NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) I've seen five minutes of JFK and those were in between sexxxings in a hotel room with my girlfriend when it was airing on TNT or something, thank you very much. Why would you even mention that? Do you really need the acknowledgement that badly?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) I think that there are ways to quell the fighting in Iraq, but most of them are not military solutions. The problem is, I wonder now if our time to make it happen has passed. That was kind of what I was getting at, though I was speaking about the military side. The non-military tactics can still be used, but now must be used differently. I'd really like someone to convince me that "go big" would get it done at this point, since I was thinking that before, but I can't reconcile it with the current circumstances. Same with "go long" - the war has changed, and it doesn't seem like out continued presence will do much good anymore. Can one of you hawks sell me on either of those?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) You guys are all telling me that if we just took matters less half-assed and more violently, there'd be no Civil War or we could end it? That bombings can halt the violent differences amongst Islamic sects? Please. I consider that American arrogance and I've never used that phrase before. What's going on there was something bound to eventually happen and that we can't stop. Us being there is like us being in Vietnam where we stepped into a Civil War and were stunned that we couldn't stop it by burning down the forest. Same in Iraq. If we were facing a military enemy, like a standing Army, we'd certainly have more success and we could certainly make them surrender and destroy their soldier but this opponent in Iraq isn't even our opponent. It is a battle of Islam versus Islam, Iraqi versus Iraqi, and we're just in the way. No amount of bombs can change that. If we leave, they'll keep fighting. We stay, they'll keep fighting. We blow them up, they'll keep fighting, and this will happen for years until they are done fighting on their own terms. While there are certainly some parallels between our wars in Iraq and Vietnam, the civil war in Iraq is nothing like what was going on in Vietnam. Different animals.

From where I was watching, the NFL HD channel showed the game, but in NON-HD format. The picture was terrible. Plus their announcing crews were rusty and they were having some hiccups with the production. Maybe it will get better. Why on earth would you create a new HD channel, and run your first live game in non-HD format?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) That plays a part, for sure, but it's not as important to conspiracies as the fact that, oh, Oswalt couldn't have possibly have done it unless you believe him to be one of the greatest sharpshooters alive with a gun that shoots magic bullets. I think you've seen JFK a few too many times. Oswalt's shots (at least one of them anyway) were quite good, but not impossible by any stretch. And while the commission was poorly conducted after the fact, it looks to me like the evidence points directly to Oswalt. Now, as for whether or not HE was a hired gun, I'm open to all sorts of ideas. Lots of possibilities there.

I have generally been in the camp that Kap is here - we were fighting the war half-assed, and that gets us nowhere. If we have to be there at all (which we didn't), then do what it takes. Break some rules, and yes, kill more people. Ultimately, it would save more people, hard as that might be to stomach in the short run. But, I must confess, I am starting to think that we may have missed that window of opporunity. We have now gotten to where civil war isn't a possibility - its already here. And now, because of the factions involved, the widespread nature of the conflict, the already-present anti-U.S. sentiment now prevalent for all parties involved... I think its too late. At this point, we could bomb the crap out of all the positions and bases for all the militants on all sides (or those we know about), and we could send more troops, and we could "take the gloves off", but because its not so much Iraqi versus Iraqi, the war would go on anyway. So now I'm conflicted. I am starting to think that there is no longer a way to stabilize Iraq with us there. I've climbed onto the fence. Anyone willing to talk me down?

If indeed he got 2 DUI's in 3 years, and has shown attitude "problems", then I rescind my interest.

Doesn't look too bad for the money. His D numbers look OK, but I've never seen him play, so that could be deceptive. He looks like he's been sort of Mack-like in moving around the field. I'd be open to the idea, depending on what they wanted in trade. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) Farney and The Cincinatti Police Department say high. Huh?

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) While I still think KW will go out and find another outfielder, I wonder if there's any chance that it ill come down to a tryout between Owens, Pods, Sweeney, Anderson and Fields in Spring Training for the 2 outfield spots...? If we are going purely in-house for those slots, I'd just assume put Gload in LF and keep Anderson in CF. Owens isn't ready yet, Fields would likely be even worse than Gload defensively (and Fields is more valuable as trade bait or at 3B), and I am just not sure on Sweeney. If we got a SS like Furcal or Young (not likely, but possible), I'd probably be OK with an OF of Gload-Anderson-Dye. That said, I think we'll find someone else for one or both of those OF spots when all is said and done.

One of the big discussions that might come up in our mini-election here is what issues should be federal, state or local. To me, this is one we have wrong - standards for what voting machines have to be and contain should meet a federal standard. And that standard should include a paper trail with visual confirmation before continuing (like many now do).

QUOTE(mreye @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Sure, but I'm not going to put him in charge of the church collection. Just like a recovering alcoholic should not work as a bartender. Definitely agree. He doesn't belong in that position. Has anyone heard if they've made a decision on him yet?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee. I think I'd move him from "probably not" to "maybe" or even "probably". And now he has filed with the FEC - I'd say he is highly likely at this point. Seperately, here is a cool little article - a list of all the potential candidates and their Iraq war stances.

