NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) Here is how the vote went in the Senate Bayh voted yes?! Damn. First strike. And I was beginning to like him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) 14 dems did vote for this amendment as well. I'd be curious which '08 Prez candidates voted which way. I did a Senate count like that in a thread a while back on some other vote, but now I can't find the link. If anyone has it handy...

Whenever I see these conflicts over districting, and see that it is performed by the legislature(s), it always makes me cringe. It doesn't seem like legislative bodies should be handling that. But then I must admit, I cannot think of a better way. Some sort of independent commission would seem justified, but it would be hard to insulate them from partisan politics.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Or did they? .... "Majority Press Release" Hilarious. And not one thing in this article that I can see actually supports any falsehoods in the questioned article. Just makes opposite claims. Its simply a response column. Fine. Don't believe them. Don't believe the scores of scientists, and keep polluting and writing death sentences for millions. Yes, millions. Increase our health care costs, give us more heart and lung problems, destroy more crops... because God forbid we expect users of natural resources to do so responsibly. History is repleat with examples of what happens when any society, small or large, assumes the earth will just give us whatever we want regardless of how we treat it: decimation. The earth acts like a living thing, and it reacts in kind to threats. When we become the threat, we will suffer the consequences. One would have to be blind to not see this pattern in history.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) I'm going to go back to my original thought, which is that Minnesota is going to end up with 94-95 wins this year. Granted, they are almost done with beating up on the National League, and even Kansas City will give them more trouble than many of those teams. But with Santana/Liriano penciled in to win 4 out of every 10 games, they only have to split the other 6 games to keep on a .700 win pace. If that's too high (and it is), a .667 pace from here on out leaves them at 98 wins. A .600 pace leaves them at 92 wins. I think they'll end up somewhere in between, which will probably be better than the runner-up in the AL East and the winner of the AL West. At the end of the day, the AL Central could have 3 of the 4 best teams in the American League (and baseball, since the National League is SO PATHETIC), with one of them sitting out the postseason. The Sox probably need to win 100+ games to win this division. Minny is playing really well right now, but they ain't that good. They have nothing like the kind of talent that DET and us have, or even that CLE has, really. The twinkies will finish near .500. No way they are playing close to .600 ball the rest of the way

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 07:09 AM) Are you serious? http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...c=51213&st=105# Same back at ya. Just change the subject in question.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 07:15 AM) Question - Who else thinks from here on out to the end of the season, Minnesota will have a better record than Detroit? Not I. DET will fade a bit, because their pitching is not this good. But Minny will fade worse - they lack the talent this year.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) You have it all wrong. You protect the flag at all costs. And that was an eloquent speech but it really is total BS again, because I don't have to deal with flag burning. I also noticed that other than couple Rep-Dem switched lines it was the same ole damn hard line liberals like Kerry, Clinton and so on who opposed it. My question is why do they hate America so much yet still hold the office as US senator? Maybe because they actually don't really care about these issues and it just way to disagree with republicans and President Bush so they can scratch a few more votes in November. These are not patriots just scum suckers You think that people who are trying to defend the Constitution and the right to express displeasure with the government (which is at the root of our country's existence) are scum suckers? You think that Senators who feel this is a waste of time and resources when there are issues like war and starvation and poverty hate America? You baffle me in a way no one else on this board ever has. If you want to agree with the flag burning amendment, while I would disagree with you vehemently, I could respect your position. But it is impossible to enter into any sort of informed debate with you, when you make posts like this.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) I don't have "proof" but I think the same. I think they have been trying since the middle 70's, at least. Also, as a side note, that's why I think we're in Iraq now, but that's besides the point. No need for a mask there. I would say that most thinking men and women knew from the start that the excuses of WMD, Saddam and 9/11 Iraq connections were all thin and unsupported. The anchorhead was the ultimate goal, as a regional power play.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:51 PM) This is completely false. The current regime in Iran took root in 1979 - 27 years ago. Iran's government spent the bulk of its first 9 years fighting Iraq. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:53 PM) It is absolutely a large difference, especially when you consider that Iran went just short of a decade at war with Iran. 27 years and forty -- huge gap there, and then subtract nine from twenty seven, and you've got a lot less years to pursue nuclear weapons -- weapons that take years -- and it gives a very different view of the situation. It's important to have a genuine timeframe here, Kap. Personally, I think some sort of action has to be taken, but the Iranians are still a ways off of their nukes, and I think it's important to keep that in perspective. What makes you two think that Iran wasn't pursuing nukes when at war with Iraq? In fact, I'm willing to be that war made them all the more likely to try for them.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) Does it matter that the NYTimes couldn't find anything illegal in their disclosure of this information ? The point is that Democrats and Republicans were in the know on this secret program, there was no issue over the legality of it, and it was a tool in the War on Terror that can no longer be used because the NYTimes decided that everyone should know about it. I'm not suggesting that we should restrict the freedom of press. I am simply upset that the NYTimes used such poor judgment. Why release it if it's a legal program that both sides of the aisle were on board with ? What I want to know is who the leakers are.....This can't be tolerated. Can no longer be used? What in the world makes you think it can't be used anymore? It can be, and will be, probably with as much success in the future as before.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:12 PM) I think the perceived hypocrisy in kap's estimation is that the MSM stoked the Fitzmas fire in the wake of the Plame outing, but is now saying they did nothing wrong in outing this program. I don't see hypocrisy there - in fact, I see consistency. I see the NYT pushing to do err on the side of disclosure in both cases, but taking time to consider in both cases as well. What is the different treatment? Maybe I am not correctly remembering the details of the Plame affair.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:40 PM) Honestly, this is much ado about nothing, but it's at least VERY hypocritical in nature of the NYT, et. al. OK, I understand that some people think that the NYT went to far in publishing that information. I don't agree, but I understand it. But will you please point out the hypocrisy? Where is the uneven treatment?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) The very same people who are trying to undermine national security and actively cheer for terrorists to kill as many Americans as they can. Oh come on, Nuke. Point out one poster on this board who would cheer for that. Where is the green font?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) So, the Bush administration is going to throw environmental science professors in Gitmo for being "contrarian"? Nice try, but Gore's movie has the ability to sway public opinion, which will ultimately affect who moves into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Researchers who rely on federal grant money have every motive under the sun to legitimize Gore's movie. Actually, it has been shown multiple times in this very forum that scientists with agencies like NASA and NOAA have been told to reign in certain pieces of information, by the Administration.

