NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) -Hamas is chartered to the destruction of Israel. -Iran is offering to fund the Palestian government as the West refuses to fund it, until Hamas agrees to recognize Israels right to exsist, and ends violence against them. -Iran is actively pursueing the enrichment of uranium in the open, and in secret trying to get ahold of the materials and knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. -Iran's President believes that the final prophet is immently about to arrive, and that it is his duty to do whatever it takes to ready for his arrival. I don't see a reason to be scared, do you? http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/nati...amas060222.html I said it after the Hamas election victory. The combination of that event and Iran's continued aggresion could be (and I think probably will be) enough to destroy what little stability is left in the Middle East. I really do think things will get very ugly sometime in the next year or so. CAVEAT: I do also think that Hamas MIGHT make things better. If they go the Sinn Fein route (and if they can actually used money wisely with its people), the fact that Hamas was elected could turn out to be a positive for the region, even leading to a lasting peace of sorts. I guess I'm saying the possibilities are in the extremes right now.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) That the people arguing against this are hypocrites. They are profiling. So, you're going to assume that people arguing against this must not have a differentiated reason, and therefore they are hypocrites. The assumption is false. The comparison is apples and oranges to me, thats why its different. And I see you are neatly not expressing a view on this. Are you OK with racial profiling of Arab-looking folks at airports? How about black people in sooped up cars?

I'll be in the area March 3rd through the 8th. I'm going to the 3/4 game vs. ARZ. Sorry, won't be there those dates.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) Anyone? It can't be very many.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) First let me say that I don't like this deal, so I'm not arguing in favor of it. I'm just saying blocking this company because they are Arab owned and from the UAE is the discrimination and racial profiling that is deemed reprehensible when used against an individual. Why is it ok for so many politicians to be discriminating against this whole country. If 5 people from the UAE were to come to this country to work, a company could not say we can't hire you cause you came from UAE. The ACLU would be on that company in the blink of an eye. Just as American Airlines can't say, you came from UAE so we're going to have to check you a little more closely than grandma over here. Are you trying to justify racial profiling? Or are you saying its wrong, including in this case? Or do you agree with those who say this is an apples/oranges comparison? What is the point you are really driving at here?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) Here's a question for conversation. If we are not willing to racial profile against Arabs getting on planes any more diligently and vigoursly than my 87 year old grandma. Why are we so willing to profile against an entire Arab nation? Real easy. I wouldn't profile a middle eastern looking person, who I don't know from Adam, purely based on that fact. Aside from it being morally repugnant, its also illogical to profile based on race anyway. Are all Arabs terrorists? Do all Arabs look middle eastern? Are non-Arabs less likely to commit a crime? Are all Arab nations involved in terror? The answers are all "no" to those questions. Therefore, it makes more sense to use other indicators. I am perfectly comfortable expressing concern over THIS PARTICULAR company, whose ports have already been shown to have security holes. And further, if some individual who worked in the UAE for, say, that port, applied for a TSA job, you can bet I'd be OK with putting him/her under intense scrutiny.

Jokes aside, I doubt they would just make something up, even if they are trying to make the CIA look bad. Exagerrate? Sure. Pull this out of thin air, at this point in time? Unlikely. I'll be curious to see if this has legs.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) I think he was referring to who would be doing the ACTUAL work. I doubt they are going to bring in a team from UAE to do the physical inspections and hirings. Still makes me nervous. Its weird to me. Bush seems to want to make this a matter of fighting bigotry, which is a noble cause. I think there is a lot of hatred for some in this country towards anyone who even looks Middle Eastern, and there is even a feeling that this is a religious war. I can certainly see the value in taking a stand against that. But, that all said, this isn't the right place to make that stand. This is a state-controlled company, from a state that sponsored or at least allowed terrorism, and whose ports have been used for illegal weapons shipments. This isn't about culture, its about safety. And I just can't see a reason to like this deal.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 09:51 PM) First of all, people that are clamouring about the ownership, the laws of America governs these ports. Americans run them. Security is by the Americans. Port workers are Americans. In other words, virtually nothing will have changed about anything having to do with these ports. However, I do think that there is some kind of back-room deal going on here. I think that this was done to set a "trap"... but the trap just sprung before anyone could use it. Perhaps you missed Balta's Post. Security will, at least in part, be handled by this new company.

It looks like the debates are slowly dying. Are you four giving up?

I am sure there are a number of people on this board who would love to find a job working for or with the White Sox. Well, I happened across a job listing that could, potentially, take you there. And it is entry-level. Here it is: http://jobsearch.monster.com/getjob.asp?Jo...cy=US&col=dltci Just thought this might be handy for some people. Enjoy.

