NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) I think McCain has a pretty good grasp on how to handle the war on a tactical level, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan in the short term, but I am not really convinced he has an overall strategy that will accomplish anything, much like the Republican Party's been doing in Bush's second term. Just... uhh... stay the course and... well we'll cross that bridge when we get there ok guys? And IMO that's the reason McCain's statement(s) is(are) a cause for concern. Militant Islam isn't some unified world movement that we can just confront one-on-one like the Cold War, and hell, even that wasn't actually working like that under the surface. These are things I'd hope a leader would know and if McCain is elected I hope somebody sets him straight because I don't like the alternative. For the record I think the reverse is true for Obama, he has a good overall understanding of the "big picture", who the players are, how to engage/confront them, and what the desired end state is but he doesn't really know the ins and outs very well. Excellent post.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) LINK Ah, OK. I had heard they were going for a sedan next, wasn't familiar with the branding yet.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) All I have to say is Whitestar Fall 2009. Sign me up. explain, please.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:03 PM) Well, one thing I rarely, if ever hear mentioned is the fact that many people, in all reality, do not HAVE to even commute to their jobs. There is absolutely no reason I can really think of why we cannot drastically increase the number of jobs which allow people to work from their homes. Other than a lack of direct supervision, which could be countered by work or project quotas, I don't understand why at least 20-30% of American workers cannot work from their homes and thereby eliminate all those miles driven or riding mass transit for a commute to work. That trend is well underway. I think companies are often a little leery of losing the control, for much the same reasons as they are often leery of true results-only work environments. Also, in this era of data security, there will be some fear associated with what is basically a distributed network model. But as fuel costs increase, and people move more to companies that allow it... I think you will see a continued increase in working at home (at least some of the time).

Interesting line in the article about Richardson's endorsement of Obama, and his phone call to Clinton to tell her... I'm pretty sure that's political jargon for "she told me if I ever see her again she'd shoot me in the face with a bazooka". If Obama can get Edwards to endorse him before PA and campaign for him, there is still a chance he could ice the nomination by the end of April.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) Seeing that even her camp thinks her chances are remote then why is her campaign dragging Obama in the mud and prolonging this? What is the ultimate purpose? It's definitely not good for the party. I think we can all agree on that. She is dragging it out because even with a 10% chance, she is going to fight to the end. The only way she drops out before Denver is if Obama beats her in PA - which I think is highly unlikely.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) You are correct. Apparently she's doing her best to make sure that Obama has a 10% chance of beating McCain. You know, I've seen people here say that the GOP has no chance in November for any number of reasons (Bush, McCain not bringing out the base, Bush, the Iraq War, Bush, the economy, Bush). Then I hear other people saying the exact same thing of Obama (race, the Wright sermons, race, lack of experience, race), and also of Clinton (she's a Clinton, she'll bring out the conservative base, she's a Clinton, impressions of falsehood, she's a Clinton, voted for the Iraq War, she's a Clinton). I think November will be a very tight race, regardless of who wins the Dem nomination.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) It's really starting to look like that's the case. I don't see how she gets away with blatantly lying all the time. Clinton has about a 10% chance, at best, of winning the nomination. Even her own people say that.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) i really don't think that demand will ever decrease substantially with price increases. as a society, our framework depends upon vehicular transportation. anyone who works in the suburbs, pretty much has to drive to work, grocery stores, doctors, etc. On the flip side, maybe an increase in gas prices, leads to more people moving into the city then away from it? I think we should hope it will lead to better urban planning. More mass transit, more businesses setting up shop in business centers, more people living in communities that aren't just endless sprawl... urban planning in this case is two-sided. People will try to live closer to work, and try to live in towns that are actual towns, with services nearby. Developers and politicians should think in terms of more efficient plans for cities.

