NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 09:42 AM) That is an excellent post, and I agree with most of it, especially the dependence on oil part. However, i think that it will almost HAVE to get worse in general, for the moderates to come to the table and clean their own house. I don't want it to get worse, but I believe that alot of the moderates won't come around unless they are forced to, one way or another. I agree, they will need more reason. I personally think the reduction of need for oil could be that reason. But that, like the Iraq war, will take serious time and money.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 29, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) Again, how extreme is it when the nations leading Muslim cleric says these things? If it was Joe Muslim on the street, that'sone thing. How about if the Cardinal from one of the majort US cities says something like this? How long would it be until the Pope himself has to issue apologies and newspapers editorialize about how the Catholic religion is full of hate? It IS about religion, but a segment of that religion. A segment that needs to be cut from the body post haste, but without cooperation from the rest of the religion, will never be done. So-called 'moderate Muslims' need to be pissed as hell, and start venting that frustration at their own who make them look bad by association. The true crusade needs to be within Islam, for them to bring themselves into the 21st century. I definitely agree that the best thing that Islam can do, if it wants peace, is to do much more to seperate the moderate core from the extremists (who clearly are gaining momentum). Unfortunately, part of the problem with doing that is Islam isn't centralized like Catholicism or other religions are. Its tough to move the religion in any organized fashion. So, I think the focus needs to be on the actions of the idiots. Extremism is sort of the "in" thing right now in Islam, so many clerics will try to win support via these types of comments (the clerics are very competitive). And to an extent, they are clearly making this work. More and more people are attracted to that in the Middle East. So what can Islam do? I think what we are seeing is the moderates being silent, as you point out. They are, I think, taking a wait and see approach on how things will shake out. I personally find that a bit disturbing, but, its what is happening. Now the big question - what do WE do? What we should not do is make this about Islam, because that just contributes to the extremist wave. I would instead suggest a combination of other things... One, you try to get as friendly as possible with the power brokers that are not at the extremes, among muslim Middle Eastern leaders. Negotiate. And yes, believe it or not, I'd say we should give them things they want. Focus on countries like Turkey, India, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and other moderate states with large islamic populations, and try to use them as partners in the fight. I am not saying this will be easy, but at least give it some effort (which we have done only partially to this point). Two, you get us off of oil ASAP, so we are in a power position in negotiations, instead of one of weakness. Even the first whiffs of any serious move this direction by the U.S. will bring many Middle Eastern countries to the table. Thus far, the current US Congress and PrezAdmin have shown almost zero desire to get this done. Three, you get serious about building Iraq. Yeah, the war was a debacle and still is. But pulling out is a huge mistake. Instead, commit MORE troops, and restructure our process there from the ground up. Pull troops out of areas we cannot control entirely, and beef up the central cities. Let Kurdistan go their own way (if not officially, then under the covers). Get a semi-calm Baghdad and a stable government (which will take years). Then, the extremists and violent factions will be forced out to specific, remote parts of the country. This isolates them from the mainstream, makes them easier to find and kill, etc. You notice how none of these point any fingers at Islam? And none of these things will encourage extremism in the long run? It also gives an out for the moderates in a few different angles. Make it about peace versus war, instead of Islam vs TheRestOfTheWorld. Its the only way we can be successful, in my opinion.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 28, 2006 -> 03:53 PM) http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stor...5B?OpenDocument http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...al/15832172.htm ACORN has been doing this for a while. it's not really a "paranoid" theory. Thank you for the information. Its a good thing some of these garbage registrations are being caught. I wonder how often this happens each election cycle, from ACORN and other groups. And further, I wonder what could be done to prevent such fraud?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 28, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) Toquoteoneofour liberal posters, First they came for women, then gays, who is next? Next it will be ok to kill Canadians because they gave the world Celine Dion. Then the Amish because compared to Muslim women, those Amish babes are real whores. Where will it end? What are you talking about? Who has ever said any of these things you point out are OK? Who has defended idiocy? The only argument people have is with making this into a crusade. For the umpteenth time... IF YOU MAKE THIS ABOUT RELIGION, THERE WILL BE NO WINNING. You'll just further polarize the situation and give the extremists EXACTLY what they want - a religious crusade. Get it? Its what the extremists on all sides want. A nice, hateful war.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 28, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) One thing that has been said somewhere on soxtalk in the last few days, and I'm in total agreement, is to get the damn election system UNIFORM. There's too many ways to vote (optical, push button, whatever), and it should be the same across the country, so everyone votes the same way. How hard is that? Too hard, I guess. I completely agree. I voted on early Friday, because I'll be out of town on 11/7. It was at 69 W. Washington (Cook County Office Building). And I have to say, I was impressed with the machines. Electronic, touch screens, big clear font, easy to understand. You could go back to previous screens if you wanted to. It showed you a confirm screen at the end. And, it put out a paper receipt which you could scroll up and down after it printed, to double check. The receipt then rolled back into a storage box for audit trail purposes. Such a system, with the backup trail like that, is most excellent.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 06:42 PM) don't worry rex, McCaskill and ACORN are ready to make a "push" at the polls. aka, blatent voter fraud. hmmm, wonder why the democrats are so against showing an id before voting.... Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your paranoia?

