NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) I bet some of those numbers are skewed by Cubs fans who are trying to make us look bad by f***ing the results to make it look like hating the Cubs is still our #1 agenda Just yours.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) The cattle corrals etc is why they are the only profitable airline. They fill up their flights, and they have low costs. Meh, the ssigned seats doesn't add much cost. When you check in, instead of getting a card that says "A", you get a seat number. The only significant cost is implementing seat-assigning software for the check in terminal stations. That's a pretty small cost for a big marketing benefit. They have lower costs because of excellent management, liberal use of non-monetary benefits, smart fuel hedging, simplified hardware (737 only), and no frills product. QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) The times I've flown Southwest I've always had an assigned seat. News to me. I've never heard of anyone getting an assigned seat on southwest. But I haven't flown them in a year or two either, so maybe they were piloting this new program.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) I was just thinking, from a political capital and opportunity point of view, what President has pissed away, or had taken away, more political capital than Bush? Control of everything up to the Supreme Court and a post 9/11 approval rating that was through the roof. Amazing to think about. That may be the central theme when historians view his career. I think he, perhaps much like Jimmy Carter, may have had too much heart for the job. I may question his mind and intelligence, but Bush has a good heart. I really believe it. I would tend to agree. I think he does the things he thinks are right on their face, instead of trying to play games. I do admire that. But he lacks management skills, as evidenced by his closed-circuit cabinet. And while I do think he is smarter than he sounds on TV, on a Presidential scale, he's not the brightest. And I think his priorities are a bit out of whack.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) I think there is a window of opportunity, and guys like McCain and Lieberman could lead the way. As the parties polarize themselves, they are leaving a lot of Americans in the middle. I'd prefer Bayh or Richardson, for a centrist candidate. McCain is becoming senile, and Lieberman is a gamer disguised as a crusader.

QUOTE(Steff @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) 2K+ (guessing on the #) people had already died, three major buildings had been hit, and there were more than a dozen calls confirming the plane was hijacked... there would have been no negative ramifications had that plane needed to be shot down, IMO. Obviously - from the actions of those on the place - they knew that was the only choice. I have to agree. I really don't think there would have been some huge effort to tear down Bush on this one. It would have been one of those rare situations where politics would likely have abstained.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:15 AM) linked Excellent. I love everything about Southwest, except the cattle corral entry and musical seats on the plane. If they actually assign seats at check in, I will be a Southwest fan for life.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2006 -> 08:30 PM) There is a conspiracy for everything. This one centers around the crater and the plane. The reasoning for shooting it down follows the logic of, we can't gain control of the plane, the plane is going to fly into something and kill many more people, possibly tens of thousands (early death toll estimate for World Trade Towers), the passengers are doomed anyways, let's minimize the casualties. The military shooting down a civilian plane, full of innocent US citizens, wouldn't be something anybody would want to take credit for. I understand why you'd shoot it down. I just don't think that act would have been something to cover up, even if you see if from a purely political point of view. I don't think it would have hurt anyone's image - I think it may even have strengthened Bush's.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 16, 2006 -> 09:44 PM) And what parts of those misfortunes would be ours? Oh jeez, this could be a book... We meddle. A LOT. Throughout the Cold War, we manipulated, pulled strings, propped up governments and destroyed them like so much of a chess game. We gave money to militant gangs who conveniently hated our enemies. We let US industry (oil particularly) go over there and have there way, including using what amounts to slave labor. We ignore the realities about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we dislike, which would be fine in itself, except then we support Israel militarily. The whole creation of the state of Israel was itself an insulting, arrogant act against the existing middle eastern cultures. Shall I go on?

