EvilMonkey

Konerko

Gordon B.

Konerko

CQ

CQ

Konerko

Beckham

Konerko

Rios

Rios

AJP

Dunn

Juan P.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) That's my point - people rail on the Catholic Chuch on a specific action, one that pretty much everyone agrees is awful. Similarly, people rail on the more fundamentalist Ismalic atrocities, like the Taliban, or stoning women who supposedly commit audultery. What no one other than Alpha Dog is doing, is referring to either religin as a cult, as if they millions or billions of members are all drones or something. So when someone makes jokes about priests molesting kids, that's not mocking the religion in general? Nobody takes those as singling out just the few (or many?) priests that have and do molest kids, they all hear and take it as an inditement of the religion as a whole. And I refered to it as a cult because it made the 'two cutls enter, one cult leaves' flow better. But let's see. It has members willing to die for it, members that follow rules that most of the rest of the world think are silly and/or arcane, has its members so devoted that their life centers around it, not their family, work or anythgin else. Devotion to it is higher than devotion to family or country. Sure, most other religions fit into a few of these, but that first one, it is a biggie. On that note, I am done with this thread, and site. It has been a pleasure chatting with most of you, a headache cahatting with a few others. Go Sox.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 07:42 AM) Really, you correlate "Unionization" with "Crappy service"? Yes.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 10:47 PM) This is ridiculously disrespectful. There is nothing extremist about the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI. The Imam at this mosque works endlessly for religious reconciliation and understanding. His teachings have ecumenical underpinnings and is a prime example of moderate Islamic religion. So much so that George W recognized him for it. There has been much worse written here about Catholics, so I am not worried.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 08:16 PM) Winning joke on this subject? John Stewart pointing out that the company name is "Rapiscan", and if you pronounce that with a long-A... Kinda sounds like what the Dems are helping the TSA do to the public, by letting them unionize. Their jobs were created with a provision that they can't unionize. Now the Dems letting them? You think service sucks now............ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...rss=federal-eye

Two cults enter, one cult leaves....... Westboro Baptist crazies picketing the Dearborn Islamic Center, on 11/18. Oh boy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 08:12 PM) Well, that depends. If we're spending it on the scanning machines, we just need to buy enough for former Secretary Chertoff to retire comfortably (since he's a key investor in that company and was a key guy in putting these things in place). If we're spending it on blowing people up...obviously we've established there's zero cost limit. George Soros owns a ton of stock in the company as well. Don't forget him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it. Just give MADD time. They have evolved into a prohibitionist movement, they will get there soon.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 07:32 AM) Couldn't you add Ralph Nader's run in 2000 to that list as well? Arguably, Gore won anyway, but those Nader votes definitely tipped it to Bush. Palin's "Tea Party" led to losses in Delaware and Nevada in the Senate, as well as Colorado. Miller didn't even win in her home state. Hilary Clinton has a better chance of being president in 2012 than Palin does. It also led to victories elsewhere, so what's your point there? That she didn't win them all? As for now winning ht ehome state, if you think Chicago politics in inbred, go see Alaska. Half that state, including little Murky herself, was put into power directly or with the help of Murky's dad. The fact it was even close is a miracle in itself.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 06:41 PM) If our security procedures were as tight as they are in Israeli airports, it 1) wouldn't be cost-effective, the U.S. is waaaay bigger than Israel and 2) would cause everyone here to flip all the way the f*** out because of how over-the-top intrusive it is. Well, they use profiling, and it works. So you can;t say it doesn't work. You can say it may not be cost effective, but it works.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) You are describing isolated cases of reverse racism, or maybe better put, people who are too PC in the name of fear. And what you seem to be describing as profiling, is different than what others are calling it. Your version of profiling is to look for specific signals - like saying strange things, behaving oddly, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What others are referring to as profiling is racial or religious profiling, which is morally repugnant and also patently ineffective. Tell that to El Al.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) I haven't read all 8 pages, it'd take too long but I know the gist of what the argument is and who's going to say what. This whole thing is a catch-22. Obviously you don't want people sneaking bombs onto planes and you don't want to be so intrusive either. But what's the one place the TSA isn't going to look? For now................

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) I'm not following what you're saying here. Regardless, aside from being racist, profiling is not an effective method. Is it a video of a three year old being groped by TSA? Damn, I think i pwned myself back there. That's what happens when i try to work and post at the same time. Anyway....yes, there is a video of tsa 'searching' a 3 year old who is scared and screaming while they do it, and parents not doing anything out of fear of arrest. profiling by itself it not so good. Profiling accompanied by other methods, good. Why is it bad to select certain people who lok a certain way for extra scrutiny? Why the need to spend extra time on a 3 year old and less on someone of perhaps Muslim origin, just to appear to be non-profiling? Just look around at other incidents that have happened. That guy who shot up the military base, Nadal, was spouting off some things that should have caused people to take a closer look at him. But everyone was afraid of being accused of Islamophobia, so nobody did anything. In a world where a second grader can point his finger at someone and go 'bang', then be expelled because they think he is a serial murderer-in-waiting, we can't look twice at the person in Islamic garb, even though most terrorism seems to come from people that might wear such garb? We can't look closer at the jittery guy in line because he happens to look arabic, don't want to offend anyone, so let's give the 80 year old lady the once over instead, just to assure our Muslin friends that we are not profiling anyone. You wanna do these scanner, first have to make it so that there is ZERO chance that anyone can ever get those pictures off the machine. Because if there is a way, someone will find it and manipulate it to their gain or pleasure. But stop the security-theater, it wastes time, wastes resources and is just a waste, period.