Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) There were plenty of people who said exactly what is happening now was going to happen before the war. Pretty explicitly. Its not hindsight if you say it before it happens. And the second part just goes back to the fact that the administration was just downright delusional about what would happen once we invaded. Plenty of people knew exactly what would happen and tried telling him. They were silenced or fired. What you're arguing seems to be that we can't criticize any plans since we don't know the exact outcome before they were executed, regardless of how many holes people see in them before hand. There were plenty of military planners who were calling the d-day plans a certain massacre. If that had happened it would be the same situation. And really, I dunno how delusional they were. I certainly didn't expect as much resistance once 90% of the Iraqi army was defeated or surrendered. I thought there would be backlash yes, but not to this scale. If anything they didn't think about the civil strife that would ensue. Did you really think that Iraqi's would be targeting Iraqi's once they were 'free?' The management and response to what actually happened on the ground was, for lack of a better term, sh*tty. That I agree with.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) And beyond that, the people who spoke up and said that we should at least prepare for worse-scenarios than the rosiest ones either were told to be quiet or lost their jobs before the war started. But there are people who stand up all the time and disagree and want to take another course. You're looking at the entire situation in hindsight which isn't really fair to anyone involved. Had D-day failed it would have gone down as the worst war planning in the history of the US military. Instead it's known as one of the greatest ever in the history of war. I have no problem with people who complain about the management of the war, that I can totally agree with. But the fact is the planning was adequate for what we thought we were going to face. Just because things didn't go as planned doesn't mean that it was poor planning or that the naysayer’s in the beginning were geniuses.

aardsma is ridiculous.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) Scarred for life?? That is the most overblown b.s. And notice it wasn't the girls at first, it was people around them telling them they would be scarred for life. Scarred for life is being a target of a suicide bomber for your religion. Scarred for life is being poor and desperate and having family members dying of starvation. Scarred for life is the genocide in Sudan. Scarred for life because an idiot called you a name? You are one weak individual. Sorry if that is scarring you. Some DJ calls your group a name and you're scarred for life? OMG, those girls will never find love, marry, have children, they are doomed, doomed to a scarred life. GMAFB. You mean to tell me there is no trash talking in college basketball? That must have really left scars. Name one black person who has faced the same punishment? Take away the double standard and treat me as an equal. ^^^^ Can I get an amen? (oops, is that ok for me to say?)

QUOTE(spawn @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) If Jackson were to make racist remarks now, he wouldn't get away wtih it anymore than Imus did. I'm sorry if the current mood of the country is to punish those who make racist comments in the media. I don't think that's true. "white people" (since we're grouping everyone now apparently) don't have two major douche-bags running all over the country calling every black person a racist. Also, I think you're reverting to the same arguments that other people in the thread were complaining about. "X got away with it, why can't Y?" But you're missing the bigger point of the thread, which is not that people condone his actions or agree with what he says. I think most, if not all of us, would agree that he should have been punished. But your two leading douche-bags and the douche-bag media have to make an unprofessional comment and spin it like someone just got caught whipping a black person in slavery. I'm fine with the guy being fired if that's what happens because he made poor judgments. But give me a break with this completely overblown 'oh my life is ruined' because some jackass on the radio made fun of me. And I think in this case especially this situation is down right laughable. You're honestly telling me that the members of the b-ball team don't listen to music that says the same things, only worse? They don't even have to be fans, but I'm willing to be a lot of money that they've heard it before. And they didn't care. They didn't need to hold an hour long recruiting press conference. This entire situation reeks of opportunism and absolutely nothing to do with racism.

