Gregory Pratt

Yeah, but there are lessons to be learned: namely, that civil wars can't be stopped by the bombs of other countries. Especially not Civil Holy War which is exactly what this is.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 08:25 AM) I think you've seen JFK a few too many times. Oswalt's shots (at least one of them anyway) were quite good, but not impossible by any stretch. And while the commission was poorly conducted after the fact, it looks to me like the evidence points directly to Oswalt. Now, as for whether or not HE was a hired gun, I'm open to all sorts of ideas. Lots of possibilities there. I've seen five minutes of JFK and those were in between sexxxings in a hotel room with my girlfriend when it was airing on TNT or something, thank you very much. There's no way that Oswald was the lone shooter and I'm tempted to say he was just a patsy at best.

You guys are all telling me that if we just took matters less half-assed and more violently, there'd be no Civil War or we could end it? That bombings can halt the violent differences amongst Islamic sects? Please. I consider that American arrogance and I've never used that phrase before. What's going on there was something bound to eventually happen and that we can't stop. Us being there is like us being in Vietnam where we stepped into a Civil War and were stunned that we couldn't stop it by burning down the forest. Same in Iraq. If we were facing a military enemy, like a standing Army, we'd certainly have more success and we could certainly make them surrender and destroy their soldier but this opponent in Iraq isn't even our opponent. It is a battle of Islam versus Islam, Iraqi versus Iraqi, and we're just in the way. No amount of bombs can change that. If we leave, they'll keep fighting. We stay, they'll keep fighting. We blow them up, they'll keep fighting, and this will happen for years until they are done fighting on their own terms.

Let's give them Gload for Webb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZCNrf0IH_U He'll save children but not the British children.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) The Napoleon of the West.

Technology can't solve for political issues. There's only one thing that technology will never replace and that's human leadership and thought. At this point, the War isn't so much political as it is religious and it isn't so much about us as it is about them. But I think you have far too much faith in the military's ability to win any war, however I must contest your contention that I am "hyping" my point by saying we'd need 500,000 soldiers to pacify Iraq. You sound like Donald Rumsfeld understating troop numbers badly and we can see the result today. By the way, plenty of US generals have said we need 500,000 troops, so it isn't as if I pulled that number out of my ass. But, still, I think you're being naive to say that we can win any military war. Can we defeat the English who have nuclear weapons, too? Can we defeat the Russians who have as many people -- or a fair, comparable number -- and nukes, too? I'm sure we could, but I also believe that they could defeat us as well. Fact is, we've gone the "Bomb the hell out of them, don't use that many troops" route before and we got Vietnam. Similar situation except that now we've got a Religious Holy Civil War to deal with.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 10:28 PM) The question I have is this: is 3 years, 15 million for Roberts really that bad of a deal? Yeah, I think so. What d'you think?

I didn't ask you to tell me more generalities, with all due respect. I asked, "What does that mean" and saying, "The 'civil war' could be over, real quick, if we wanted it to be - but most Americans wouldn't stand for what needs to be done to make it end - and that's go in there and really kick some ass. " isn't quite the answer. You mean we should send five hundred thousand ground troops to shoot everyone dead and search every home and kill everyone with a weapon? Should we bomb them straight to hell? Should we nuke them straight to hell? "If we decided to REALLY fight we could win!" sounds nice, but I don't see how on Earth that's a strategy of any sort.

I'm still mad about that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 05:48 PM) WOOT! CIVIL WAR! That means we can come home now. *sigh* They need to just go in there and clean stuff up, but as I said before around here, the American people can't or won't stomach it, so it just keeps getting worse. What, exactly, does "clean stuff up" mean? You mean that with more soldiers we'd be able to quell the Civil War? How does that work? -- I'm conflicted. I have trouble believing we have sufficient influence to end an Iraqi Civil War. Far too many Islamic values at play and Islamic leaders and Islamic sects. I also have trouble believing that we should leave, and that we've done all we possibly can, but I can't figure out what the hell we do if we stay. Train an Iraqi Army led by their Government? For what? To split it three ways? Four ways? Iraqi Civil War: Sunnis, Shiites, Government, Kurds. Or so that the government can join with one of these factions and be better trained and kill more people? Sometimes I think the War is over and we should go and leave the Muslims to kill themselves or make peace amongst themselves. Sometimes I think that be unwise. I'm leaning toward, Get out, though, the more that I think about it.

How do you platoon two lefties?

QUOTE(SABR Sox @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) I'd throw $40 million at him than sign Barry Zito in all truthfullness. Padilla isn't anything special, but I actually like him over other options. I for one would take him over Garcia.

You know what? If I get a white cat at some point, I'm going to name it Snopek. I like that,