For those who may have forgotten, our very own manager once battled with the media to get his name right. To this day, very few do. He insisted it was "Gee-ZHEN" (the 'zh' being like a j an z combined). But people all pronounce it Gee-en. He apparently gave up correcting people at some point.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Not to mention Bob Baer thinks Aminejad might have had direct links with the 9/11 bombers. I would definitely agree, from what I have seen and read, that Iran had a heck of a lot more connection to 9/11 than Iraq did. QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) I don't mean to start another debate on the merits of the war in Iraq, but it now feels like we've wasted the our military and political capital on invading Iraq when military options in Iran might need to be pursued. I think its really dangerous to let Iran have nuclear technology. Not only is Isreal in direct reach of Iranian missle range, Iran is just goofy enough to start pawning off its technology to groups that actually might strike the U.S. They seem 10 times more likely to hit us (or our allies) than Iraq ever did. Now if just feels inevitable. Iran will have nukes. Scary. I'd agree with this too.

Some would say we are headed back onto Nostradamus' track.

Its funny, I am seeing conservatives here make the same arguments (elementally) that they accuse liberals of using, and vice versa. For example... The government extends its arms into surveillance, further than many Democrats and Libertarians would like. Dems compare the behavior to Hilter. GOP'ers say its hyperbole and ludicrous, that its a very small intrusion in the scale of things. Now here, we have a column in a handful of papers (not just the NYT) that "outs" the existence of a surveillance program. GOP'ers scream "treason!", and Dems say it represents no harm to ongoing ops. Just an observation. Same tactics, different subjects, opposite parties.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) I don't think he ever compared the two. He just lead off his article with some hyperbole. You looked at that and since you're so "grounded" chose not to continue reading. If you stop reading everytime someone exaggerates the first line of their article, then you probably aren't finishing too many articles. Honestly, when an article opens up with a comparison so ridiculous it illicits open laughter, I generally stop reading. Unless of course the column/article is intended to be comedy, which I don't think this was.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) Guess I'm not grounded in reality. Do you actually think that what appeared in the NYT and giving away launch codes are in the same universe?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater Jun 27, 2006 by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact ) Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be … a matter of public interest"? After reading the above first line, I stopped reading the article. The author managed to effectively filter out anyone grounded in reality right there.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:30 AM) They said the $37 billion could feed 350 million people or about 6-7% of the planet for an entire year. You know, now that I think about it, here is an idea for a grand experiment. Take that $37 billion, and fund a small, poor African country for a few years... entirely. Seriously. Budget the country for that period. Food and health care, a few roads built, some infrastructure, etc. One huge, focused push for one country. See where it goes.

If any terrorists didn't think the U.S. was monitoring these financial transactions, then they are too small-time for us to have cared about them (in this sphere) in the first place. And frankly, publishing the information probably helps add to the scare tactics, and may even help the cause. I just don't see how this is wrong, let alone the silly allegations of TREASON TREASON TREASON!!! It seems to me the papers all gave this a lot of thought, they decided to publish highly generalized information that was newsworthy, and that is all. I just don't see the reason for the uproaro.

This thread has all sorts of ugly stuff in it, but it seems to have settled down a bit. I'd ask that we please try to keep it civil, so that the discussion may continue. Thank you for your support.