lostfan

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 14, 2009 -> 03:47 PM) On the contrary: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...0,6465292.story This doesn't seem to be the answer either. He was being sarcastic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) See, this is why we need a full independent investigation. I don't have a clue if Pelosi is covering up something or not. I don't know what she was told, when she was told it, and what she was legally allowed to do after being told whatever she was told. A fully independent investigation would be able to answer those questions. If she broke the law to defend the torture program, she deserves to go to jail just as much as the rest of them. I like the "how about we actually talk about it?" idea you have. Somehow though, I wonder if the Republicans and the media would be willing to go along with that... I truly and honestly don't really care what she knew though unless it was something blatant. I doubt if she actually approved torture and then flip-flopped on it although the House Republicans are trying to make it sound like that, but is their entire argument based around "she lied?" Wow, someone in Congress exaggerated, told a half-truth, or said something intentionally misleading. Welcome to Washington!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) The problem I have with Obama here and the whole "torture" issue (among others), is he says one thing - which gets all the far left people jizzing in their pants excited (YES! GET THAT EVIL BASTARD BUSH!!! or YES! EVIL ASSHOLE AIG f***ERS AND THEIR BONUSES or YES! GET THOSE RICH ASSHOLES MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY or you get the pattern) and then after two or three weeks, they quietly let the issue just sort of die off and they say they won't bring charges, or they won't tax 90% of AIG bonuses, or they won't be as pressing on compensation levels... they create this persona of placating the far left and let them get all excited only to quietly turn on that original word. Get some balls and stand for something up front instead of having the appearance of giving in to the left and then "giving in" to what is "right". It's like they want to see what the real reaction is and then they just sort of let these issues go. As far as the right-left argument on this goes, this article sums up how stupid it is on all fronts. Granted, I think Pelosi is full of s*** on the subject of what she knew or didn't know, but House Republicans are clearly more concerned with making her look bad than actually addressing any issue. Made crystal clear with these comments: Mmmkay John. Nice way to completely deflect and derail the topic, that appears to be their official strategy. How about we actually talk about it?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ May 14, 2009 -> 11:09 AM) Just curious, but why is this in the Republican thread? De facto place to post.

If you're implying that there was pressure to get that information from detainees (when it wasn't actually there) then I have no doubt about that.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) I was wondering the reaction to the pictures thing. I haven't seen or heard a thing. Normally I check out blogs and such but I haven't done it yet as far as the pictures go. But usually the reaction is 100% predictable. Completely disregarding the fact that in all likelihood he did something they agree with, or any other circumstances involved, they focus instead on him being a hypocrite or something else he may have said (or was perceived to have said), most likely in a completely different context. The couple of posts I saw in the Republican thread on this are kind of what I expect to see if I browsed some generic political sites. Bottom line: people are more concerned with being right about something and/or finding fault than they are with reality itself.

Yeah he wasn't a detainee, he was a wackjob source that attracted the attention of some pretty high-level government officials so he told them what they wanted to hear. I assume you're talking about this guy.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 14, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) Joe Crede is working his magic in Twinkie land while Fields is plowed under MINNEAPOLIS -- Twins manager Ron Gardenhire tried to find the words to describe what he had just witnessed on Wednesday night. And well, forgive him if he couldn't exactly come up with a way to summarize the Twins' 14-10 walk-off victory over the Tigers that ended after four hours and 48 minutes with Joe Crede's two-out pinch-hit grand slam in the 13th inning. Crede's offensive numbers are really not much to write home about so far. Aside from that, is this really necessary?

I don't remember ever seeing anything like that. It was just some s*** they completely made up.

I have noticed on multiple occasions that even when Obama does something the right agrees with, he still gets flamed for it. Hysterical.