The victim was going through a stack of old newspapers, searching for a headline declaring a Cubs World Series win, for his scrap book. He died before he could find one.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) I think your last paragraph sums it up for me. It seems to me from a macroperspective that science itself has some major holes in it, so for anyone to be so sure of their final answer, I just stop listening. (like I do to those who are so sure of their faith). Do we swim in some ambiguous ocean of doubt? no. but I think we can all appreciate that life isn't black and white. I think this is a very good synopsis, for my feelings as well. To wholesale write off any possible existence of "God" (whatever that may mean), or to do the same to well-documented scientific data about evolution, is a decision to be ignorant.

:uhoh Kip, where is Webb saying its not a sexual act? I don't see that in the Drudge article, or the CNN ticker item.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 01:29 AM) Well Cora literally cost us at least a run a game the last 3 months of this year That is ridiculous.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) Well evidently I got another BIG "endorsement" There is a local guy who does a TV show that many of the older people in this town follow religiously. Not only did he say that people should vote for me, he mentioned me first of all the canditates, and said that if we wanted real change, that I was the one they had to make sure to vote for. Tonight went really well also, I got a lot of questions that I had a lot of facts, figures, and research into, and really was able to tie it in well to my ideas, theories, and knowledge of MC. I want it to be election day NOW! Rock & Roll, man! That's fantastic. If only I could vote in MC.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) I just wish he wouldn't have done the ads and just stuck to what he does best... and that is speaking out on behalf of finding a cure for his disease. By doing the ads, he threw himself into a spectacle that should have never been. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that it was planned by the Dems to use MJF, for the very reasons it's doing right now... attention. And that's the part I disagree with. I don't believe that for a second. Not that the political partieS are capable of that. But if you look at what Fox has been doing for years, he clearly has been doing everything he can for his cause. And I've seen him show support for those in both parties. I think he could care less which party it is, if the candidate supports the cause. With all the quibbling we do in here about party loyalty gone extreme, in this case, the issue splits both parties and I think its actually NOT one of those issues.

I pretty much agree with the sentiments here. Great that its allowed, great that I can not go, and no, I won't spend my money on such a thing.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) The fetus one yeah. I was just making a point that making an effective ad isn't always acceptable. But it's not more or less typical. Watch any recent speech he gives and it's not even close. If he didn't take his medicine and then filmed the ad, it's no different than a paralzyed person not using their wheelchair just to show they can't use their legs. It's misrepresenting the condition he's usually in. I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV. I certainly agree that political ads are lacking in intelligent discussion. They are definitely all about the sound bite, the shock value, and the outright deception. Both sides too. They're really almost comical in some instances. I'd laugh, except, for some people, they'll take it seriously, and that's sad. Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Christopher Reeve showing up in front of Congress (on multiple occasions I think) trying to champion research? I think there is a grey area there, as to how far is OK to go. I personally am OK with Reeve, and also Fox's actions.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) But there are levels of acceptability with 'effective' ads. Like I said before, if there's an anti-abortion ad why not show a pile of bloody fetus'. It effectively shows what happens, but is it in good taste? In part he's also misrepresenting his disease. Why not show a spinal cord injury victim who's paralyzed from the waist down crawling on the floor, struggling to get to the bathroom or kitchen or wherever he wants to go? Sure, they could have taped him using his wheelchair, but why do that when we can effectively show the problems associated with being paralyzed? "See how difficult it is for him to move? See how difficult it is for him to live on a daily basis? Vote for X because he supports stem cell research which could allow this victim to walk again. The other candidate loves the fact this man must crawl to any place he wants to go. He hates stem cell research and he hates you. Vote X in 2007." It's crap. You think showing someone with more-or-less typical Parkinson's symptoms is equivalent to a pile of dead fetuses? Or someone crawling around on the ground? Use hyperbole much?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Well thank you for that. better get me a new Firefox. Can it read and respond to my thoughts, like the plane in the movie with the same name? Because that would be cool.

