Texsox

FWIW

So he is still a Christian, then would you say that Christians are committing those crimes? If you decide that God is telling you to kill all non Christians, is that considered a Christian act? If someone seeks revenge and kills in cold blood a murder and justifies it as an eye for an eye, are they doing it because they are a Christian or they are evil/mentally ill/ etc.? And if he did make the statements as you want, how will that help end terrorism? The argument against is it causes some Muslims to fee, offended by the US and radicalizes more of them. Even if that is not true, how will saying that Muslims are using terrorism against non Muslims going to stop the violence?

Anyone know off the top of their heads who has done it before? I guess I never really noticed a team stacking relievers.

That just doesn't seem right to me. If Gacy said he killed all those boys because it is the Christian thing to do and he's a Christian, we'd call it a Christian killing? When you have a billion people on one side and a thousands on the other, it just doesn't compute with me. I still like Bush's message, we are against evil, not Islam. That has carried forward to Obama. I don't know, but we've probably have nothing left to explore with the topic. In the end it is the action we can take that will mean more than the rhetoric that surrounds it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 11:34 AM) They ARE Muslim. No matter how far they distort and twist the religion?

There is a fine line between getting maximum value from a pitcher and overwork. Plus, not all innings are equal depending on weather, how you feel that day, your body doesn't heal from the previous outing at a consistent rate . . . There are ridiculous amounts of innings that Sale could pitch, 220 may be the upper number, but so to is a lower number. Having him pitch only 125 because you are "saving" him is equally ridiculous. I tend to agree with Balta that there should be a concern, and I am certain there is. But if the starting point of planning the rotation is how often can we rest Sale, we're doomed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 09:53 PM) Well, one thing they also will deal is get you to agree to certain financing terms that are worse than what a bank actually qualified you for, and then keep the difference. How that is legal, I have no idea. Commission for them. On the other side, I accepted a $500 rebate for financing with Ford, then two days later moved the loan to USAA at 1/3rd the interest rate never paying any interest to Ford.

I'm wondering why we are so easily lead by political parties and special interest groups. It seems like this is a more recent phenomenon I believe is being brought about by media and especially out social media activities. Obviously in the political realm both parties formulate strategies to have voters vote for them. They bolster that through various avenues. It starts with a concentrated point where all the party leaders are on the same page and making the same attack. Quickly the party faithful pick up the theme and keep repeating it. We accept it faster than an add for a commercial product. Or a special interest group has a self serving idea they want to make public policy. The create a good story, find a couple scary scenarios, and again we jump on it like it was the public's idea. Are we really thinking for ourselves or finding the best story and going with it?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) If my manager continually gave canned bulls*** answers like that, I'd lose a hell of a lot of respect very quickly. Really? Popovich seems to have made that work for him. I'm more interested in what the manager is doing and what is happening on the field. Some people do like the Ozzie style press parties.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 03:10 PM) The responses don't have to be exactly the same, but when it comes to expressing to the American people and world your disgust/condemnation, I don't see why leaving out motive when it comes to terrorists is a bad thing. Everyone knows they're a religious based group even if it's a distorted and twisted version of one. Hell, express that in the same statement as you explain how the targets were not random but intended based on religious beliefs. It'd be one thing if we didn't know who committed the crimes or why and were just guessing that it must have been wacko Muslims. But that's not the case here. And it's not a legal case. There are no sides. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that these acts were terrible and should not have happened. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that targeting people based on their skin color, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. is terrible. Couching the response is unnecessary when everyone is on the same side. This I mostly agree with. Have you considered that once something is so distorted and twisted it ceases to remain something? Even if the President's statements contain the words distorted and twisted the American people hear "these people are distorting and twisting the Muslim religion to meet their own agenda". Perhaps that is a reason why not to label them Muslim or paint this as a Muslim against all others battle. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world and a very tiny percentage distort and twist their religion to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Adding that label to the terrorist description fuels anti-Muslim sentiment around the globe and fuels the anti-American fire. It's along the same lines as why I dislike hate crime laws. Who cares why, it happened and needs to be dealt with. If you want continuity between these two crimes I'd rather drop the motive from the domestic matters. Cops are killing people, perhaps unnecessarily in cases. That should be enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) David Lennon ‏@DPLennon 2h2 hours ago Re: A-Rod return - Girardi said he doesn’t know what it’s like to be on PEDs, so doesn’t know what it’s like to be off them. #yankees Take your head out of your ass and look around Girardi

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 11:56 AM) They both involve hate crimes and race or religion, something that we don't condone in either situation. Our response should be the same - world, these targeted attacks are not acceptable and we condone them. No one should be targeted for who they are, what they look like or who they pray to. Obviously we disagree that the response should be the same. I believe every situation is unique, even two different shootings here, or two different terrorist events. I think a "we always do this when this happens" is a poor policy. Would you apply the same strategy to every criminal case you take on? Always have the same opening? I believe each situation should be evaluated for the best possible solution. That doesn't seem to fit with a process that starts with -- well we have to do this because we always do that -- no matter if we think it will help or not. Now if you want to debate if the approach being used is the best possible approach we are probably closer in agreement than disagreement. If your point is our approach on domestic hate crimes is working and we should also apply it to international terrorism, that's a different debate. If neither approach is working, why should we duplicate it?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 03:28 PM) I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous. Having two different strategies in dealing with international terrorism and domestic issues is ludicrous? I would think that treating each and every issue in the same manner no matter the circumstances would be ludicrous. Different people involved, different solutions available, citizens versus terrorist groups, etc all seem to lead to a different handling.

