mr_genius

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) exactly... Teddy Greenstein wrote a smear piece in the Trib afterwards. Here's hoping Greenstien now apologizes and writes the truth about the lies that come out of the Cubs organization. He knows that will get him fired. He'll just have to write a powder puff article about how lovable all the cubs losing is.

the cubs are going to be horrible this year edit: even worse than usual

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) I think the Saints are gonna draft D'Brickashaw Ferguson now. The desperately need o-line help. that or maybe Mario Williams. i guess he's supposed to be one of the best players DE's coming into the NFL draft in quite a while.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does. He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883 meh, the debate will just be worthless grandstanding not neccesary

NuuuuUUUUUUUuuuuuuke! cleveland

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 09:54 PM) I know this is jumping onto a tangent (apologies), but who outside of the administration has consistently and convincingly said they think BushCo and the NSA are "following the rules?" I'll put it this way; the GOP supporters have their arguments on the issue. GOP detractors have their arguments. From what I've read and heard I think there probably have been some bending of the rules, but I don't think it is something that is out of the ordinary when dealing with national security intel. Honestly, I think if a Democrat was in office the people screaming about this would be supporting it. The fact that someone originally supported an investigation then changed their mind as they began to feel the investigation was just a politcal stunt does not mean there is something deviant going on behind the scenes. I don't know to the extect of the surveillance, but I do know that I don't support blatent abuses of our rights to privacy.

I guess it depends on what information you believe on the wire taps. Of course, one side says they are following the rules and the political opponent claims they are using illegal tactics. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle. The same could be said for the ports deal. If I had to take a guess, I would say that this deal is no different than the deals we have with British companies running our ports. I would even venture to say that if any corners were cut on this deal these exact same corners were cut with other deals. The main reasons this is such an issue is that there are political advantages to be gained by using the current atmosphere of fear and anger towards arabs that is common in the United States and around the world. This fear and anger is fairly justified to a certain degree. But I don't think it is a good idea to treat our allies, yes I said allies, in the middle east like they are all criminals. You have to realize that the nations that are our 'friends' in the middle east have to pander to their citizens just like our politicans do (they pander out of fear of a violent revolution). It is too politically dangerous for them to deal with Isreal, and it is too politically dangerous for us to deal with them. Both occurances are counter-productive.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 07:41 PM) Dubai was a key transfer point in getting nuclear equipment to Iran and North Korea from A.Q. Khan - who was in charge of Pakistan's nuclear program and went rogue. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. Dubai was used as a money laundering gateway to help fund Al-Qaeda. And then there's this testimony from Tenet to the 9/11 commission about why one opportunity to eliminate the threat of Bin Laden was never taken. But I'm sure the UAE did everything they could to combat terrorism. They also refuse to do any business with Israel because they're Jewish. And letting them take this lease would be a violation of US law. I don't think Dubai is our friend. I don't think Saudi Arabia is our friend. And I think its stupid to risk compromising security to protect their money. UAE is not helping Iran get nuclear weapons. Ok, you're right, UAE had two hijackers, lets invade. lets also invade Germany, France and England (there are terrorists there too). also, lets cut ecenomic ties with those contries. good idea, lets also disregard all other muslim countries as terrorists (that will make them change their ways) Oh yea, do you know what country is our main staging point for military defense in the middle east? the evil UAE that wants to attack us, yes that UAE. Sorry, but you have a million complaints are rarely have any solutions. Why not just give them the financial aspects of the deal and have them pay the US government to monitor the ports? oh, because that wouldn't be good political fodder. It's also amusing that you talk about security but cry about wire tapping terrorists. Why should they be treated any better than the mafia? oh, because Democrats tapped the mob and Republicans are tapping terrorists. good reason to be against something, dude.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 07:21 PM) UAE is selling 10% of its dollar reserves and converting them into euros... Saudi Arabia is also pissed about this. Yeah for higher interest rates and higher gas prices http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...ticle351127.ece i'm not suprised i like how "progressives" claim the best way to deal with terrorists is through sacnctions and rewarding countries with acceptable policies. then, a country that has done almost everything we have asked, is turned away from deals that other US allies have been given. wow, good job guys. just shows the only thing that matters to most politicians is being re-elected and saying anything to do it. just look at all the Dems that voted to invade Iraq but now back peddle and accpet NO responsibilty as to the mess we have gotten ourselves in.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) hypothetical people's hypothetical lives. just in from the department of redundancy department

