-
Posts
19,754 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Soxbadger
-
They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years. I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives.
-
I dont think this is true at all. In fact I think its the opposite. I hate that in this country whenever you don't support the "white mans agenda" you're instantly deemed an Anti-American communist terrorist. A little tongue in cheek but you can make the argument either way, depending on what side of the fence you sit.
-
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
For no reason it seems haha -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
K or gidp waiting to happen. I have faith in Matt. -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
Itd be nice to get 1 more here some how. -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
Its strange. Like that play changed fortunes momentarily... -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
No matter what happens in the next few days, the Sox gave me a better season than I thought wed get. -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
Ill take a walk and 3 wild pitches if thats what it takes. Just need people on base. -
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
Screw a hr, Ill take a run however we can get it. -
I dont know what the relevance of your statement about taxable interest is, so Im not going to even address it. I dont see how you can say its not a govt issue when you have politicians politicizing it. I think that they need to shut the f*** up about it, but since they wont, they are forcing it to become a political issue. It is a First Amendment issue if a govt makes it so that they Mosque cant be built. The building's owner, had every right to not sell to them. Private entity doesnt fall under the scope of the 1st amendment. But if the Federal govt (US Constitution) or NY Govt (NY constitution) were to restrict Muslims from building a Mosque, I very much believe it would be an infringement on their 1st amendment right. I dont want to sacrifice my ideals even though it may support a douche. Its easy to make exceptions, to say this time is different. Over time Ive realized that Id rather stick with my ideals and then apply them to the situation before prejudging it.
-
Are you for or against the mosque? Im personally for it. (Thats a serious question because Im not sure how it fits into some peoples idea of "limited" govt.)
-
SOX @ Twinkies Danks (12-8 3.19) vs. Baker (10-9 4.76)
Soxbadger replied to The Ginger Kid's topic in 2010 Season in Review
Vizquel is just ridiculous some times. -
Well the Sookie/Bill stuff will become important (at least in my opinion), but I dont need the melodrama. And I dont understand why Hoyt doesnt go back for Jessica.
-
Haha There is a reason why drug agents wait for the sale to actually happen instead of busting them when they are merely talking about it.
-
Show me some credible evidence that suggests that pre-Yom Kippur war the Arab nations believed that Israel had a weapon. Ive done the research myself and never found anything compelling, so Im not just going to assume Arab nations had this inside information on the Israel military program. 1 country wont make or break my argument, but please dont just keep saying "proof is irrelevant." In fact some articles Ive read that suggest that Arabic states knew of the Israeli bomb, also suggest that Arabs did not attack as aggressively in order to prevent Israel from responding with nuclear weapons. I have not read anything to suggest that the Israel "nuke" had no effect. Due to the inconclusiveness of this, I am not willing to use Israel as either a pro or con. You can feel free to do what you please, but I am not comfortable trying to use facts that are not credited or sourced.
-
Thats not my argument at all. My argument is that morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal idea of how to control population. I have no argument on things being codified or morality. I dont believe there is such a thing as "universal morality", I believe in utility, which would have no basis in morality. Morality tries to modify behavior (good or bad) based on preset ideas of right v wrong. In my opinion this is nothing more than quasi-legal, in that it tries to modify behavior, but there is no actual punishment for wrong doing (unless it is also illegal). I was making the inverse argument. These werent "morals" until they were codified by rule. If there were these "inherent" morals, why would they need to be created? Its not an empty argument. Countries have unlimited legal right to do what they want on their own soil, its called "sovereignty". Most nations have agreements that recognize the other countries "sovereignty". Most countries recognize the other countries "sovereignty". It is only in rare cases (nuclear weapons) where sovereignty is questioned for the better good of humanity. Because most people agree that each country could have nukes if they wanted, they made an agreement whereby offering countries an incentive not to create nukes. Why did they do this? Because absent the agreement, each country would have the right (under their own sovereignty) to have a nuclear weapon program. Now sovereignty is subject to "might makes right". If country A does something and is to small to protect itself, country B can take away its sovereignty. But that is an act of war. No one denies the US could declare war on Iran and end its nuclear program. But I believe the context of the argument is, how can we prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons without warfare. The answer is, was and will be the NPT. As for "tryanny", I didnt create the theory, that was De Tocquevill, Mill and Madison, etc. I just am applying their insight to this fact pattern. Yet still to this day (over 30 years later) no one has verifiable proof of its existence. Not to mention, the evidence for Israel nuke uses the year 1975. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons. The last time Israel was invaded was 1973. This would suggest that as soon as the other Middle Eastern nations were convinced that Israel had a nuclear bomb, they did not invade Israel again. Once again, since no one has definitive proof when Israel had a nuclear weapon, or what the Arab states that attacked Israel knew or believed at the time of the attack, its impossible to use Israel in the argument. And even then, Israel would be the only nation to have ever been invaded while in possession of a nuclear weapon. That doesnt really disprove the idea that countries are less willing to attack other countries with nuclear capabilities.