I'm a big reader of History, and I'm sure a lot of you are. In the JFK Anniversary thread, I mentioned that I think the "60s" -- from Kennedy to Nixon, which of course extends us into 1974 -- were the most dangerous years in American history from domestic dangers. Not just because a wide range of drug addict leftists were on fire (I would direct you to the Manson Family and Squeaky Fromme who tried to kill Gerald Ford, as well as her other Manson relative who gave it a go, too), and not just because the American public was furious with Presidents who had lied and gotten caught, but because Richard Nixon was forcing corporations and even rich Democrats into funding him with the IRS, because he was sending his thugs to break into buildings and wiretap political opponents (and Kennedy did the same though he used the FBI more than his own private thugs, as best as I know), because Kennedy was a liar with Mafioso connections who was for all intents and purposes the most reckless man to ever set foot in the Oval Office (having sex with former Nazi spies and Soviet spies, Marilyn Monroe and whoever-it-was-that-gave-him-gonorrhea), and because Johnson was incompetent and scheming, too, since many people believe him involved in the Kennedy assassination (myself included). By the way, I brought up George Steinbrenner. Does anyone know that story? Tip O'Neill recounted it in his memoir. Steinbrenner was a Democrat but was then blackmailed by the Nixon IRS into funding Republicans and he never came back. Tip says that that was when he knew that something was terribly wrong. He also recounted a nifty story wherein Nixon was asked a question by the House Democrats about Vietnam and he looked up to the chandellier (which is when Tip figured out that there were wiretaps all over the White House, which there were) and he delivered his response to the Democrats. Tip figures that Nixon was recording everything so that he could, when writing his memoirs, recount everything to make himself look like a hero. If we want to expand it, I believe that the period from 1961-1981 might've been the absolute worst in terms of honesty in the Presidency and competence, too. When a mobster is President then gets followed by a man who used to tree in the office plants and ask you to talk to him while he took a s*** and he gets followed by the American caligula who gets followed by Gerald Ford (who was very much an Insider in the Nixon Administration and who some, myself included, credit with covering up the Kennedy Assasination with what Nixon called the biggest hoax in history (the Warren Commission) -- and, of course, hte Kennedys covered up the assassination, too, as recounted by Tip O'Neill), and he is followed by Jimmy Carter, who might've been the biggest bumbler in history, and you've got one terrible time for government. That's why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate. To keep these guys from being too bad. See, I hate the Sixties, personally. The hippie radicals (meeting Bernadine Dohrn and grilling her was one of my favorite moments of my life, and I got to grill her for about forty minutes), and the bad Presidents, and the Black Separatists, and the Confederacy's last meaningful stand, terrible time period. (Though I'm glad good came from it.) Recently, at one of my Debate tournaments somebody said we should go back to the peaceful Sixties and I really nailed them during the cross-examination. (I wish I'd have been alive to witness the 1968 Democratic Convention.) Let's see, I adore Harry Truman, and I don't like FDR the man (and I'm glad he died when he did because if he'd have stayed alive he'd have wrecked everything because he was getting senile and besides that, he was convinced that he knew best about Germany and was telling a ton of people about how Germany REALLY needs to get nailed to the cross to teach them a lesson). I love James K. Polk, too. I think the Louisiana Purchase is one of the best things to read about and would probably make a great play (read Jefferson's Great Gamble for damn good details). So, if anyone wants to talk about history -- whatever time period, whatever President or Senator or whatever, go ahead and join me. Feel free to reply to whatever in my post, too. I think it's fun to talk history.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) I went a few years back and couldn't believe how small the area was. I could see how lots of the conspiracies started just from that alone. That plays a part, for sure, but it's not as important to conspiracies as the fact that, oh, Oswalt couldn't have possibly have done it unless you believe him to be one of the greatest sharpshooters alive with a gun that shoots magic bullets.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) I wonder when historians will finally consider it a coup? Never. Oswalt fired his magic bullet alone. I've always believed that Nixon and Johnson and the CIA were all involved. http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/dead_kennedys/161963.html I don't believe it'll ever be considered more than the work of one idiot, though. Maybe in a hundred years? Don't know. I do know that in his book Tip O'Neill says that the Kennedy family and Kennedy's closest aides were going to tell the world that they'd heard MANY gunshots but at the request of the Kennedy family they said they didn't. Of course, the Kennedy family has plenty to cover up, too. I've always believed that the 1960s were the, oh, fourth biggest threat to our Democracy and not because of the Weather Underground and other crazed hippies but because three of the sickest men to ever hold office held office. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. A mobster, a baboon and the American Caligula, as Hunter Thompson called him once.

Got a new cat today. Told Anne, my friend, that she could name it. She named it Lina, as in, Felina. Just Lina, though. It's a cute cat. It's a girl. Lina is tiny. Maybe six months. Runt and Greyback reacted different to her. Greyback was very friendly, just wanting to smell her. Runt hissed. I'd never heard Runt hiss before. I've never seen Runt as mad as she is today. I've seen her mad and jealous, like when Anne comes over, but not like this. Gave Lina a shower today, and I'll give her another so as to clean her feet because she still mildly stinks. That's what happens when you're abandoned and live in your own feces in a closet for a few weeks. Good cat. Gotta protect her, though, but I'm tired. I think I'm going to bed way early tonight.

I'd do that.

Have you ever smoked marijuana? Some people wouldn't trust a candidate that has never smoked marijuana. If you haven't smoked pot before, how would you soothe their concern about you? Will you toke for votes? Whose side did you take when Van Halen split up? Do you believe in hate crime legislation?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) I actually would like the Sox to sign Jose Guillen to play LF. I think we could get him at a value and while he has some attitude issues he always (and I mean always) plays the game hard. Seems like it'd be all right.

When I think of 2005 I think of the pitching staff, the starting pitching staff, first and foremost, and then I think of Pierzynski as far as position players go.

No. Not credible, anyway, not anymore than it would be a credible source if some homeless man were passing out flyers outside of Walgreens on State Street. Nobody reads school newspapers. Besides that, however, I think you're grasping at straws if the worst you can do as far as citing these extremists is point to, oh, some stupid College kid with a stupid pamphlet or a vocal and tiny minority of College kids. It's certainly misleading to portray a school paper as "media" since it hardly reaches anyone. Technically it is, to be sure, but, misleading. Yes.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 07:54 PM) 2003: Barry Zito, 23 wins oh, and the Cy. Mmhmm, but it was a sham. Pedro deserved it on the pitcher's merits. Zito on wins. Bah!

I think they were divorced by then.