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) I can't wait to see how they kill him off, after this. ^^^^^

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) It's an issue of experience. Comments like this really piss me off. It's easy for somebody with fewer financial responsibilities to have a liberal attitude towards tax-dollar subsidization of illegals. maybe, maybe not. i was a lot more "right-wing" when i was younger. i have changed my opinions on certain social programs since them.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 10:42 PM) I'm not for illegal immigration. I'm for the United States setting up the proper laws, programs, etc. to regulate it efficiently. Since it doesn't, I can see why people come here illegally. And the assumptions keep coming...I never took a sociology course nor do I think racism is the main reason people oppose illegal immigration...But I do think stereotyping and racism plays a part in their poor treatment. lol Ohhh, of course... It's america's fault. I should have known. You should really look into the immigration process that many "progressive" European countries have, our laws are not unfair. oh, and you took sociology classes, don't lie (it makes noam chomsky cry).

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 10:24 PM) I never said it's the sole reason. And yes, stereotyping and racism is unecessary. Don't bulls*** yourself, it plays a role. All I said was that the vast majority of people are against illegal immigration because of financial concerns, not racism. You responded saying that I was "putting words in your mouth". I don't think racism it plays a major role at all, maybe your sociology teacher told you it does and likes to stress that the white male oppressor needs to be stopped bla bla bla... I've heard this argument before. Oh, btw, do you think you can just go move to ANY industrialized first world country without documentation? If you do I suggest looking what other countries expect from their new citizens. Even the best country in the world, france, is against illegal immigration.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 10:09 PM) Show me where I said that please. Enough words have been put in my mouth and assumptions have been made as it is. ok

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 09:53 PM) How so? Please enlighten me. You are claiming people that oppose illegal immigration are probably racist, this is not accurate. Sure, some people are racist... but the vast majority of people against illegal immigration are against it because of the huge financial strain it puts on the current citizens of the country and security issues.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) What argument have I not refuted? Racism and steryotyping will always be a part of the issue, whether you choose to admit it or not. :headshake you are so ignorant on this topic.

of course they want a vote. now, for their campaign comercials, than can add this vote to their "excellent" voting record on national security. btw, blocking this deal might have been a really bad idea.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) the faults of 24 hour news what would have been the faults you brought up?

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) He's the windsock/jay marriotti of the court. ouch! "you remind me of Jay Mariotti"... the ultimate insult.

lol this thread quickly moved right into G.W Bush vs Dan Rather.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Gross, B-dubs is overrated in the wing category. You want really great wings in chicago. Birds Nest on southport has bar none the best tasting wings ive ever had. have you ever been to 'wing fest' it's been really crowded in past years but all the top wing chefs are there to do battle to see who has the best!!

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) The Swift Boat and Rathergate situations are not comparable because the Swift Boat Veterans MADE THEIR OWN CASE. Sure, they were on TV, but their argument was being made by them, not the network. O'Reilly has left-wing nutcases like Al Sharpton on his show all of the time, but that doesn't mean that he's promoting their ideas. On the other hand, Dan Rather and CBS were the ones who directly presented the case about Bush's military record. good point WCSox

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) Swift Boat appeared in the MSM plenty. true, but most of the news stories i saw showed both sides of the story. a lot of the news stories showed how unfair some of those 'swift boat' political ads were. the CBS story was a hatchet job, a politically motivated hatchet job IMO. meh, i usually watch 'the Newshour' (pbs) anyways.