NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ May 14, 2006 -> 05:40 PM) If true, I don't think it will be nearly irrelevant by any means. Rove had been reassigned to work pretty much exclusively on politics, i.e., positioning the GOP to hold onto as many seats in Congress as possible. Rove is a really shrewd strategist, pretty much the guy that even made same-sex marriage a campaign issue in '04. Without somebody like him trying to unify the currently disshevelled GOP around a couple of key issues, I think they will be limping into '06. He was shrewd and very savvy, and a key piece for the GOP machine. But the point I was trying to make here is that he is no longer terribly relevant in that arena. Let's look at this for a second. For Bush's administration, he doesn't serve much more of a purpose. Their direction is set, and barring a complete reversal of character, it ain't changin'. As for the GOP generally, given the utter failure of this administration which he led, and the piss-poor polling data, I don't think they want him leading things right now. They'd avoid him. So, in short, he has very little upside for the GOP for '06 or '08. Therefore, despite his obvious importance up to now, he's just not that important anymore. And don't think he, and Bush, don't know that - he may very well be served up here like so much chaff for the press to hone in on. Rove knows he is set for life after this, and may even come back later. But its his turn to fall, and so he will.

Sad day, really. Rove is slimy so I hold no sympathy for him, but I don't think this ends up helping anyone. The Bush presidency has had its own wheels for far too long, and it won't change direction much with Rove out the door. If this had been early on in his administration, it might have made a big difference. Today? Nearly irrelevant, in terms of going forward. The only positive I see here is sending a message to future candidates about handing over their operations to guys like Rove.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 14, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) What was it that made us so reliant on technology anyway? Oh yeah. It was Clinton stopping the CIA from recruiting anyone. We became reliant on technology because it did SOME things really well. Then the bureaucrats saw things through rose-colored glasses, and extrapolated that into the ability to cut manpower and human intelligence. That second sentence describes what went wrong. And I agree, Clinton was part of that. But then, so was Congress. One of the few good things that has come from our governmental adjustment to the realities of a post-9/11 world is the drive to use BOTH sigint and humint. I hope that continues.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 13, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) Yes, because someone (probably Northsidesox) will bring it up, all religions have their problems. Just happens those connected to Islam are attributed to far more violence than others. And as much as some people don't want to admit it, there's obviously ambiguous versus within the Quran which may be misinterpreted by those reading them. This is an issue. There may be a Christian backed, right-wing conspiracy constructed to soil Islam's reputation, but from what I've observed from my own unbiased eyes, this religion has a MAJOR image problem. Yeah, go ahead and tell me about Christianity's problems with the KKK, or what transpired 800 years ago in Europe. Islam is living three hundred years behind the rest of the civilized world. I wouldn't mock the "religion of peace" label, though. Even if you liberally calculate active terrorists associated with Islam, it wouldn't be enough to account for 1/50 of 1%. Problem is whenever something is attributed to Islam--aka., terrorist bombing, there's always the two groups. One suggests, mockingly, "religion of peace at it again..." Another replies, "You can't hold all Muslim's accountable! Chrisitians aren't exactly void of trouble!" I don't believe neither are right. As usual, the truth lies in between both arguments. I suppose I'm obligated to respond... To put this as plainly as I can, I prefer to judge people on their actions and not their associations. People who are violent need to be punished - those that are not should not. And I refuse to apply the actions of one or even many to an entire religion, race or nation. The religion isn't the problem (for Islam or any other of the big ones). Its the actions that people falsely attribute to its tenets. That is why these are "extremists". Really, they are just looking for an excuse. An excuse for the poverty and corruption in their countries, which should be directed at their own governments. And to an extent, an excuse for hating the West for intruding so disastrously in their affairs - a valid thing to be upset about. I agree that Islam has an image problem. Many of the nations which have large Islamic populations are in dire straits on many fronts, which is in great part what is causing the rising hatred. So perhaps we need to be focusing on this governments, instead of religion. Of course, it might also help if we had the balls to stand up and admit what part we had in their misfortunes, because we are not free of culpubility here. But I'm afraid that is highly unlikely to happen. At this point, I'd settle for us getting our cannons focused on the right targets.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 13, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) I thought Rush was moving to Texas. Seriously that is right where I live and creates an interesting dilema. The area is moving away from agriculture and towards tourism, especially eco-tourism and birders are the #1 growth industry. The World Birding Headquarters is located here. It is the spot in North America for birding. My understanding is the turbines will be in an area that isn't visited much, so visually it shouldn't be much of a problem, but promoting the area as the center of the birding universe and having a bird shop-o-matic spinning, seems to be at odds. I have read that the kill rate for those turbines is much lower than stationary buildings in large metro areas. No solution is perfect, but this is a positive step, in my mind.

