lostfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 19, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) He is leaving troops in Iraq, and he is holding back torture photos. But on both abortion and DADT he has for sure gone waffling. Abortion - pretty standard political talking point, actually pretty irrelevant to the executive branch and I like seeing it downplayed. On DADT he has the rest of his term to do something about it. When the time is right he'll change the policy. Really I'm not worried about it and I don't know why other people are. However, I just get tired of seeing people repeat things that really have no basis in fact, are distorted versions of the truth, or are flat-out false such as "he's a far left radical" (borrowing StrangeSox's words), "he's flip-flopped on everything since being elected and hasn't made any tough decisions nor will he," or possibly the dumbest "he hasn't done anything since he's taken office." That is some s*** I'd expect to see in the comments section of a right-wing blog but I see otherwise intelligent people saying stuff like that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 19, 2009 -> 09:29 AM) As for Obama, after getting into office he has for sure changed into Bill Clinton mode where instead of actually acting on the big promises and left wing rhetoric that he said HAD to be done during the campaign, he now goes out and talks about both sides of the issue and does nothing about it, because it is too hard. That's not leadership, that is not uniting people, that is being afraid of getting your approval ratings hurt by stepping on toes. I have to say that I didn't expect that from Obama. Oh GMAFB with this, if what you say is true, he would've not left troops in Iraq, he would've not escalated the war in Afghanistan, brought back tribunals, approved the sniper mission on the pirates, or held back the Abu Gharib photos. He's been pissing off both the left and the right regularly. If you are saying that he made unrealistic promises during the campaign and he can't keep them once elected (surprise! he's not the first and won't be the last), then that's one thing, but what it sounds like you're saying is bulls*** and I think you know it.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 19, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) I am so f'in tired of the 30 second soundbite mentality of not only politicians, but of the media. Like the article said, some issues cant be summed up in 2 sentences. Some issues, cant be dealt with in a 30 second soundbite that fits nicely into a newscast so they can move on to the next topic about some 13 year old being shot. On thing I LOVE about Obama, is he challenges you to engage in a debate. Engage a topic. He'll have his little soundbits, but he goes out of his way to try any talk about the complex issue rather than say "you're either with us, or against us" which is a nice soundbite, but HORRIBLE politics. That pretty much summarizes the whole concept of why screaming "OMG SOCIALISM" or "We'll keep you safe!" doesn't work. Some of this is on the media (the entire media, to include blogs and talk radio) for trying to package everything into a neat headline that can be digested quickly, some of it is on politicians who are aware of this and exploit it (recent example, Republicans successfully decreasing the popularity of the stimulus by cherry-picking pork even if the thing they brought up was an insignificant fraction).

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) It's the same for both sides. Would expect anything different? lol, I confess I wasn't expecting you to say something rational that I'd agree with here.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/bor...lity/index.html

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 19, 2009 -> 08:56 AM) I love when people either ignore 90% of a speech or didnt really listen to it to begin with: CitizenLink: Obama Calls on Pro-Lifers to Ease Up Apparently they forgot to hear the part where he said "the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature." Not exactly telling them to ease up. More like, lets try and not shun each other, lets find things we CAN work together on. sheesh! And this coming from a Pro-Lifer. Yeah that really really really wasn't the point of his speech. Maybe they should take a cue from him though - I didn't see them protesting anything else. They just shout about one issue, and loudly.

I can't believe this argument's gone on for 7 pages and kept being more than what it is. It's a stupid, politically tone deaf thing to do that's really unhelpful when you're trying to avoid the perception that you're engaged in some kind of religious war or clash of civilizations. If you want to dismiss the strategic importance of that, fine, but that just tells me that you don't get it, either, and probably won't, and should do some research on Islamic militants' propaganda (I'd prefer if my government leaders didn't throw fastballs down the fat part of the plate, which the previous administration did routinely for a few years before they realized it). It's nothing more and nothing less than that.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 19, 2009 -> 05:36 AM) Since I'm getting more into the Bears mode I thought I'd share some thoughts on the team, specifically.. offense. Yes Cutler is sexy and will be a damn fine quarterback for us, but I ask myself (as does every Bears fan out there) Is Ron Turner the right guy calling the shots/plays as the offensive ordinator? Can he stop being so predictable, and also develop more of a game awareness? Personally most people know we can do alot better than Ron Turner and hell... fans from other teams even agree to that. I would love to see Shanahan (who is brilliant in game awareness and understanding) to be a coach of any kind (I.E. offensive ordinator/HC) in the future for Cutler, but I'll definitely give Turner the doubt for this season to see what he can do for Cutler. I found an interesting post/thought from a guy (name/or what he calls himself.. Coach Zamboni, who is well respected) on his thoughts about Turner that I'll paste here (though I shoulda lied to take all the credit.. but I'm not like that. I hate having to defend Ron Turner, but when he has his chips he isn't that bad. If the Bears aren't too bad at WR, then I'm really not that worried about him calling our plays.