X,Y, Z and we are closed. It is spring training. Spring is here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 03:03 PM) Come on man, you're better than this. Read. I think I answered this in the above. You are claiming the same wording should be used in both cases? Why then if it isn't that you believe both cases are the same. Why have two different cases and require the exact same response?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 03:08 PM) Again, read. It's not a complex thought. Obama refuses to state that ISIS is killing people because of their religious beliefs. His admn has a whole policy on that because of a fear of offending other Muslims and perpetuating an anti-Muslim sentiment. At home, that "policy" is ignored when it involves domestic race/religious issues. He's more than happy to call black victims of white crime victims of racism/hate. He'll conclude that a white person that kills 3 brown people did it because of racism/religious intolerance with no evidence supporting it. Clearly he's not afraid of offending anyone or perpetuating the "white people hate blacks/muslims" myth here at home. It's broad v. specific. It's taking a stand versus not taking a stand. It's a double standard. If there was some legitimate reason for doing so, maybe i'd be ok with it. But I don't see an issue with calling a spade a spade. ISIS killed people based on their religious beliefs. The victims may have been random, but the targeted group was not. Why is it harmful to point that out? If I understand your statement, you believe that these two issues should be treated the exact same and should use the same wording. I believe they are different matters with two different solutions. As a lawyer I am certain you understand that every case is different and calls for different solutions. The parallels seem to be for your analogy to work that ISIS are the cops and the victims are the victims. You are trying to apply a one size fits both argument. If you are going to argue that the approach to both should be the same you should also build a case where they are the same. I don't see that. The perpetrators are different and the victims are different. The motives may have a similar origin, but that's about it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) Sure it is. He's played one season. I'm optimistic, but regression is totally possible. He will also have to adjust to pitchers who will be studying much more tape and finding his holes.

Tex's take is terrible tragedy for Jose

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 01:39 PM) ISIS also appears to be a completely different animal than the others. They make Al Qaeda look like a street gang. 9/11 with thousands of dead on US soil versus horrific attacks on dozens soon hundreds on foreign soil. Both are terrible. I think you are underestimating what Al Qaeda has done. Adults at the time were afraid to go to work in America.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 12:15 PM) Acting like these guys are performing random acts against random people IS pretending a problem doesn't exist, whether you drop bombs on them or not. What exactly is the problem? I believe the problem is people are being murdered. What problem are we pretending doesn't exist? You are arguing how to define the word random. Attacking and killing John Lennon was not a random act. The person singled him out. Someone who starts shooting inside a school is killing random people. But you are rejecting that definition of random. Does it really make a difference?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 12:00 PM) I'd like an argument for how saying "these ISIS terrorists deliberately targeted non-Muslims, in this case [Christians/Jews]" will incite these f***ing crazy assholes to hate us more than just saying these are "random" attacks. For the third time, i'll bring up my analogy that no one has responded to: White cops are targeting black teens and killing them. They admit that's what they're doing. The President doesn't bring up hate crimes or racism, he says it was just random acts of violence for fear of pissing off police/making people distrust the police more. Your response is, oh well, that's fine. Right? No, not a chance. And I wouldn't like that either. So you believe white cops should be compared to ISIS?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) I wouldn't call it "mad," just upsetting. When he talks about terrorist acts committed by Islamic groups like ISIS he's fearful of labeling them or talking about them in a factual way. We have terrorists specifically targeting a group of people (Christians or Jews) and he calls them "random" acts of violence. There was nothing random about either attack. They were both deliberate and the perpetrators admitted that. Yet here at home he has no problem saying a crazy white guy that killed 3 brown people did so specifically because they were brown and Muslim with no basis for doing so. Edit: just call a f***ing spade a spade, that's all i'm asking. Which is more important, calling out ISIS or stopping them from recruiting more soldiers with anti-American sentiment? It seems that slowing the creation of new hate groups would be a good idea. There are still plenty of randomness about the murders. They aren't targeting specific people, they are crimes of opportunity. They don't want a specific Christian, anyone would do. If they find this person and not this person, no big deal, any random person will fill their needs. If they find them here and not there, no big deal taking them from any random spot is fine, and more terrifying. If you know they are only attacking churches, then stay out of churches, but their locations, times, etc are random. Yes, some aspects are not random, but to say 100% not random is giving them too much credit for long term planning.

Really? I believe SS2k5 skipped ahead a couple spots.

Hard to sell should mean easy to buy. No rentals usually means a long term stable, nice living place. No rentals is also risky if you need out and the market is bad. All the negatives are also positives for some people. I have become a big fan of real estate as an investment. I wish I had started sooner.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) I think at the end of this year we'll be able to make a convincing argument that he's the best hitter in baseball. Based on a limited number of observations, and none live, I'm hoping he develops that intimidating look that Frank had. With Frank you were on the edge of your seat knowing something great would happen. Now it's edge of your seat expecting, not knowing.