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 07:54 AM) Oh, come on! My thoughts exactly. This is on par with the member of the Rutgers bball team who said she'd be scarred for life.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 12, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) I did not say it wasn't. I am against all discrimination. My point continues to be that the "double standard/reverse racism" cry of "If rappers and minority comics say it, why can't I?" should not be used as validation for hateful comments. Racist and sexist hateful comments should not be made period. I don't think anyone is arguing that because rappers say racist/sexist things, he should be allowed to say those things too. Most people would agree it was a dumb thing to say and a dumb forum to say it in. The argument is that the reaction towards rappers using that language isn't anywhere near the reaction that Imus' comments have gotten, especially from the 'leaders' of the black community. That is a double standard in how to deal with the problem of racist/sexist/hateful speech.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) So ultimately, it was a business decision. Advertisers pulled out, MSNBC wants to be taken seriously and not be looked at as just shock jocks, interviewees like Obama refuse to return... so those things combined to one conclusion - fire Imus. Sounds about right to me. Now as for the media hos (yup, I called them hos) like Jackson following him around until he's never on the air again (which won't work), hey. Let them waste their time. I could care less. This is the joke that is MSNBC: They hired the guy precisely because of the shocking things he says. Ten million people this week thought to themselves "Imus who? Hmm, I should check that out." He has said far worse in the past and MSNBC loved it. How can you buy that this was a business decision? WHO WOULD STOP LISTENING BECAUSE HE SAID THESE COMMENTS? 10 people? 20 people? Give me a break. And that's the point. The reaction to this story is completely ridiculous. The media has taken it over. And why? Two words: White guilt. White people for some reason have to WANT to feel like this is the worst crime in the history of man. White people WANT to act (pull out their sponsorships, fire employees [http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_101163705.html], call for his firing, etc) this way because it makes them feel good, like they're somehow helping the cause. People jump on this bandwagon of slamming Imus because it makes them look good ( Which begs the question, do people even care? Do normal, everyday people care what he says? Or does the media 'create' these situations to get people interesting, to get people attracted to stories about it? If you polled the black community, how many would be hurt by these comments? How many people would sincerely care what the hell this Imus guy said? I bet less than 10%. Yet this is all we hear about. Morons like Jackson and Sharpton continue to stir the pot and impede any sort of progress we've made towards racial equality and acceptance. But to me the bigger morons are the white people who feel obligated to make something like this a story.

QUOTE(rudylaw @ Apr 11, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) The big difference is that you took your pic. I stole my pic from someone on ebay trying to sell a t-shirt. LOL, that totally ruined it for me (and you!)

http://newsbusters.org/stories/rosie_defen...ml?q=node/11950 Wow. Hell has frozen over. I completely agree with Rosie O'Donnell. *ducks in fear of lighting*

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 11, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) That is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely an indefinite obligation. Guess you were kinda right: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/10/...in2669077.shtml