There are some people in fandom, and on this site, who are 100% about performance. I'm not one of them. I don't expect everyone to be angels, but... I just can't feel any great respect for someone who is given an incredible gift, is paid millions to live their dream, and then s***s all over the people who put him on that pedestal. Sheffield, Moss, Bonds and their ilk can take a flyer. They will never have my respect, and I never want to see them on any of the teams I root for. I'm sure they're heart-broken to hear that.

So there is a movie coming out this week on a limited basis, called "Death of a President". It depicts the assassination of Dubya, in October of 2007. Critics don't seem to think much of it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_president/ But, it did win some kind of award at a film festival in Toronto (which means, well, nothing). Here is what I'm curious about - how do people feel about this being a movie at all? A movie depicting the future murder of a sitting President is, suffice it to say, shocking to some. Some movie theatre companies are already saying they won't show it. Is it appropriate? To me, I certainly have no problem with it in any legal sense. But I also have no problem with theatre companies deciding not to air it. Anyone else feel differently? Will you see it?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) How about Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon? I understand that you probably have never met them, but they fit that radical part quite nicely. We should send these two over to the mid east to kick some Muslim butt! You know, what you hit on there is an interesting political point. I'd think it might be a smart move for the GOP to center their marketing regarding the war/defense/terror around the treatment of women under extremist regimes in the Middle East. That may be very effective in appealing to women voters. Early on in the Afghanistan conflict, that was a big issue, but it seems to have subsided. The reality is still there though, in some countries and some cultures.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) I apologize if my post seemed attacking, It was not intended to be and moreso a matter of fact and reminder that unless you know or spent some time with MJF that comments are opinions. Obviously some here have first hand exp with the disease but just because one person doesn't have one symptom doesn't mean others don't as well. No prob Steff. It wasn't directed at you or anyone else specifically. The thread just seemed to have a head of steam going in a bad direction, and I wanted to keep it under control.

OK, let's all take a deep breath before we post. Discuss, don't diss. This is a tough topic, and some of us have a personal stake.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) If you believe that men are oppressors......... If you believe in abortion on demand............. If you believe in preferential treatment for women similar to affirmative action......... If you openly hostile to the concept of marriage between a man and a woman.............. Oh hell, it's all right here. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1662.cfm Nuke, 1969 called. It wants its political angst back. I really cannot think of a human being I've seen on TV or met in person that fits the above. This "radical feminist agenda" thing is a figment of someone's imagination at this point in time.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:33 AM) I think the bottom line here is that most of this stuff really doesn't have an effect on people's daily lives, in spite of the hysteria, and as such they don't percieve it as a threat. Absolutely. And that's true both of the threat itself (terror), and the actions taken against it by governments. Therefore, most people tend to be nonchalant about it, until something bad happens.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:31 AM) Without having a real good handle on the details of it... the term that comes to mind is dead cat bounce. The old saying goes if you drop a dead cat off of a building, it still does bounce up when it hits the ground. The problem is, the cat is still dead. That's the other side I was referring to. A 2 month bounce may, or may not, be indicative of anything.

To follow up on the housing discussion and its effect on the economy, housing prices dropped 9.7% YOY in September, the largest drop in 35 years. But, the pace of sales has climbed the last two months. So, if the sales rise isn't a blip, it looks like the fall in prices is being immediately followed by a snap-up by consumers. That could spell good news for keeping the "housing recession" shallow and short. Or not. Hard to tell just yet.