton of yards on the pass. Their secondary just hasn't been able to slow people down. Peyton Manning will make them look like Denver in a playoff game.

My thoughts exactly...this is just the Sporting News version, right?

"T.O. is a dick" -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, 11/7/05.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) I'm also very skeptical of these claims. If I had to take a "wild guess", I would say this is more of a political advertisement rather than unbiased, truthful documentary. I don't think the US military would need to or even want to use chemical weapons in Iraq. So many downsides to such use and little, if any, upside. There are also very many downsides to torturing prisoners in Iraq, but that hasn't stopped us in the past. Overall, it may very well come down to a debate over what the definition of a "Chemical weapon" actually is. For example...would you call tear gas a chemical weapon? This BBC Piece tells a little bit about the network running this thing, RAI.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 05:22 PM) I thought the same thing, and now I'm getting my MBA. It's hard for me to have to take more classes when these would fill out my course requirements on my Ph.D. Then there's that little matter of a thesis of course...

If the U.S. has not signed and ratified that agreement, then its use was in violation of no U.S. laws, and in fact should probably be expected whenever the U.S. does go to war.

You're not supposed to lose your starting job to an injury. However, what is it now, like 3 injuries in 3 years or something like that for Grossman? This team should stick with what's gotten it to 5-3 until it stops working.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) Is it? What kind of recivitism rates are we talking about for violent offenders? For Sexual predators? For child abusers? Isn't 120 offense enough to know that this woman probably isn't going to be able to handle freedom? If not, how many times does it take? That's exactly my point with that post, 2k5. This person clearly belongs in prison. They have not been rehabilitated. But because her time in prison has come to an end, she's being let out, despite the fact that she's not able to rejoin society. This is where the judgement of someone out there should come into play. Clearly this case is one where the offender shoudl not be getting out of prison. But I'll guarantee you that if I looked for long enough, I could find a person who committed the exact same original crime as she did. Now, let's say we had both these people...1 behaves well in prison, 1 commits 120 additional offenses. Now, if they both received 12 year sentences, would you be comfortable releasing both? I don't think I would either. Now, on the other hand, let's say that the judge instead followed the new mandatory guidelines for that crime. Would you say that both this person and the one who was a model inmate for 12 years deserve to stay in prison for an additional 18 years or so? This person could clearly use some extra time. The other person wouldn't deserve it. There needs to be a human factor in analyzing these in a case-by-case basis. That way, you don't end up with psycopaths running around because their jail term ended, but you also can try to limit the amount of people who genuinely reform who get stuck in prison for life.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) Remember this thread when people start getting upset about manditory sentencing guidelines. For every person like this one, who is let out too early, there is another person who does their time and genuinely reforms who is kept in too long. There's a reason I dislike mandatory sentencing on all levels: sometimes, a mandatory sentence is too long for a crime committed (i.e. 3 strikes kicking in on a drug possession charge or something like that), and then on the other hand, there's cases like this, where the sentence was clearly mandated to be too short. I'm in favor of giving more power to judges, juries, and parole boards in these matters. Rather than mandating durations, why can't each one be evaluated on a case by case basis? We're already trying and imprisoning people on a case by case basis.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:27 PM) As for stopping the rioting thats going on in France right now they certainly shouldn't have waited this long to impose a curfew and I also believe that their equivalent of our National Guard should be deployed to affected areas if that hasn't been done so already and mass arrests of curfew violators should be done to get these people off the streets. Send in the Legion!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) You're correct about that. WP is commonly found in artillery smoke rounds and Ive also seen it used as an incendiary. I believe the question here is what happens when it is fired directly on people. Just because it is used as smoke rounds doesn't mean that in a more concentrated form and applied directly to the skin its won't give dramatically different results. Either way, I'm not sure whether or not any of the things we're talking about exposing people to would count in my mind as a chemical weapon attack. But then again, I also don't know enough about "White Phosphorus" and how the body reacts to it. The EPA lists it as an air pollutant, but and limits exposure per day, but gives no strong guidelines about what would happen if it were used as an anti-personnel weapon. And also Kip, is the U.S. a signatory to whatever treaty it was that banned the use of Napalm? The Wikipedia page you linked to did not say. And from what I've read, I'm not convinced that the U.S. is a signatory to that treaty.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) Are you sure about that? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html How many of those people died in the year or two leading up to the war, and how many of them died in the massive attack by Hussein on the Shia during 1991 or before that, when a strike on them might have prevented the deaths? We had no fly zones in place over Iraq in 2003. We had constant patrols over both the north and south. Iraq's army was not moving. There was no genocide in progress. If there had been, do you think Bush would have been forced to cite 1988's events as evidence for invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons? Your example is something different from invading to stop a genocide. Your example is invading to punish a leader for a previous one.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:14 PM) Look, I don't like the idea of innocent people getting tortured, no one does. But 9/11 changed a lot of things. And this is one of them. I actually agree with Bush's polilcy of pre-emptive strikes in our nation's defense See, here's the odd thing, I think there's hardly a person out there who wouldn't agree with that statement. Take for example, the Israeli preemptive strike on Egypt in 1967. How many people here would argue that Israel wasn't justified in striking Egypt preemptively? Look at the situation: Repeated skirmishes between the Isrealis and the Syrians throughout 1966 and 1967 (Including air battles) Shelling of Israeli targets by Syria An alliance pack signed between Egypt and Syria in 1966 Withdrawal of the U.N. forces from the Suez region (basically in place since the 50's as a buffer between Egypt and Israel) at the request of the Egyptions Closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt (cutting off several Israeli ports) Signing of a mutual defense treaty between Egypt and Jordan in 1967 Repeated statements by Egyptian President Nasser suggesting war with Israel. It is possible to argue that the Egyptians weren't really prepared for war in 1967. Part of their army was bogged down in fighting a civil war in Yemen. One could suggest they were merely rattling the sabre to try to get concessions from Israel without war. But given the situation Israel was in, I find it impossible to disagree with their decision to launch a preemptive strike. However, this situation is totally different from the sort of preemptive strike that Bush has made. I even really don't like the idea of using the same term - preemptive strike. Because in the Israeli case, they were faced with what seemed to be a clear and growing threat. In the Iraqi case, we were faced with no threat, but only a dictator who did not like us. He had not acted on those instincts in years, and in fact was backing down in front of every U.S. demand - i.e. dismantling of missiles, acceptance of total inspections, etc. Bush's preemptive war doctrine basically said that we'll go to war against people who don't like us because they might threaten us in the future. The way Israel used it, they used it against a nation that was threatening them with war in the immediate future. There is a profound difference between those 2 cases. If you asked someone if in 2000, they would have supported a preemptive strike against the folks that attacked the U.S.S. Cole, would you have supported it? I think I would have...because we'd know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were facing people who could threaten to do more in the future. I don't see how anyone could disagree with a preemptive strike in the face of a direct threat. I could even understand an Israeli strike on Iran after the words of the Iranian leader right now (that doesn't mean the strike would be the right strategic decision, only that it could be justifiable).