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) I don't think releasing the tape will stop anything. The conspiracy nuts will still have an answer. I have no doubt a plane hit the Pentagon while being flown by a terrorist. Now the last plane, that one I could be persuaded was brought down in a lightly populated area instead of allowing it to continue and cause even more damage. If that was the case, and I believe it is far fetched, my prayers are with President Bush for having to make that decision and the pilots that carried out the mission. That is about the toughest call any US President would have had to make. Wait... are there people who think that the PA flight was shot down, and that fact was covered up? I don't get that. Why would they do that? To me, given Bush's political style, I'd think that the shoot-down would actually be something he'd want to take credit for. Not because of the people that died, but because of the decision it means he made. Lives would have potentially been saved.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 16, 2006 -> 03:15 PM) You know what I just adore about Americans? We've got people calling for everything from the army on the border to an extra 100,000 border patrol agents to unmanned drones patrolling every sector of the border to a 1200 mile multi layered fence with motion sensors along the whole thing, and the moment you raise the spectre of Americans actually having to spend money on all those new devices... "I think we spend enough in taxes to secure the border" "Oh the government should get its house in order first" "The finger thing means the taxes". Which is why I made the suggestion I did. And why I advocate a technological solution backed by the military (at first), as opposed to a giant wall and a hundred thousand BP agents.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ May 16, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) How about cutting 5% from entitlement programs to hire 100,000 border patrol agents? I've got another idea. Hire the extra border patrol and customs agents. Have half of them go after the businesses hiring illegals. Fine the s*** out of the guilty businesses to fund the department. You can call them the "Border Revenue Patrol". I'm only joking about the name - serious about the rest.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 16, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Personally, I think the border patrol is better suited for patrolling the border. Of course, it would have really been nice if we had opportunities in recent years to expand the border patrol so that we wouldn't have had to use the Guard? Man that would have been convenient. Border Patrol doesn't have the manpower right now - they are starving for bodies. And it will stay that way unless we are willing to pay them more. Meanwhile, the Guard has the bodies, some of the training necessary, and the equipment.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) VOTE DENNIS KUCHINICH FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!! I'd just like to say that I have a lot more respect for Kucinich than I do for various others and the left end (Kennedy, Feingold, etc.). I think Kucinich is what some might call "the real thing". I haven't met the man, so I am speculating here, but his actions speak words of honesty to me. He is there to crusade for what he sees as just causes, and doesn't seem to be as poisoned by the political machine as many others.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ May 15, 2006 -> 02:42 PM) Hey, a Cyclone game that's relevant to more than one of us. Ahem.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 15, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) There are few ultra-liberal ideas that the Democratic party actually advocates. This is true, and its true of ultra-conservative views as well. While there has been some polarization of the two major parties in the country recently, they are still both pretty centrist when one looks around the globe.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 15, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) It's not a logical system if it doesn't allow the demand for work to actually be fulfilled. Its not a PERFECT system. It is, however, legal and logical. I'm not saying the system is great. What I am saying is that just because it is currently not economically ideal, that is not an excuse to ignore it.

After all the whining I've heard about the Sunday lineup... How about Widger - 3 for 5, HR, 3 RBI!!! Mack with 3 hits too. Cintron with a hit. Good defense by all. And not starters any of them. I'll take our Sunday lineup over some teams' first team. And I'll take the rest it gives our starters too. Great game, good way to end the series!

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 15, 2006 -> 02:51 PM) There is? Where? Let me know when it's implemented. I'm all for a legal, logical process. Are you serious? You apply for a visa. People do it all the time. Most countries have a very similar process in place. How hard is that? You may not like the levels of visas, and a guest worker program is certainly a nice addition to things. But if you think there isn't a serviceable process already in place, you aren't paying attention.

QUOTE(juddling @ May 15, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) When someone shows up at my doorstep wanting to work they stop and ring the bell. They don't come in through my cellar windows, camp in my living room then demand i open the front door for their 39 family members coming up the walk! And that about says it right there. That is why I am in favor of securing the border (in addition to the other measures), and I have no desire to grant amnesty to trespassers. There is a legal, logical process in place - use it or go home.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 15, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) I for one think this is a step in the wrong direction for the creation of a guest worker program. One of the demands of the folks who don't want such a program is for a massively increased presence or a wall along the border. They're being given that in this deal with absolutely nothing in return. In politics, if you want to craft a bill that pleases everyone, it also has to please no one. In other words, you have to get the 2 sides to each be willing to give up on something they consider to be vital. I.e. if the anti-immigration folks want a strong defensive line or a wall along the southern border, well then they have to be willing to accept some measure of legalization for the folks here, or something like that. This is giving them exactly that demand without getting anything in return. I don't share that bunker mentality. I'm not a die-hard Dem, I just want to see the best stuff make it through. The GOP wants troops, and they will probably get them. Dems and some GOP want a guest worker program, and I think that will materialize too. I think both will happen because both have popular support, and support from the Prez. The piece that I think will fall by the wayside, sadly, is the demand side of the equation. Little will be done to curtail the hiring of illegals, because there is almost no one available to go after violators (and Bush is pro-business to a fault). So we'll end up only fixing part of the problem, because Congress and this President lack any sort of courage.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 15, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) It worked so well last time Tex, if one or two people are killed inappropriately in this effort, but a couple hundred DON'T die of heat stroke in the desert... then from that perspective, it was a worthwhile effort. I am a lot more scared of these "militias" than I am of Guardsmen in any case. I am OK with the use of troops, though I do find it bizarre they are saying the troops won't be involved in apprehension. I see no purpose in that limitation. At least this isn't going to be a wall. Troops are temporary, hopefully, until the rest of the pieces can be put in place (real penalties for firms hiring illegals, a guest worker program, more use of technology for detection on the border, etc.). A wall would be a boondoggle financially, environmentally and in terms of effectiveness. For now, troops in place is good, as long as that is followed up with the rest of what I listed. Oh, forgot to add, this is absolutely an attempt to shore up the GOP base by Bush. There are probably other motives as well, but that is #1.