QUOTE (tommy @ May 19, 2009 -> 01:16 AM) He's not destroying AAA himself . ;-> .333, .368, 813 in his rehab stint

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 18, 2009 -> 11:41 AM) Gavin's also had statistically bad luck judging by the statistics. Is there another method to judge statistically bad luck?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Rumsfeld is actually a very smart man. He's just also one of those very smart men who is willing to overanalyze (read: delude) himself into finding a logical reason for whatever he wants to see happen. That gives you a leader who manipulates their surroundings until everything appears to fit nicely into their model. Ironically, Rummy calls himself a realist, but this habit makes him the opposite - he is an idealogue. Gates is a realist, and everything Rumsfeld wasn't as far as that goes.

Sri Lanka is a s***ty situation because neither side is the "good guy."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) This was simply a politically stupid move, one which Bush should have stopped as soon as he saw it. It just adds fuel to the fire, as was pointed out earlier, and accomplishes zero. What's actually more disturbing than the printing of the document, is that Rumsfeld seemed to see the war in those terms. So forget just adding fuel to the fire of perception in the Middle East that we were on a crusade... this tells me that Rummy may in fact have BEEN on one. Pretty much. Just another example, out of the many that I've already seen, about how the previous administration simply did not know how to fight this war strategically.

Good lord Tex, you are all over the place with the slippery slopes and the straw men.

How many people have died during a briefing?

Someone please explain all the things wrong with this quote. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30774814/

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:48 PM) What some people here are stating is that Rumsfeld should not be allowed to quote religious material. That is intolerant to me. What would you call it? What they're saying is that there's a time and a place for that, and an official military briefing probably isn't.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:36 PM) Stopping Rumsfeld from quoting material is . . . ? A. Religious tolerance B. Religious intolerance C. neither, choice between A and B is false Then again, I want to know how in the hell regular people have access to TS/SCI briefing slides even if the individual slides are unclassified. That's just... no.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:26 PM) Stopping all religious comments feeds it even more. I do not see how saying, it is not just your religion we want to stop, we seek to stop all religion, is any better. At that point we begin promoting religious intolerance. That feeds the stereotypes. Tex what are you talking about? I've been to hundreds of military briefings, the topic of religion (unless explicitly relevant to the subject at hand) is almost always entirely irrelevant. Religious intolerance? You're reaching hard.

The vast majority of what's been posted in this thread is far from the point. AHB and Heads about had it though. It gives the impression that this is a religion-based war which really just feeds into the terrorists' stereotypes.

Holy s***, who released those with classification markings on them?

lol, nice thread title change to match the Dem thread

QUOTE (knightni @ May 16, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) You could fill in that sentence with half of the first round of the '86 draft. Ironically, the year Len Bias was drafted.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2009 -> 10:23 PM) Hence why the notion that we're the only life out there is absurd. Fully agree. And for people who don't believe in other life being out there because of religious beliefs or whatever, I ask how do they know that God only bothered putting life on Earth? If He made the universe, he can put whatever He wants in it.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2009 -> 08:16 PM) Good question. Maybe this notion comes from ideas about UFOs and science fiction tales. Perhaps, the idea of little green men being able to come to our planet, obviously possessing more advanced technology, has seeped into our collective conscience. And is this following part true? I knew the universe was large but man... 100 billion is being very conservative actually, there could be as many as 400 billion stars in the galaxy, we don't really know. And as far as the other galaxies out there keep in mind the word "observable," we can't even see most of them from Earth because they're outside of the visible light spectrum because of their position/speed/whatever, or their light is so far away that it's too weak/hasn't even reached yet. But yeah, bottom line, the universe is almost incomprehensibly big.