Texsox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) He said it, not me. He didn't say "never" but of course, republicans are a disaster and democrats are awesome. (and yes, it's the cheerleader thread, I know). From Rex I don't see your analysis coming from this. It sounds like both the GOP and Griffith have lost in this switch. Seems fair to say that might cause some people to think twice before leaping.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) I was trying to figure out the justification for that as well. All that comes to mind is that they've been victims of state-sponsored terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_Flight_455 Here is a page on the subject from the Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9359/state_sponsors.html Fascinating reading. And just to get a few people here excited I thought only Clinton pardoned criminals As Kap would say "They all do it".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) So I was reading this article about the new security measures, and was surprised to see this: Cuba? State sponsor of terrorism? Yet anyone from Cuba who "touches the sand" is automatically welcome here. Doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) It was great when Specter did it, now it's "chaos" and no one will ever do it again (turn from Dem to GOP). He lost staff too. Party switching will always be rare, but will always happen. As Rex noted earlier, (not the post you quoted), this has probably not worked out. But your idea that no one will ever do it again, I think is a touch kaperbolic™

dementia is a terrible things and affects people in Florida the most/

dementia is a terrible things and affects people in Florida the most/

QUOTE (SnB @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) when AOL 3.0/4.0/5.0/etc would come out and it would take 3 hours to install it. But AOL was a never ending source of floppies!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Well sure, but I think a party change for a Congress person is probably similar to an administration change, though maybe not quite as dramatic. There would be a shift. It probably depends on position. I knew a couple people that went to work on congressional staffs after college and they wound up working for Dems and Reps at various times. They compared it to working for Coke or Pepsi. If you like the soft drink wars, it doesn't matter which side you are on. One became a bit of an expert on telecommunications issues and was in some demand during the days immediately before and after the break up of Ma Bell. His pov was he was educating on the issues and what they did was out of his control. I have also heard, from a former co-worker that about 1/3 of the staff tends to stay when a new representative comes in, no matter what the party is. Handling requests from constituents is about the same no matter which party is involved. All this leads to my suspicion that they have been promised jobs with the Dems and this may have been a well orchestrated move. But that's my "they all do it" paranoia.

But Jim, the VIC-20 was endorsed by the Shat . . .

I believe jealousy ended the original's life

The Commodore VIC-20 my first computer.

Hudson3-2700

The liberal media's plot against conservatives by lying about Rush's broadcast location is foiled. We can all rest easy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) I'd have to think that major staff changes would occur when these guys flip anyway. Did it happen with Alexander? Or to look at the other direction, what about Ben Nighthorse Campbell? I think for many staff members in Washington, it's a job.

Remember when SS2k3, Kap, Sox4Life, Steff, FlaSoxxJim, and a few others could spend all weekday posting without any arguments? by SS2k5

It seems whenever I post "IIRC" I am usually wrong but IIRC, you are correct. Additionally, and again iirc, the "other aid" was basically to keep down anti-government groups.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 09:45 AM) That all goes back to how much is a life actually worth. Where is your point of diminishing returns? You can also get into the how many freedoms are you willing to give up argument, or are you willing to accept that people will die because our rights give us a wide berth. We give our respects for those that died in our military to protect our rights. Perhaps we will one day be giving our respects to civilians that died to protect our rights.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) It's a new year, is there any interest by anyone? I'm in

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) Having a base in a country is a lot different than patrolling the streets of a country. This did not happen. If it did , show us some evidence. Here is where we have bases Before we get into specifics, at most bases, the soldiers are allowed to leave the base, so their presence is felt in the surrounding areas. I imagine having a large group of foreign soldiers in your neighborhood could be an issue. Also, in the interest if good will, they do conduct humanitarian missions and offer other aid to the local government. It is the "other aid" that sometimes results in ill will with local residents. We also have situations where out military has behaved badly while on official training missions. Ten years ago we had the Cavalese cable car disaster when Air Force pilots, f***ing around, buzzed an aerial tram and caused the deaths of 20 people. So here is evidence that military training goes beyond the base. That certainly would feel like patrolling local neighborhoods. We've had several cases of US soldiers raping local women and children. Okanawa is the one I remember the best. To keep US soldiers in line, the military police are often times sent outside the base. This may also give the appearance of "patrolling foreign streets".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 07:01 PM) I would be curious where that line for people... How many people would like to have a society like Israel with M16s on most corners, 4 hour waits for plane trips, and searches done all of the time? Traveling in Mexico, their interior checkpoints have military with automatic weapons checking documents. Most Americans feel less safe when seeing that. Most Mexicans, who have grown up with that sight, hardly notice. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 07:36 PM) It isn't hard to see it being our future. Right now we are programed to worry about the huge attacks. As more and more of those avenues become too difficult for Al Qaeda to pull off, they will not just go away. The transition will be to smaller and smaller attacks more frequently. It is how it progresses. I honestly feel you are seeing that transition as we speak in this country. Which is kind of what I was mentioning before. Most Americans do not fly, and even the ones that do, it may only be a once or twice a year thing. What happens when small bombs start going off in grocery stores? There is an obvious reason why we here a "bomb went off in a crowded market". People need to shop for food. Terror is the goal, and the terrorists believe that Americans are basically selfish and self absorbed. Cause us enough annoyance or pain and we'll sell out an ally, pull our Troops from a base, etc. And perhaps they are correct.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) That was actually a joke... LOL, missed that one. I wonder, if given a choice of a 30 second wait with minimal security or a 30 minute wait for more security, or a 2 hour wait with maximum security, which plane would have more passengers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Or they can create flights for people who don't believe in the extra security... I believe there is a point where we cross a line. I do not believe these scanners necessarily are over the line, but this slippery slope falls a long way.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) flying is a special risk - the confined space and vulnerability, not to mention the fact that you are flying in a guided missle, means security needs to be special. Further, flying isn't a right, any more than driving is. I'm all for these scanners, and suggest that for those who aren't willing, that they can wait in a different line, and undergo the full pat-down instead, which takes a lot longer. Overall, with proper concern for privacy, I am also for these scanners. I am concerned when we are forced to give up other rights because something is not a "right". It probably falls within the 10th Amendment, but just because something is not defined as a rights does not mean we can throw out the Constitution when someone is involved in that activity.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Ein s tein, " S cience, Philo s ophy and Religion: a S ympo s ium", 1941 U S (German-born) phy s ici s t (1879 - 1955)

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) it goes to the argument of "if you can't stop every possible attack don't bother to try and stop any of them". I think it goes more to the "unintended consequences" of our actions. If the goal is to get one step ahead of criminals, we need to be prepared and look for their next move.Take away one target and they will not just go away.