NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) alright I'm not cool with my political slan...what the hell is a NIMBY Not In My Back Yard

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) He can't follow the same pattern this time, the political climate is much different and much less forgiving. Although I could see an effort to make something happen - and perhaps limited air strikes, I just don't see a groundswell of support to make this stuff happen. I think everyone's talk about "limited airstrikes" is shortsighted and dangerous. This is not Iraq, where we could (in 2002, say) have just bombed some targets and called it a victory. Iran has a significantly stronger military, with an air force with regional reach, and possibly nuclear weapons. Any limited strike would result in serious military reaction from Iran, not to mention it would close the door fully on any sort of negotiations on the nukes. And the thing is, we don't have the military strength available right now to handle it if Iran put an assault on Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no halfway military plan with Iran. If we attack, which I hope like hell we don't, it's going to be WORSE than Iraq in every way. And I think BushCo is smart enough to know that. So there will be no Iran attacks in this administration, unless we are confident that Iran is near finishing a nuke AND we can take out that target. Even then, I suspect Israel would do the deed, not us.

I figured my post would probably get a harsh reaction, and with good reason. Just want to add a few things... 1. I really meant what I said. I would never post something just to get people upset. 2. I am not suggesting that $4 a gallon gas is good for us in the short term - it will absolutely suck in the short term, for me as well as anyone else. I am saying that it may be the only way to trigger the changes necessary to get new technologies rolling (which the oil companies own patents to, in many cases). We don't just need smaller cars - we need hybrids, electrics, hydros, and a whole array of other energy sources to get moving - NOW. 3. For IWC, I truly do not mean to say that I am cheering for bad things to happen to people financially. I just think we will all be better off if certain changes occur, and they won't occur if gas is $2.00 a gallon. And I am not blaming you at all for your position and commute. I am sure that is a tough situation, and I've had a 35 mile commute by car myself. I don't envy that. So please don't lump me in with those saying this is somehow your fault (not that you did, just clarifying my position).

I hate to say this, but... Good. It should be $4 a gallon, if not more. More good than bad will come from higher gas prices, at this point in our country's history. It will suck for all of us in the meantime, but it will force changes that are desperately needed for our long term success and survival.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Driving drunk is illegal because it SHOULD be. Speeding is illegal because it SHOULD be. Again, if your stance is that it is wrong because it is illegal, RESPECT EVERY LAW. But you're probably thinking that speeding a few miles over per hour is ok because it probably won't hurt anyone, or just barely being legally drunk is ok because you're still capable of driving home just fine...Soo much easier to bend the rules once they apply to you... My stance is similar to that. Illegal immigrants do break a law initially to get in, but most are not criminals. Why not keep the good, hard-working ones here instead of wanting to kick them all out? I don't agree with the illegal act, but I sympathize with the reasons behind it and feel they should not be dehumanized. You keep harping on drunk driving, as if I ever said that was remotely OK. Where are you getting that? Your comparison of speeding 5 mph ocer the limit to illegal entry into another country and all the risk and resource draining associated therewith, is ridiculous.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) Harry Reid Tells A Tall Tale? That, of course, is at odds with the current position of the Democratic Party Ahem... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_.../immigration_50 Actually, it looks like letting illegal immigrants (most of them anyway) become citizens is the stance of BOTH parties.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) But it's also illegal for a very bad reason. If we believe the statements by many in this discussion...there is clearly a need for many of these 10 million or so workers. This means that there are people outside this country willing to fill jobs inside this country, but who we will not allow to immigrate legally because our immigration system is so far out of date. I think it is a safe guess that if you gave these folks the options of immigrating legally vs. illegally, almost all of them would choose the legal option. So there is a demand for these workers, there is a supply of these workers, but the system has not adapted to allow the demand to fill the supply. This leaves illegal immigration as 1 option for demand and supply to come back to equilibrium, but the only problem is that it's the most taxing one on all of those other services. And I agree, as I said, that we need to re-vamp the current system.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) I assume you are exempting the millions of tourists that come to this country, expecting police protection, use our roads, fail to pay taxes, present unknown risks, and do what they please. Or the students that fill our Universities. Or the visiting scientists who join our think tanks and work with our scientists. And the guest worker program will hopefully offer the visas etc. We knew about every terrorist who has committed an act of terror on our shores. Knowing and stopping is two different things. I still believe a trained terrorist would walk in with documentation so that a simple speeding ticket wouldn't ruin their plans. If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see I made the exact point of tourist-level protections. But they come here legally, we have documentation and control to some extent.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) I absolutely luv the stance that illegal immigration is wrong because it is illegal, yet other illegal activities are a-ok. :rolly I think its wrong because its illegal, and I think its illegal because it SHOULD be. No one should be allowed to walk into this country undocumented, unchecked, use up resources, fail to pay taxes, present unknown risks and do what they please. If they want in, get a Visa. I'm all for more visas and a migrant worker program. But at least then, we deal with ALL of those risks I mentioned above. And further, we reduce the risk to the immigrants as well, by making sure they have some protections under the law. So its not just that its illegal - its illegal for good reason.