TIME OUT. I've deleted some posts. There is no cause to bring people's families into this discussion, even in the theoretical. No more of that s***, or I close the thread and suspensions will follow.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) He may not be, but what about the people surrounding him? What about the cabinet posts? You all like to cook George W. Bush on the same s***, well, think about that for a moment... Actually I'd suggest that's a different problem. Bush chose to surround himself with people who all thought the same way. Obama is unlikely to do that. I do actually understand the displeasure over this Wright thing with Obama. I think it should give people a bit of pause. In the overall scope, I think its not enough to push me away from him. I think his speech addressed that perfectly - it needs to be put in context. But I do get it - Obama chose to associate with a pastor who has on more than one occasion used inflammatory statements to rile up his church. That's not so good.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) I'll say this much. If the peaceful, law abiding Islamic people don't stand up and put a stop to the extremism that is so very prevelent in today's world, they won't have much to b**** about when the s*** hits the fan. It's been almost 7 years since 9-11 and you hear very very little moderation from the Islamic community. If they won't stand up for themselves, why should I? This is one of the falsehoods I see taken as fact a lot, when discussing religious extremism. People are wondering why there isn't moderation in the Islamic community. There is. Let's look at it in this admitedly simplistic way. Here is a list of countries with large Islamic populations, where extremism and violence are minimal (not gone mind you, but rare)... Turkey Jordan Kuwait Qatar Bahrain UAE Oman India Bangladesh Tunisia *various Stans On the other side of the spectrum, countries with major extremism issues, either internally or by exporting it/promoting it... Iran Iraq Syria Saudi Arabia Yemen Somalia Pakistan Afghanistan Algeria Sudan *various other Stans And finally, a few countries I'd suggest are teetering on the edge, having some issues but also some control... Egypt Indonesia Taking a look at this lists, I see a lot of countries in trouble, but also a lot of countries not. To say there isn't any moderation is, I think, inaccurate.

Some people have no place in society. 29-year old expectant mother slowly tortured to death, for fun, by neighbors. Story, unpleasant. How to human beings get to that point?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:59 AM) They are mad that the Cardinal hasn't been more outspoken about the war, and that he and Daley met with Bush when he was last in town and didn't 'demand' something be done. Plus, if I recall, the services at that church often have TV cameras there, so maybe hoping for a little TV exposure as well. Instead, I hope it is jail time and a record. Lame. Put 'em in jail.

Whoa, that's a big one. Enjoy, and I hope you are so busy having fun today that you don't see this post until you are sitting on a coach nursing a hangover tomorrow morning.

I'll first say that I agree, this was a stupid and illegal protest, and I hope these people are prosecuted. The middle of Easter mass is beyond inappropriate for protests and the like. Here is my question, though... why did they do this in a Catholic church? I mean, if you did it at a press conference held by a major political supporter of the war, then I'd get the connection. But honestly, as far as I remember, I think the church has been pretty much against the Iraq war from the start. What did they hope to accomplish? Just stupid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 03:03 AM) If John McCain had been a member of a church for 20 years that could be proven to have been led by an anti-black pastor, he'd have been ripped to shreds a long long time ago. He would have been guilty of racism by association. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Obama, not so much. Except, the reality has been the opposite. McCain's spiritual advisor has been credited with some statements that are very inflammatory, just like Obama's pastor. And yet, which story is getting all the press? Don't get me wrong, I think normally, we might be hearing a lot more about McCain's background than we are. But there are a few other factors at work. For one, with the Dem race still being bitterly fought, their issues will be scrutinized more closely. For another thing, I don't think there is any denying that people of all races in this country are having various types of issues with having our first serious black candidate. The very nature of that causes all sorts of emotional reactions.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) Also, heres a quote pulled right from her senior thesis, try reading between the lines: "Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." When unqualified blacks are admitted to college because of their race, they'll be black first, students second. This is very sad." The articles I've read have said that her thesis is under wraps. Do you have a link to it? I'd like to perhaps read parts of it, if its not excessively long.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) Almost anybody that has been following this story knows that she benefited from affirmative action but you just seem to not want to believe it. I did a search on google and tons of articles popped up but since most of them were blogs I didnt even bother because I know that isnt the "proof" you wanted. Me being a white male, I personally have a problem with the comments about race from him and the people close to him and Im not scared to discuss them. In his speech he touched on white peoples resentment towards things like affirmative action which was what I was getting at: IMO Sorry if I haven't heard "almost anybody" saying this. and if you read more carefully, you'll see that I very specifically stated she may very well have gotten in for that reason - but that there is no proof of it. She may or may not have - how is that unclear to you? And how are you jumping to the conclusion that its the case, without proof? So, by your logic, he isn't "warranted" to discuss white resentment, but you ALSO say he shouldn't discuss perceived racism against blacks. What CAN he discuss, in your view? The White Sox? His wife is a racist? Where does that come from? You are clearly someone who was never going to support Obama in the first place, which is just fine and dandy. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons not to. But to take such offense at his speech is, to me, just making an excuse for your real reasoning. Its a convenient event to hang your dislike on. And that's a shame, because that kind of thing tends to ruin the opportunity we have to be upfront and honest about some things - which is what he was attempting to do with that speech.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 05:06 PM) Newsweek good enough proof for you? Quite so, thank you - which is why I am glad I continued reading into the next graf... Seems she got in for a different non-academic reason - legacy. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any way to know if she got in that way or not. For the record, I personally disagree with affirmative action, as I think it causes more harm than good. But in this case, it seems she may or may not have gotten in that way. And again, as said earlier, there was no indication of this in his speech that I can find or recall.