-
Balta, There is no proof Israel has a nuclear weapon. A deterrent only works if the other side knows you have the capability. Deterrents dont work as a surprise. So Israel, is excluded from the comparison.
-
Disagree. So I can murder some one if they buy a coke and its the last coke in the machine? That is a fight over resources. In fact you can claim every single murder is a fight over "something" whether it be money, love, etc. They are all "resources" if broadened to the nth degree. Morals are nothing more than the precursor to laws (or were laws to begin with). If morality was floating in the air, then why were the 10 commandments so important? Because before them, "morals" were just suggestions. Morality without consequence is nothing, because morals are self defined.
-
Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon? Im pretty sure the answer is 0.
-
Tyranny of the majority. Which is why the NPT is so important. Iran decided to give up its "right" to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that countries signed a treaty to give them up, suggests to me that absent that contract they had the right to pursue them.
-
Just because it seems to have been missed: Itd be great to turn back the clock and never make a nuke. It wont happen and as long as the technology becomes more attainable the proliferation only becomes more likely. That is your perspective. There are (and there is a reason why I use quotes because im not saying every Muslim is the same, but that instead there are some Muslims who agree with Iran) some "Muslims" who are friendly and support Iran. So for them, a nuclear weapon would be a possible tool to prevent Western countries from trying to usurp their sovereignty. Nuclear weapons are deterrents. Morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal structure. We have defined murder as wrong, but in human prehistory, murder would have not only been accepted, but basic survival. When 2 human tribes fought over land or resources, they killed each other. The tribe that won didnt put its members on trial for murder. They had no understanding of the concept.
-
Hobbesian to the core. The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Which is why man enters into a social contract with govt. Whereby ceding some of his rights to govt, for protection. I agree with the first part. As a society we agree to be bound by certain "social contracts" (haha used Rousseau and Hobbes in the same post). Whereby we give up certain rights that we may have had, for protection against others. The second part, I think is subjective. Its for the good of the "Western" or "Judea-Christian" world for Iran not to have nukes. Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes. There has to be some counter-balance to the power of the West. I dont want anyone to have nukes, but I think its naive to believe that will happen.
-
Well there is a reason why we can impose sanctions on NK and Iran, whereas China is free to do whatever they want. ie China could say "Who the f*** are you." The authority or right is: Might makes right. We can impose our will on countries because they cant stop us.
-
Its not about legitimate interests, its about sovereignty. 1970's USSR had a legitimate interest in the US not having nuclear weapons, but I doubt we would have cared if they said to stop making them. But its a non-issue, Iran is part of the NPT. Iran can leave the NPT upon notice. They decided to contract their sovereignty rights away. So I think Iran should follow the contract that they agreed to sign. Absent said contract, Id say they have the right to do whatever they want in terms of making nuclear weapons. Modern era does believe that sovereignty can be usurped by outside countries due to crimes against humanity or restrictions of freedom.
-
I think American citizenship is one of the most valuable things in the world. Which is why I wont arbitrarily deny it to some one unless there is good cause. Being poor is not good cause. Just because you let people have it, doesnt mean you take away its value. In my opinion the more people we share citizenship, the greater the value it has.