Its truly staggering to me that people on this board who align themselves with the GOP are OK with this. I've voted for Republican Prez candidates more than Dems over the years, and for a long time, I stood firmly with many of the tenets of the Grand Old Party - smaller government, local control, fiscal discipline, etc. And yet here is another program in a list of many which absolutely flies in the face of some of these principles, and there are people who STILL stand by it. They are forced to use arguments that make those core principles seem irrelevant or non-existent, just to defend the actions of people who happened to also be Republicans. To me, this is akin to the people who try to defend the Catholic Church's complete ineptness in handling molestation, simply because they are Catholic. For me, if I am part of an organization, religion or political party that is chipping away at the very principles that drew me to it, I am MORE inclined to call them on it. Not less.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ May 12, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Seems pretty clear, no? One would think.

QUOTE(mreye @ May 12, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) Thank you. I looked all over and couldn't find that for some reason. Eye- You've lost 36 pounds in 4.5 months??? That's pretty damn impressive. Nicely done!

QUOTE(WCSox @ May 12, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) Keep in mind that Hunter and Santana are MIN's only two marquee players. Their ticket sales would drop significantly if they unloaded Torii. They are already near the bottom of all MLB in ticket sales anyway. I don't think they can get much lower on attendance.

The excuse that "we did it before" is lame. We've done lots of stupid things before. And the excuse that "I have nothing to hide" is even worse. It says that its OK for joe citizen if they avoid certain topics in their lives, and that is unamerican in my opinion. Any domestic data for phone calls or electronic media that is being mined, collected or analyzed without a warrant is wrong. Period. I don't care if we did it before or not.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 11, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195083,00.html This is complete and utter bulls***. Who the f*** does the Mexican Government think they are challenging state laws designed to crack down on illegals?! It f***ing burns me up that our government ( the Bush Administration ) is allowing this to happen. This is further proof ( as if any was needed ) that the Mexican government is totally corrupt and is only interested in exporting poverty to the United States. I don't get what they would use as grounds for the lawsuit. The article doesn't specify, and I can't think of a logical basis in law.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ May 11, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Those two points are very wrong. Almost all retracable roof stadiums and not open-air. When they are closed, they are sealed from the outdoor eliments. One exception is SafeCo Field (I still have no idea why they decided to make it an open-air stadium when it's closed. As for the cold weather thing, the SuperBowl was in Detroit this year!!! 72,000 for football. So, enlarge it a little and it is easily 80,000 I think you are mistaken, or misunderstood open air. Some stadiums with retractable roofs are very open, like Safeco, but also Houston's baseballs stadium (whatever the current corporate name is), and I think Milwaukee too, right? But even the ones that close up are still considered open air facilities. In any case, even if I'm wrong and the Final Four went in there, you are talking about a once every few years thing (if that). Super Bowl would be once in DECADES. The realities of this stadium requirement are not pretty for the city.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ May 11, 2006 -> 03:40 PM) By the way, here is what it would look like if they built a stadium where I proposed (note: this is the AlamoDome being superimposed over the area. Isn't the Alamodone a lot smaller than 80k?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 11, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) I shall answer this. Okay, well first off, the stadium would be put on or near the UIC Campus. University Village will also expand and be known as "Athletes Village". The 80,000 stadium would be used for the Olympics of course, and to host huge events, such as the Super Bowl, the Final Four, huge concerts, etc. This alone would draw huge revenue. Also, not everyone in Chicago is a Bears fan. I sure as hell am not. I'm not a Packers of Colts fan either. If it were up to me, I'd implode Soldier Field, change the colors of the team to purple and yellow and move the team to Alburqerque. I'm with southsider. Let's get the Olympics, please!!!!!! It'll do soo much good for the city. Because expanding it would cost mucho dinero and it wouldn't be able to pay for itself unless a roof was put on it. A retractable roof at least would be put on the new stadium allowing it to host such events as the Super Bowl and the Final Four. I'd love to see both held in Chicago. The thought of it makes me drool. The Final Four in an open air stadium??? I don't think so. A retractable roof stadium is still open-air, unless you want to build something unlike any of the other ones around. And so far, Super Bowls don't go to cold weather cities. Stadiums needs regular events to make money. You may think of an empty stadium as not creating costs, but that is not true. Every day that stadium stands there empty, money is lost (maintenance, security, taxes, and the BILLION DOLLAR STARTUP COST, etc.). Its just very, very dificult to imagine we'd get enough concerts of that magnitude in a year to justify the billion dollar cost. The numbers don't add up. Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Olympics here. But I think you are seeing the stadium situation through rose-colored glasses.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) The whole reason that the remodel of Soldier Field had such a low capacity was to try to keep the historical standing of it... now that it is gone, why not just expand it to 80K+ God knows they could sell the tickets for the Bears anyway. I am not sure that is really possible. Its already a steep, tight stadium for 55k. I think changing Soldier to be 80k would be a wee bit challenging, engineering-wise, if not downright impossible (short of starting over).