I don't have access to UCLA's policies on the use of force - just the one about Tasers. But let me add something here about that. In my previous department, we also had specific clauses about specific weapons and such (though we generally didn't use tasers). But what was also present in the force policy was a blanket statement about the use of force, with a very key phrase: "Necessary and reasonable". That was the overriding theme. The individual clauses after that may have specifically allowed for, or prevented, some specific actions. But that does not mean that all actions allowed in those clauses created an open legal space where that allowance was all-encompassing. All those allowances were still conditioned by "necessary and reasonable". I think that is the key to the discussion here. If a kid is being verbally abusive, but not physically so, is using the taser to subdue him necessary and reasonable to affect arrest/detainment/removal? I personally would have taken other action. That other action may have been just as dangerous, potentially. But it wouldn't have created as much of a spectacle. But this officer, and apparently his supervisor and other officers, felt differently.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 01:42 AM) This op-ed was from an extreme right-wing point of view. It comparatively contrasts with that Churchill dude from Colorado calling the 9-11 victims 'little Eichmans". Exactly.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 09:03 PM) Okay riddle me this batman... I was on a flight to Jakarta about 7 years ago, where I was one of the few Americans on the plane, and one of the few non-muslims on board. Now I dont remember people jumping up to perform prayer. In fact, outside of the bumpy flight and the strange looks from some of the people on the plane the flight was okay. Now lets flash ahead to the year after that. I am on a bird flying to Dubai not real happy about the situation, now some of the faithful are on the plane. A young man and his father performing the Haj. How do I know this, because they explained to me all about how they were doing it. They were from the UK, well at least the son was born there. Now again, they didnt jump to attention, or do anything that these super muslims did on a flight in the US. Now shockingly in all of the information we see from the 9/11 hijackings, the attackers all jumped up at the same time, recited some arabic and then took the plane. I find it ironic that with some muslims performing Haj, and going to the worlds largest Muslim country none of the folks did what these guys did. Why is that. I'd like to see where we have this information about what the 9/11 hijackers did. Seriously. If someone has a source other than a movie, I'd like to see it. I can't explain who does what when, and I don't think it matters. Like I said earlier, its real simple - if they followed the FAA rules and regs, then this is just some unnecessarily panicked passenger, and the airline needs to show some judgement. If on the other hand they stood up at the appointed time and that violated the rules, then fine. I'll repeat my theme here, since these discussions always end up in the same place. As soon as this becomes about religion, the battle and the war are lost. There is no winning the "war" on terror if we make it about Islam. You do not defeat an enemy (since we are using the war analogy) by walking right into the traps they set, which is exactly what we are doing if we make it about Islam. The trap is obvious - the extremists use religion as a tool, and use the 95% of that religion that are moderates (just like in most religions) as bait. People here take the bait, get angry at Islam, and then those 95% start to hate us too. It amazes me that people aren't seeing this. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) you're easily disturbed. seriously though, muslims need to realize that they are going to freak out a lot of airline passengers if they get up in the isles of the plane and start worshiping Allah. No, people need to realize who the enemy is here. Its not Islam, nor is it the Christian Right. The extremists in both camps want it to be that way, because they want a war. The real enemies and causes of this conflict are corrupt governments, poverty, oil (and our dependence on it), fear of the unknown, damage from historical conflicts, Cold War manipulation of the Middle East, and the whole Israel/Palestine mess. Once we shift our focus to those areas, we will start to see some progress.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:51 PM) Muslim prayer. Whatever. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, I don't really care. Its a disturbing parallel to make.

There is of course a small and vocal minority, as Mr. Genius points out, that is loony enough to almost fit the absurd caricature that this author paints of "hippies". Similarly, there is a small minority on the right that is so driven by hatred that they truly do see everyone else as the enemy. Thing is, neither of those groups are significant in percentage in the population. What makes this author and article so laughably stupid is that they try to paint anyone who voted Democrat in the elections as part of that slim minority. That is just as assinine as people who try to say that anyone who votes GOP must want to take over the world and subjegate all the non-Christians. I'm tired of this bizarre straw man/hyperbole method of debate that people have gotten into - if you don't like the other side, just make them out to be cartoonishly off the scale in the other direction, thus marginalizing them and relegating their arguments to nonsense. Stop it. Please.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) i don't think the airline did anything wrong. nuke's right. if neo-nazi's were blowing up airplanes and i got on a plane and a bunch of em were on it chanting in german i would hope the airline would do something. common sense should prevail. Wow. You're equating prayer to neo-nazi chants?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) Is it possible to be a reformed man, in the case of corruption? I'm under the impression that you're a money-grubber or you're not, and that's not going to change because you got caught one day, IMO. It'll just make you more careful. Probably. But not definitely. On rare occasion, some people make dramatic changes in their lives and their fundamental beliefs.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) Delicious! I'm guessing Nuke isn't going to vote for me. And I don't think Nuke would have written that. I think he's more of a softie then he lets on.

If you have any ideas on questions or topics you'd like to see debated by the fine candidates here on SoxTalk, feel free to add them here. The moderators of the debates (Soxy and SS2K5) will try to pick a variety of questions from posters, candidates and themselves. They will also try to pick questions that not everyone has the same opinion on (see how handy the platforms were?). But the debate will be less formal and smaller in scale than the ones from earlier this year, so not nearly all of the suggestions will be used... So, feel free to add any suggestions here! Mine: --If it were up to you, what would be your exit/completion/victory strategy in Iraq? --In what areas do you think the federal government needs to increase spending, if any? Please defend that spending and also tell us where the money might come from. --How would you go about fixing the corruption and self-interest in Congress? --Some question on energy policy (not sure how to phrase it, some already answered here)

Hm. Highly unlikely that he was fired for poor writing skills and geographical knowledge. PD's invest a lot of money and time training an officer through the academy, then on the force. Once you've gotten on, they generally won't let you go for trainable skills like that. They let people go if they can't handle the job. Hard to say about the homeless guy and the frat member (I wouldn't take the word of either of them or the officer as bible in this case), but that firing raises a red flag for me.

It seems pretty simple to me, as PA said earlier. If they violated FAA regs on when and where to stand or sit, then fine, remove them. If not, and this was just some nervous, small-minded boob giving in to irrational fear, then these people were indeed treated disrespectfully.

I lived in the South for a few years. I've had me some fried turkey. Tasty stuff.

Senator Brownback (R-KS) sounds as if he is throwing his hat in the ring.