Texsox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Also, I feel like I'm on a f***in merry-go-round. You are and as soon as Yas jumps off, I'll be driving us around another lap, keep your heads and arms inside the ride at all times. Do not get off the ride until we come to a full and complete stop. Thank you for posting at Soxtalk and please have a nice day and evening!

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) This is getting off topic (to an issue of relevance even), but how could anybody vote for Kerry in 2004 due to disguist with Bush, then vote for McCain in 2008? I know he isn't the same guy as Bush, but that logic doesn't really compute with me. They believe our problems in Iraq are because we didn't have a military man in the White House. Kerry's military career was greater than Bush's and McCain's is better than Obama's.

At first I thought they were talking about Natty Lite

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) If he loses Ohio then it will have meant they thought he sucked as a president, same as any other re-election campaign this country's ever had. There is nothing credible to point to statistically that gives a reason to believe otherwise. Exactly! But read the thread, if you voted for Kerry you had to vote for Obama. That was the assumption. And if you didn't the only reason that was agreed upon was people in those states are racist. Why couldn't voters in those four southern states have voted for Kerry then McCain, same as any other election this country has ever had?

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) Bottom line is, the place should have been shut down a lot earlier, and pretty much all of the prisoners should have been sentenced or at least put through trials already. Australia had a guy in there, and it was only because we pressured the USA for 5 years, that he was one of the 1st to be trialled, and got sent home, and he's now living in society back down under. military or civilian trials? Are they really soldiers to be tried in a military court? Are they really civilians and can we try them for crimes that are alleged to have happened overseas? Neither solution is perfect, but we should have picked one years ago.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) And that they interpret all ammendments as broadly as possible except for the second one, which they try to stick by the exact letter written. Defend Nazis, defend porn, defend school free speech, thats all good. leave me my guns. They defend those that have a difficult time defending themselves. It seems the pro gun lobby has plenty of resources to fight. And it is a miscarriage to say defend Nazis. Usually it is the law they are fighting, and it usually is applied first to those groups we find morally repugnant. But if we head it off at the Nazis, we save the Young Republicans, Sierra Club, and Daughters of the American Revolution.

hey, Yas. Welcome to the thread, I was missing you. And for the rest, sorry you don't get how insulting it is when the vast majority of the posters in this thread saw the numbers, and the only reason they could come up with to explain the results was it "proved racism". It shows the regional bias in this country. There were almost no other theories mentioned. Nope, it's the south and we know how racist they are, this proves it. Now, if Obama isn't reelected, perhaps loses Ohio, will that mean that people in Ohio have become racist in four years? Or was this an inoculation that prevents those accusations?

There is a difference between a military and civilian system of justice. And we've had hundreds of years of opportunity to fine tune these systems, and as Balta eloquently points out, we are in favor of protecting the innocent in civilian courts. Now, for many of those housed, tortured, fed, and even protected, at Gitmo, they do not fall into a clean and easy definition of civilian or military. We are fighting a enemy, and they do fit the definition of enemy, who act like a military, but are so easily defined as such. So this is messy. And it will remain messy until we develop a better system. Meanwhile, sadly, and it is a disgrace, we have violated basic human dignities and generally acted like those we are seeking to stop.

This will probably be a quick thread, but I thought it might be of help if someone was traveling this winter with the chance of getting stuck in a wilderness area http://www.backpacker.com/ultimate_surviva...gn=newsletter01 A list of items you should have to survive the unexpected in the back country. This was a pretty decent list, from a respected source. A few things not on the list, perhaps because they are too obvious. Actually fill the canteen. Water is far more important than food. Food is more a moral booster than a physical necessity. You can survive three weeks without food but only about 3 days without water. File a trip plan with someone with when to call for help. I can't stress this enough. It will save your ass more times than not. Maps. Have them that extend beyond your expected travel area. I can't count the number of times someone has gotten in trouble when they wandered "off the edge of the map". If you are just interested in this stuff, and not wanting a science lesson, http://www.amazon.com/98-6-Degrees-Keeping...e/dp/1586852345 here is a fun read 98.6 Degrees: The Art of Keeping Your Ass Alive

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) "Pay to the order of 'Iron Balls' McGinty, one dollar. . . and NINE CENTS!" Well, excuuuuuse me!

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 07:17 PM) I agree on both counts. Being the tamer/lamer non-metalhead I am, I'm also incensed by the omission of Todd Rundgren, a great, soulful, powerful and very technically proficient vocalist. Knock Knock Who's there? hello. it's me I have to agree. /banging on my drums

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 02:25 AM) The bradley effect is not accepted by any polling expert I've seen. And further, what a fun hypothesis that racism is spread completely equally throughout the country. Again, and for the tenth time, please read my post. That people do not give 100% accurate answers to pollsters is very well accepted. For example, they will bump up their income by a category or two. Pollsters each find their own way to adjust results so that it is accurate. Which is one reason that polls vary and there is some skill involved in interpreting results. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all Now here is race card everyone can play with at home clip and save

I just saw this. If I was still flying all the time, it seems like a nice investment. I hated pulling out my laptop every damn time. http://aerovation.com