What does everyone think? Sponsors pulling out left and right, a department head of CBS calling for his firing, MSNBC dropping his show, all the politicians saying they'd never speak to him in a thousand years and demand he be removed... Overreaction? Slow news week? Off with his head! What say you?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) So what you're saying is that a person who has a long odds treatment option that gives a slim chance of survival and recovery should be able to be legally euthanized by the hospital providing the treatment because that person is unable to pay for health costs? Cause that's what I'm reading. And hospitals absolutely have a legal obligation and duty to provide necessary lifesaving medical treatment. In this case there is no long shot. The kid is gone. Obviously it's a different situation if there's a chance, but here there isn't one. And yes, hospitals are under a legal obligation to provide life saving treatment. But that's not an indefinite obligation. It's been three months here, is that long enough? A year? A decade? How long would they have to continue worthless treatment? I'm surprised Medicaid hasn't jumped in yet to put a time limit on this treatment. Surely there's a regulation about this sort of thing so it doesn't go on forever.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Immigration is a HUGE disaster waiting to happen, his impotence on doing anything at all with social security is not a good thing, and the continuing COMMUNICATION blunders on just about every subject is terrible. Part of Dubya's problem is he can't articulate anything and comes across just like you've described him, and that's a condescending jackass. Obviously, that's a problem. At least with social security he proposed a plan that was new. I would agree that Bush isn't the greatest president we've ever had (obviously) but I'm really tired of people blaming him for anything and everything. This does two things: a) continues to give the federal government more power than it should, real or otherwise, and B) makes the executive a stronger branch. If you want to talk about a lack of work how about you look at the Congress. They were called the 'do-nothing' Congress for a reason. And as much as the Dems started out well, they pretty much stopped working as far as I can tell since. All of these issues should be started in Congress, the body that actually does the legislating. They are the ones that can't come up with a good immigration plan, they are the ones that shot down his SS idea, etc. Bush deserves blame for the Iraq mess, I wholeheartedly agree. But everything else that happens in the country (cough*Katrina*cough) is not his fault.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) You have got to be joking. LESS advisors and handlers? This administration may have been a lot better if Bush and his 2 or 3 closest allies had ever bothered to get expert advice from ANYONE. Ever. This has been a Presidency that has clearly, even proudly, stated that the President makes his decisions "from his gut", and the man actually thinks that getting input from those who might not agree is a sign of weakness. Here is a challenge for anyone on this board - show me any single thing this President has done since about 1/1/03 that has been positive. Any law he's gotten passed, any executive order that ended in a positive, any well-handled international relations, anything. That's a 4 year period, and I am struggling to find even one positive thing he has done, against a whole plethora of negatives. Even Carter's 4 years were better than that. And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years? Why are we cutting it off at 03? You just discounting his first 3 years? What did Clinton do after 97? Under his watch the economy has been just as good if not better than Clinton's, especially when you factor everything that's happened over his term, including 9/11, Katrina, etc. That's one. What do I win?

I think it depends. Health care is a service oriented business right? If the service provider isn't getting paid and is taking on extreme costs, then it's their call. It's a sad situation, but that's reality. They shouldn't have an obligation or duty to continue to spend their own money and resources if they're not being compensated. If on the other hand she is paying for it (or has some insurance that pays for it) then they shouldn't have a say in whether the kid lives or dies. They should keep their mouths shut and continue to provide the service.

I thought it was another solid episode. My one complaint (about the entire series): too short! Why can't they be an hour long?

QUOTE(Felix @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) I was just talking about this with a friend. I never listened to the Sox via the radio prior to this year, but really, I think Farmer is pretty bad. Singleton is much better imo. No way. Singleton has zero emotion to his voice. I like it when the announcers are as angry/upset as the fans. Singleton sounds happy all the time, even when we're getting our nuts kicked in.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 06:10 AM) MMMMM'kay. But it was ok for everyone to do it 6 months ago? This is a dumb argument. When did I say it was OK? I've never agreed with the practice of members of Congress doing anything in the foreign affairs realm. I thought it was BS when members of Congress were heading over to Iraq. In today’s time with the media playing such a prevalent role, who's to stop a powerful member of Congress (and Presidential candidate) from campaigning outside the US, buddying up to other countries and messing up the diplomatic ties that have been established? How are more people not opposed to this?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 04:20 PM) Congress has all sorts of powers over international relations, not the least of which is the declaration of war. But beyond that, Congressional resolutions can have profound influence over the foreign policy of the country, most notably through it's funding authority. Those billions that go to Israel every year need to be approved by Congress, Congress can exercise a lot of control over the state department through funding, and so on. Things like the Cuban Embargo are in the hands of Congress. Trade agreements go beyond that as well. The President is still the key person in setting foreign policy, but to suggest that Congress has no authority when it controls the budget, the war powers, and a bunch of others is just incorrect. Here's a good summary from teh State Dept. The key parts of the constitution that are relevant: I don't see speaking with heads of state on that list. Congress deals with our involvement with foreign entities from within. The executive is supposed to be our rep to the rest of the world. I'm saying it's messed up (and yet another deviation from the original intent) when members of Congress do this, whether it's been authorized by the other branches or not. It's not meant to happen per the Constitution, and for a good reason. It completely undermines our system of government.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 03:52 PM) In theory, this seems all right, but there are some ethics things that worry me. We have already had a problem with candidates raising money from forgein sources in exchange for services to be rendered. It isn't a long leap of faith to imagine a person or persons giving the promise of something to a forgein government in exchange for supporing their campaign somehow. This pretty much happens on a daily basis with in the US, and it scares me to think how easy a trip like this could turn into something like that. I don't like the idea of forgein government having multiple entities to deal with on these levels. There is just way too big of a chance of impropriety. Well, I think it’s all crap, no matter which party is involved. The role of the Congress is to deal with matters at home. The executive deals with foreign affairs. They’re creating a situation whereby the system can be manipulated. What if she gets goodie-goodie with the Prez of Syria? What if he refuses to work with Bush and demands Pelosi do x, y, z? She (or whoever else does it) is usurping the power that was intended for the Executive alone. But it’s not much of a surprise. The original form of government contemplated by the founding fathers continues to whither away. I’d really like to know how they feel about the President being in charge of just about everything these days thanks to his status in the media. I’d bet Jefferson is turning in his grave as he watches the Fed government gain so much power, the Executive branch in particular.