I'll be writing a letter to Brooks.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) You're exactly right. A drunk driver can be much, much more harmful than someone who's just here to work and keep to themselves. Stop it. If you've read my posts on this board enough, you'd be well aware of my stance on drunk driving. My statement had zero to do with that. I refuse to go down that particular road in this thread any further than that. Do you have any valid argument to present against the examples and points I actually posted?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) Next we have folks from NOAA complaining that the Administration has been editing their reports and removing references to things like Global Warming, keeping them from speaking, etc. This makes me ill. This is the topic that I feel this Administration has screwed up worse than any other (although the Iraq War had more immediate dire consequences). BushCo are unquestionably the worst environmental administration in my lifetime.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) We evade laws all the time. People here argued that Texas should not enforce the drunk in public laws. Drive down 94 and see how many are holding to the speed limit. I imagine of you were freezing to death you would break into a home to get warm. Starving and you would steal food. So there are excuses for breaking the law, some valid, some not. I hope you are not saying that a person entering a country illegally, using their services and allowing employers to discard employment laws, is in the same ballpark as having 4 beers instead of two in a bar, or going 5 mph over the speed limit.

Where do I stand on Barry Bonds? Ideally, on his head. Jumping up and down a few times. Racist jerk. Crook. Blemish on the game.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 01:18 AM) This thread being here was so predictable. Just like every time Ozzie used someone in any situation last year that wasn't one of our studs. Every time. Yet when October rolled around, our regulars were fresh, our bench was sharp and our bullpen was battle tested. Yet, all year Ozzie was an idiot. ^^^^^^^

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 08:17 AM) Nancy cannot be replaced. Oh I'd rather see her stay. But between a new organist and no organist (just cheesy replayed stuff), I'll take a new one, thank you.

QUOTE(knightni @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 10:09 PM) So.. why fix the organ? I am hoping/assuming that The Sox know how popular the live organ was, and will have a replacement player when Nancy fully retires.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 06:47 AM) http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/05/0...6.r9nr9c21.html

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 07:22 AM) That's the attitude that will ensure that little will be done. The more pressure the public puts on the politicians the better the chance of some actual change. And therein lies one of the major reasons why environmental protection is swept under the rug - the consequences may be dire, but there is no apparent immediacy to the average American. They won't react until its too late. That, and the fact that anything which has a result horizon that is measured in decades, tends to be avoided by politicians. They could care less (on the whole) about how the country is left in 20 years by the actions this term.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 08:32 PM) Once again we seem to have lost sight on an important fact, illegals are working jobs that we need done. There are not 12,000,000 out of work, able bodied individuals, willing and able to work these jobs. There are not employers making busy work for people. Most companies have no fat in their operations, that was all so 60s. If we send them packing, who wins? Very few, and we all lose. Bush has the right idea, a guest worker program. The details have to be worked out, but we can't let the rhetoric and overt and covert racism, cause us to cripple our service sector. One of the great things about the US is we have the most peaceful borders in the world. We have vast land borders with few problems. Contrast that to many places in the world, and it is plain to see we have not had to invest much to keep peace with our neighbors. I haven't lost sight of this fact. And I agree on the migrant worker program. And I think we need to change the Visa restrictions to be, in most cases, more lenient. But that is still no excuse, now or later, to evade the laws of this land.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 09:49 PM) When you think about it, if I remember right, didn't the Native Americans migrate from Asia. So technically everyone is an immigrant if you feel like going back that far. I prefere not to and I prefere not to consider 1492 immigration either. That WAS the prevailing theory, until recently. Findings such as Sandia Man, and some other more recent evidence, debunk it. The majority of people in that field of study that I have read in recent years are now of the opinion that the only people who came over the Bering land bridge during the Wisconsonian glaciation (roughly 12-15k years ago) are the Eskimo and Aleut groups. The rest of the AmerIn groups came from somewhere else, and/or some other time period. Tangential, but wanted to clarify.

Not to sound like the hippie here but... can't we focus on the real problem? The flag isn't the issue. The flag is a symbol, and a powerful one, but it is still just that. But the emotional issues present here - hatred, racism, false entitlement, fear of the unknown, poverty, poor parenting and teaching, and ineffective governments are the real problems at work here. And they are at work on both sides of the issue. That all said, I cannot see any valid argument for how illegal immigrants should be allowed any sort of services or legal recognition here, any more so than a tourist might receive. But I believe equally that anyone who hides behind a flag of "patriotism", whether its a US flag like those morons kids at the school or the Mexican flag like that awful woman in the picture above, is a coward. And I find them anything but patriotic.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) The poster specifies the North American continent, not the United States. Modern Mexicans are descended from indiginous North American lines, albeit with 500 years of outcrossing with invading Europeans. The point of that protest poster is that there were inhabitants of North America prior to 1492. Not that it mattered much to the Europeans who came, saw, and conquered. Regarding "Modern Mexicans", your post isn't really accurate. The various "Modern Mexicans" all have some mix of spanish and AmerIn blood, and the mix varies widely. In fact, in the early days of Mexico and then the US in what is now the southwest, there were many layers of social classes within Hispanic culture, mostly based on the extent (or claimed extent) of Spanish blood. Read "Enchantment and Exploitation" for a great enthography. The point is, it should be noted that all those classes were considered well above any AmerIn groups. The Spaniards, then the Mexicans, then the US, systematically destroyed those cultures - in that order of magnitude. Racism in the US is, and always has been, a perspective of time and position on the totem pole. Mexico holds as much, or more, responsibility for the decimation of the AmerIn peoples as the US.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) I understand what you meant but I think a lot of people don't appreciate the idea of a third option besides "do the same thing" and "leave." There are always 3 doors. When you think of some of the great leaders this country has had, that philosophy is at the heart of all their management styles.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) And it is a National Security issue. Indeed - both the environmental issue AND the energy issue have the potential to put many Americans in harm's way.