Wassermann 1.2 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB. He's taken his solid rookie campaign and added a pretty good spring - 3.09 ERA, 0.77 WHIP in 11.2 IP, 6/3 K/BB ratio too. Plus he's getting lefties out now - which was his biggest weakness in 2007. Too bad he's likely headed for Charlotte. We'll see if MacDougal can cut it.

I am more worried about Danks this season than I am Floyd. Danks just doesn't seem to have any sort of consistent approach, physically or mentally. He's all over the place.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) Are you serious? You think Im making that up? He even acknowledged it in his speech. He did nothing of the sort. Seriously, where are you getting this?

I don't normally do this, but, let's parse this out a bit... QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) I just find it offensive that he is completely trying to play both ends of the spectrum. Offensive? Really? I think that's exactly what makes him a good candidate. There is an important difference between being dupicitous - which is to say politically, telling different stories to different audiences - and being open to both sides of any given spectrum. Obama has done an excellent job of trying to "play" to both sides, without being dishonest or setting those sides against each other. Not only is that not what I'd call offensive, its in fact a nice change in politics. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) IMO, he loses credibility by saying he knows what its like to be black and white and trying to empathize with both sides. In all actuality he doesnt completely know what its like to be either. Of course he doesn't "completely know" what its like to be either, and he'd never say that. He's seen glimpses of both, experienced both, at different times, obviously. Also, read these two sentences you typed again, in order - you have set a trap there that no person could ever escape. You have basically cornered him so that he can't possible empathize with either "side", which I think is ridiculous. Why can't he empathize with either side? QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Than he goes on the radio talk show in Philly and explain that what he meant about his grandmother being scared of black people is that she is a typical white person. As I said many times in the thread about his Pastor Im not sold on his explanation of issues about that guy or even his comments about affirmative action in regards to his wife. No doubt, that line he gave in discussing his grandmother being a "typical white person" was not a good thing to say. No argument there. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) She got into a college ahead of someone who was more qualified BECAUSE of the color of her skin I'm going to have to echo my comrades here - proof? Has this ever been established? Its news to me, if it is true. I am not saying its not, because I don't know. But I have never read anything of the sort, and his speech certainly never said it. No wonder you didn't like the speech - you must have been reading some doctored up version of it! QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) then has the audacity to write a senior thesis about overcoming white oppression I haven't read her thesis, but most of the articles I've seen discussing it don't put it in that light. The word "oppression" is not what has been used to describe it. But, in terms of her discussing her perceived uphill battle because of her race... why is that hard to believe? Do you have some illusion that racism is no longer present in this society? QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) and say that only recently she was proud of her country Indeed that was an inflammatory and stupid thing for her to say. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) even though this countries policy got her into a college ahead of someone else. Again, proof? QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) I just dont want to hear this guy pretend like he knows what its like to be everyone and use that as a ploy to discuss taboos other cant because they will be labeled racist. I have never gotten the impression he's pretending to be someone he isn't, nor have I seen or heard him even hint that he has any privilege in discussing topics others cannot. Quite the opposite, it seems to me he is trying to get people to talk about things they don't feel comfortable discussing. I personally think that's good. Reading your post, I have to say, I really doubt you would have voted for Obama before OR after the speech. I think your mind was set on him a long time ago.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Mar 23, 2008 -> 05:52 AM) Didn't read The Hunt for Red October. Disagree about Lord of the Rings. As far as No Country for Old Men, I thought the Coen brothers tightened up some of McCarthy's dialogue, rid some essentially meaningless scenes (the movie was astoundingly tight), and upped the suspense. If you remember the scene with Chigurh and Wells in the hotel room, the Coen's were able to take about 12-15 lines of McCarthy's dialogue and put it down into one--"ATM?" Overall, I just thought McCarthy didn't tighten his story enough. Parts felt loose and careless. I thought the Coen's fixed that for him. The only superiority I feel the book had over the film was letting the reader/audience know that it was the Sheriff's story, not Moss' or Chigurh's. That "loose" effect of No Country (the book) was, honestly, one of the little things I liked about the book. Its something you see in his other books too. It makes the story more believeable - sometimes, a random moment is just a random moment. Without them, it feels more staged.