QUOTE(Cknolls @ May 11, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Bushes= OIL FAMILY Gores= SMART FAMILY LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not exactly sure what this means, but I don't think I ever criticized Bush's financial investments. I have criticized his policies in regards to energy, though. People can invest in whatever makes money (as long as its legal), and it doesn't effect my opinion of them.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 11, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) Well I'm not going to take that risk, so I'll just pose as a Cubs fan. Your bizarre Cubsession amuses me.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 11, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) This is the problem with an extremist government. If the republicans have control, you get this s***, if the democrats gain control, you will see other kinds of sick s***. The death of moderate political thought in BOTH parties in America is a bigger problem than people think. Actually, you need to put this in perpective. I agree for the need for more moderate, rational minds in power. But in reality, our two parties are still much more centric than the large parties in most democracies in the world right now.

I like the idea all around, but the 80k stadium will be the end of it. No current stadium could be retrofitted to make that number. And lets think about this - spend about a BILLION dollars for a new stadium that would be used for the Olympics and, well, thats about it. We aren't getting another NFL team, so what else do you use it for? The occasional really huge outdoor concert? Not much other use, really. So as much as I like the idea of the Olympics here, I don't think it will happen.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) The other thing you could do is just move DC back into VA or MD, and that would solve both problems if we are going to disregard the historical backround of this. I was not suggesting we disregard the historical background - in fact, I am suggesting we preserve it. The neutral capital should be that alone. Any residential or commercial interest should be outside those boundaries.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) Why not, his family was one of the biggest shareholders for one of the worlds largest oil companies... Smart family.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Seriously? With lobbies and bribery running rampant all of the government why would anyone ask a question about this? Heck I would say the chances of this happening today are probably better than they were 230 years ago. While agree that the CAPITOL should be on neutral ground, DC is not just the capitol. Its hundreds of thousands of citizens without congressional voices, and that isn't right. The ideal solution, to me, is to retrench the DC boundaries to only include the government, and not residents. But since that will never happen, I think this is a decent compromise.

Perfect job for Al Gore: heading up the department of energy. No green. I'm serious.

Whatever. Echelon, TIA, I don't really care. This particular thing is absolutely dead wrong. if Echeclon was similar, then it was dead wrong too.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa...s.ap/index.html Disturbing. Seriously. This government is getting away with far too much in this surveillance. It needs to stop.