The above is actually a great idea politically, it's more of what they did during the Reagan era, etc. The Republicans are not going to get anywhere by just doubling down and being "more conservative" or whatever that means. It's just not mathematically possible.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) I'd have his 5th, 6th, and 7th ranked teams ahead of the Bears without question. However, I do think the Bears are the favorite in the NFC North, although to be honest I think the Packers would be my 2nd place prediction. To me, Minnesota looks like they are going to finish 3rd right now, and thus I completely understand why they'd want Brett Favre. He's worth the risk considering how much they need a good QB. Actually I think Favre is really not that good anymore and living off his reputation. He believes his own hype. As a Bears fan I'm really not worried about the possibility of the Vikings getting Favre.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/ab2p31qr...mVwdWJsaWNhbnNh

Again, "torture" is vastly overrated, at best. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_..._interrogations

QUOTE (fathom @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:05 AM) Sorry, Ozzie gets no credit for this. My grandma could tell Lillibridge sucks. Ozzie keeps putting him into the lineup instead of trying to get creative. Would putting Alexei in CF for a week for the sake of the team hurt his development at SS? Hell no, if anything, it could give you more options down the road. My thoughts exactly, that's like giving me credit for coming to work on time this morning.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ May 13, 2009 -> 11:31 PM) When he wore #27 he played like we'd expect Josh Fields to play. When he wore #22 he played a lot like Scott Podsednik. He now wears #7 and he's producing like Jerry f***ing Owens. I was just about to make a similar post but went to put clothes in my laundry... f***.

What's funny is this morning shipps sent me a PM asking if something was wrong and why wasn't I posting, I was like what the hell? I just got finished with like 9 posts... lol and here I am at #6

Give him another couple hundred PA's.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 13, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) Was pretty stupid to use their picture, but really isn't a big deal or a deal at all. However, it is a picture of students in the chicago area going to school. I doubt AP has a bunch of images of students in chicago going to school, and with how popular Obama was, there was probably a ton of pictures of Sasha and Malia (I think I got it right this time) going to school and stuff like that. It's not a big deal at all. Just something that makes you go WTF.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 13, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) No not really, just pointing out how Balta was so moved by those evil people at the Washington Times that he had to post it on here to show how evil conservative newspapers are. However, I just doubt Balta was posting the articles of those people called journalists and how they viciously attacked a 15-16 year old girl. And Balta, if you did, I'm sorry. Eh, I really wasn't with the premise the blogger was going for but I found it kind of random and creepy myself. Why use their picture, of all pictures?

Total strawman, find me one person on this board that condoned the unfair treatment of Palin's family. Probably the worst thing I saw anybody say here was the fact that she used her family as a prop, or that it was ironic that Palin is a hardcore abstinence-only education type, and her daughter ends up pregnant.

I missed this conversation while it was going on, but I hope it's not another federal judge. That artificially limits the field to a fraction of otherwise qualified people. It's like saying we want people to work in retail, but only if they've been a cashier.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 13, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) The federal government does fund a lot of public housing, but yes state/local governments also fund these things. But i think the argument can extend to welfare/health services since we're talking about the same people. The unavailability of health care to people isn't just about poor people which is why I say it's a different argument. It's a whole other set of problems.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 13, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) I just don't think this is reality. My main history in this is a public housing law class where we dissected the Chicago Housing Authority (and visted cabrini green and the new mixed housing developments and got to hear a drug addict with 3 kids complain about her 150 dollar a month rent payment for a 2bed 2 bath condo that easily could fetch 2k a month...and in fact does, because we all pay the 1850 dollar difference). Roughly 140,000 people are in the public housing system (only 7k of which are seniors btw). Results have shown that the odds of getting out of the system are incredibly small, meaning that the system is not a "lets give you some temporary help to get you back on your feet" it's a "lets make sure you have a home, even if it means paying for your home, food, and whatever else you need for the rest of your life." I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people that receive welfare in any form end up staying on it for the long term. How many of those 140k people are truly going to leave? What's the net change on a year to year basis (hint: there's a waiting list for public housing). That's a gigantic cost on the public that doesn't amount to much of a return. We're supposed to be aiding people through tough times, but in reality the budget for public housing (and welfare systems) on the local, state and national levels have risen every single year. So it goes back to forcing people with money, including the middle class, to pay for a relatively large portion of the population to have a home and have food and whatever, without nearly any conditions - like staying drug free, staying out of trouble with the law, and actively searching for a job - for a lengthy period of time (in some cases, life). Let's say for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct about this - it's still pretty irrelevant as far as national politics go. Most of these things you're talking about are state and local governments, whereas the feds try to do things like welfare, education, etc. which is a whole other argument in itself.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Actually, the Republicans are renaming it the "Democrat Socialist" party, I believe. So your thread title is too grammatically correct. Good point.