Down here in Texas, the talk is basically the Big 12, and especially the Big 12 South is the best football conference in the country. That shouldn't be too controversial. But they are starting to talk of all time. Thoughts?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 05:11 PM) I find it quite funny that someone who was so convinced that the Bradley effect is real and a phenomenon is now claiming that race is not a factor at all in the election. Difference, I believe it was spread equally across the country, just just those racists rednecks in the south. I'm consistent. What I find funny is suddenly there are only racists in the south. People that dismissed the Bradley effect are real quick to claim the only area of the country that is still racist, or at least racist enough to switch from Kerry to Obama, are four states in the South. That effect could not be spread equally across the country. The effect, btw, is people beinig polled change their answers. Well documented and accepted by every polling expert. I find several assumptions interesting. First off, no matter what Obama does during the next four years, every Dem voter will remain a Dem voter in the next election. If he does not get reelected, it must be because of race. Since Kerry = Obama and the appeal is the same, then certainly Obama = Obama in the next election. So the GOP should just forget about ever winning another election. I guess shocking of all are the racists in Illinois that did not support Braun in getting relected. Again, there couldn't be any other reason to switch.

And once again, we find Obama voters accusing *some* McCain voters of racism. That's not a problem and understood as "proven" and "fact". It's been happening for a year and continues to happen. What a shame.

This blew up a little too much. I'll leave you with this. It is unfair to assume why anyone voted the way they did. Perhaps they liked war veterans. I don't know, and will not assume the worse in someone because it fits into some world view that y'all have up north. Jumping to the conclusion that *anyone*, *anywhere*, is racist because they favor McCain over Obama, Larry Bird over Magic Johnson, or Elvis Presley over Sam Cooke is just wrong. Paint it anyway you like, but you are making an assumption about why someone voted a certain way and it shows your "regionalism" and propensity to think the worse of some southerners. And that really sucks.

Those Arby's sandwiches are pretty nice. But not on the value menu. /back to race fights in 'buster

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) No I imagine the treasures being in caves on mysterious islands.No digging I will be to drunk for that. I want nothing to do with exploring caves. I'd rather be digging in the sand under a palm tree.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) That's a much, much more broad brush to paint with than any of us have even come close to using. Especially since we have far more numerical data to back the concept we are bringing up than this silliness does. but I said some. Show me a link that proves why someone switched. You are making assumptions about a region and why they switched, Back it up with some data. I keep hearing this is proven. Why do we know so much about these voters and their racist voting patterns?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) You really aren't reading these posts, are you? I said it's a very small number of people, but a larger number reside in the south. The numbers do not lie. I would say maybe 2 percent of people who switched from Obama to McCain did it due to race, and about 5 percent in the south. It's a VERY small number, even in the south I would say 95 percent of voters who made the switch did it due to the reasons you said. You can continue to ignore my points though if you'd like, but you are better than this Texsox. The numbers don't lie. How can you say that those people switched because of race? Give me a link that proves it was race that caused them to switch?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:48 PM) Well, I find the incredible strides you make to say that race still isn't a factor is more laughable. Coming from all the racist people up north that want to build a wall to keep out Mexicans*, I take that as a compliment. Because of course the only reason that some people up north support a fence being build 2,000 miles form them is because of race.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) One of the big themes of this election was people wondering, "what effect will race have", now that it's over we are looking at map of a historically racist area (appalachia's through tenn-ark-okl) and see that formerly democrat voters went for republicans. What are some causes? • name rec for mccain, hard to believe after an election this covered. • media ran Obama as incumbent in press • military experience for McCain • generally lesser educated area, more susceptible to negative campaigning. • race But all in all, I think the last factor is the biggest. And NSS, I offer you another example. Have you really been missing these for the past year? It could not possibly be that Bush was an idiot and even GOP voters bailed on Bush and voted for anyone else but him, then returned to the GOP? Nope, not one person thought to mention that scenario. It couldn't be that that region, faces economic hardships and a loss of low skilled industry unlike any other area, combined with lots of competition from illegals and McCain had a stricter plan than Obama? Could it be that that region has strong ties to the mining and coal industries and Obama was much more critical? Naw, must be race.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) The maps of the south/bible belt/whatever you want to call it are undeinable in showing that the majority of the "racist white" vote who jumped from Kerry to McCain due to race reasons only, reside in the south. That doesn't make Tex or any other person in the south that jumped in such a way racist, but it means that a relatively noticeable (but still small) number of those votes occured due to race. I think the south is continuing to make progress (SEE: Virginia and North Carolina vote this year), and the deep south is improving, but it still has some work to do. The whole country does, but obviously a little moreso the south. Again, NSS, these are the posts I'm talking about. And they have been going on for a year. It's undeniable that the racist white voters are the south because they switched for race reasons only. How we somehow know their reasons I do not know. But no one switched in the north and if we did, we know it wasn't because of race.

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) I just wanna have a ship where we do alot of drinking and alot of searching for treasures that dont exist along with paranoia of mystic monsters. Aaahhhhh what a life that would be minus the scurvy. That is exactly why I want to retire to a 40' to 48' blue water sail boat. Something that could be single handed if necessary. If anyone would like to buy me this one, I'll take off now. I already have crew.