One or more of the following has to be true about this deal: 1. There was some sort of secret, under the table deal to push this through 2. The administration really is that fractured, and this fell through the cracks 3. Bush is yet again defending a decision, even in the face of obvious stupidity 4. There are some big, important pieces of information regarding this deal that we are not aware of (and are likely never to be aware of) My current feeling is 2 and 3. But I could see a combo of 1 and 4 as a possibility as well.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) Not defending, just saying. A City Supervisor doesn't deal with the Military - so its a fair bet that in a municipal election things like the Iraq war don't really come up. And for that reason if no other, he shouldn't have brought it up, or made a statement like that. He could have believed that to be the case and had it be irrelevant to his career, if he hadn't said it. Now its relevant. And now it will probably hurt him.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) well he does have a huge hispanic population to pander to. coincidentally, the arizona state legislature has voted to pay for the national guard to patrol the border. the house passed it and its going to the senate last i heard: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/news/local/02...a4_bordertroops I'm good with that. Its a heck of a lot better than letting the wacko militias do it. Of course, with so many Guardsmen in Iraq, Arizona may find it hard to find enough soldiers to defend their own border.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_b...017209588077752 I don't see this Abramoff thing as being a party issue. Yes, because Abramoff happened to work more closely with GOP'ers, there were undoubtedly more GOP folks caught in this web of criminality. But it could just as easily happened the other way around. The problem here is in that Congress still is allowed to draw up rules to govern itself. This is, to me, a failing of the Constitution (which there are very, very few of). There needs to be a mechanism in place for some other body to establish rules of conduct (including campaign donations, travel expenses, lobbying regs, etc.). Congress has shown, across party lines, that it is simply not capable of policing itself. The fact that the "reforms" suggested in the wake of Abramoff have been shrinking in scope and action lately further shows this. I sincerely hope that Abramoff takes a whole bunch of people down with him, from both parties, which may help speed the reform process.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) On some issues, yes. But on others he can be conservative. Sorry, as much as you may try, you cannot label him. Sure I can... PUN: LABEL IRRITATING END PUN::

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) Crazy Crazy talk Do you know how liberal and looney you have to be, to have Alan Colmes seem like a hawk and the voice of reason. This guy from San Fran is completely nuts. He doesnt want a military, wants the cops and the coast guard to defend us if we get attacked. My favorite line from goofy was "The United States should not have a military,'' Sandoval repeated. "All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape." This isn't liberalism - its just looney. This guy isn't even on the spectrum.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:32 PM) Keeping them in prison fine tell the at least 9 victim's families that Ken McDuff killed after he was granted parole you can't guarantee these thugs will be locked up for good unless the DP is used. Its called life without parole. Happens a lot (probably should happen more). Look it up.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) I will not change my stance on the issue just like I don't see any other southerners doing it either. I lived in Memphis for a few years. The city where the delta starts, as the saying goes. Yeah, there were some crazies around. But even there, I got no feeling that everyone rejected evolution. Some, yes. But not all, and not even most. Plenty of southerners have accepted evolution as science, even if their religious beliefs can be INTERPERETED otherwise.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:41 PM) Personally no I don't but hey I am not in control of what is taught an what isn't the Governor is and they have made it clear that evolution will come with an asterik Actually, Bredesen does not agree with the asterisks. Bredesen, who didn't even live in the south until he was in his thirties and has a degree from Harvard, has stated that he wants school science to be jut that. Its parts of the TN legislature that are pushing this warning sticker stuff (along with some local yokels).

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:00 PM) All that needs to be said is that evolution is a theory and that there is also a theory of creation. In a philosophy or comparative religion class? Fine. But ID is not science, and cannot be measured or evaluated using scientific method. Therefore it has no place in science classes.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 06:11 PM) Yeah that is my bad, I just assumed with the Terriorism act of 2002 that every state's terror laws are the same. Man IA has some strick terror laws. Yes, IA makes the concept very finite, and I tend to like that. For reasons Rex and others have suggested, I'd prefer that people be charged for their more direct crimes and transgressions, as opposed to trying to apply a pattern or theme and create artificial legal differentiation.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) I think he will. And I hope he does. So the fact that he has obviously been using 'roids for years, and he's as selfish and obnoxious as anyone in the game, doesn't bother you?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) My advice to people without tickets is to be patient. There are a lot of people that have tickets to a lot of games they aren't going to be able to make, and they have no experience selling them off. I would suspect that tickets to most games will be readily available on craigslist, ebay, stubhub, the season ticket exchange, for face value or very close to it for most games. There is panic buying going on right now for Sox/Cubs, and opening day. People are paying $150 a seat to sit in the top row. You will be able to do better than that. Remember the playoffs. Ticket prices went down as game time approach, except for maybe the WS. For most games, I'd agree. For for Opening Day, and Cubs/Sox, I don't see much of a dip happening.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) Also keep your eye on the Swapmeet this year. I'm sure some of us will be posting tickets for sale as the season goes on. Absolutely. And I hope the Admins move Swapmeet out of Hotstove soon - it seems kinda weird there.