QUOTE(Soxy @ May 15, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Linkage Looks like the religious right may try to withhold support from Republicans during the midterm elections. . . And the splitting of the Republican party into two continues: self-righteous morality-legislators (who seem to hate the Constitution and personal freedom) in one camp, fiscal and governmental conservatives (whom I have immense respect for) in the other.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ May 15, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) I am OK with this and it has nothing to do with the GOP. It has to do with protecting this country. If 6 months from now we catch a terrorist, wouldn't it be extremely beneficial for the NSA, CIA, FBI or who ever the hell does it, to look back and see who they called when. Wouldn't it be beneficial to capture a whole cell or multiple cells because of this program. This is not to track John and Mary Jones. This is not infinging on your rights to have a private and secure conversation. Your number willl never even be looked at unless you're speaking to someone you shouldn't be. This program can be an enormous help in the fight. I mean you people do know that terrorists don't walk around with signs that say "I want to kill Americans." We don't know who they are right now. If we do catch one...we can go back and see who they have links to. We can catch others that want to blow up our buildings. We can catch others that want to kill our way of life. Yeah, I'm all for that. If you think it's just because of party affiliation then so be it. Of course it would be beneficial to know who they called. Which is why they should get a warrant for THAT PERSON'S phone records if/when they need it. No one is saying otherwise. The problem is that they decided it was OK to just collect all the phone records they wanted without any sort of cause. As for Law & Order, while I believe a warrant is needed for that type of thing at least some of the time, even if it isn't, they still need cause. That information is not public record. The legal hurdle for that cause may be lower than what is needed for a physical search warrant, but some sort of cause is still required. This program pulls data with no cause established whatsoever. Cause is applicable to the subject, and this search has no subject - it is hitting everyone in this country who uses a phone. That is not acceptable to me.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 14, 2006 -> 06:45 PM) what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house. The things that they are avoiding are the ones that take more than a 4 year term to have an impact. Like addressing the roots of the hatred. Acknowledging our mistakes in the region publicly might be a good start. Also, and this is a really tough one, I think we need to focus more on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And focus on more than events and people - focus on a long term solution and, if necessary, bring down the hammer on both sides (I am not saying that is some easy thing, but its THE nexus point in the region politically, in my mind). The biggest thing we can do is get off oil. Now. No more B.S. As soon as we stop relying on that region in any economic way, we suddenly have a breadth of possible tools at our disposal in the region. There is little more important than that right now.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 14, 2006 -> 06:35 PM) thats an extremely bold statement that, I would argue, few agree with. until now, i have honestly never met someone that has plainly said that they would prefer to have terrorist bombings on US soil instead of having this NSA program that is listening to our phone conversations. i guess this is where the ranks part ways on the issue. ive said before that i would rather have a prez trying to do too much than i would a prez who sits around and waits to be attacked. i believe this is a substantial reason why bush was elected in the last election. I think you are right about a major reason Bush was re-elected. But I also think thats a very short-sighted view, and more and more of the American public is learning that. What's the famous quote? He would give up freedom for security deserves neither? I think people are starting to learn that. And I'd actually agree with Rex on that particular point. I'd rather have a car bomb or two, and the associated death toll, than hand over our rights on a platter. The government can do a LOT more than they are right now to secure this country WITHOUT stomping all over the Constitution. They just seem unwilling to go the hard road and do those things.