This has been an ongoing story for a week or so now. What do you guys/gals think about this? Personally, I think it's wrong for her to talk to anyone outside of the country. Her role is in the Congress. Foreign affairs is the job of the Executive. I remember a few years back too someone (Kerry maybe?) was speaking with Chirac a fair amount. Seems to me this does nothing but undermine what Bush is trying to do. I know not everyone agrees with his administration and their foriegn policy. But do we really want Reps from Congress doing this? Shouldn't we be speaking with 'one voice' to the rest of the world?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost. I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost. I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong. Far too paranoid? No offense, but I think this is complete crap. My life hasn't changed since 9/11. 99% of the country hasn't changed either. It's a fallacy to think we all live in serious fear of being attacked again. We all have a fear of getting in a serious car accident, but it doesn't stop us from driving. I think you mistake 'fear' for an understanding that it's possible (or even probable) that we'll be attacked again. So we're forced to alter how we travel, how we have to check baggage, how we pack our suitcases; that doesn't mean we're all consumed by fear and act irrationally because of it. And what REAL evidence do you want? You have six guys on a plane that fit the description of hijackers (and save me the profiling argument...99% of the hijackers in the world have been middle-eastern). They acted out of the norm compared to the millions of other airline passengers that fly on a daily basis. They're seen praying non-stop before the flight and while on the plane. Their seats are spread out all over the plane. Is that enough evidence that something fishy MIGHT be going on? Give me a break people. What was the biggest thing that the 9/11 Commission said? We need to think differently. We need to be conscious of the possibilities. We need to understand that we aren't in a protective bubble situated between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and that people want to harm us. And really, how is this law different than any other law in the country? You have a small number of situations in which the law is needed but the entire society is forced to 'give up' their 'rights.' Hmm, I want to smoke pot when I get home from work: too bad. At some point, some where, someone has died, so no one can enjoy it. What's that? Like to look at naked women? Nope, sorry, we have moral police here. Want to gamble? Too bad. Or the better ones: You have a stupid kid that imitated a character on tv? Oh, well then by all means lets change what’s on tv! Let’s decide what’s acceptable to put on radio/tv/the internet. Let’s take away CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to protect the few. Public policy plays a huge role in deciding how important 'rights' actually are. In this case, when it comes down to the safety of hundreds of individuals versus the inconvenience to a few, the majority should win.

Boy, Blair is not messing around, he's going to get the UN to write a statement to Iran! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1 OH! Slam! That'll show them who's boss.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) I'm really confused as to how people who were confident going into this spring training with gavin floyd or danks as a fifth starter, knowing they would probably be inconsistent as hell to start off, are suddenly now changing their season long expectations I thought last year was a fluke and that this year they'd turn it around. But thus far, everyone is being hit and hit hard. I understand it's spring training but we're into week three with zero improvement. I'm beginning to get nervous myself.