NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) what the hell?? i get home from work, expecting to have my code, and NOTHING in my email!!! Can someone who didnt get screwed PM me the code since it is generic? Thank you in advance, random nice person! I don't think the worldchamps would like it if I did that. Sorry, can't help you.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 05:20 PM) Don't you realize that getting "Some" of them on board really doesn't matter? The reason these sorts of things are held up is not that they can't get majority support, it's instead that some powerful Republican on one committee somewhere decides to hold it up, and the Republicans in this Congress have allowed that to be sufficient to block bills many times. There are already moderate Republicans who have proposed similar things, but they haven't gone anywhere. Link That's just because they don't have me there to convince them otherwise. Is there a way to make my statement only a little green?

Hilary's statements are correct of course. But I agree that coming from the pot, she needs to shut up about the kettle.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 05:06 PM) It will die a quick death at the hands of the majority. I'm not so sure. Bush wanted a guest worker program, and it had some steam at first, before it died off. If you attached the restrictions on it that I noted, specifcally that it could only be used for immigrants brought over legally, I think you could get some of the right wingers (not all) to come on board. Moderates on both sides would likely be interested, along with a lot of Dems. I think it would have a shot.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) As long as they get the same federal minimum wage standards guaranteed by the government for US Citizens, I'd be totally down with it. And they have to have an opportunity to become a permanent resident after x years. Agreed. So can we write up a bill now or what?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) I think a more generous guest worker program for Latin America would go a long way too. Especially if there was an opportunity to gain citizenship from it. As long as the program did not admit those who had come across illegally. If you want to have a guest worker program, then it needs to be administered only to those willing to follow the rules. Otherwise, you just encourage more illegal crossings. An example of how it could work: Company A needs 300 widget painters for their plant in Las Cruces. They post an ad in the Juarez papers saying so, and apply to the US government for it. In the application, they state the reasons why they can't find 300 workers at that wage rate in southern New Mexico that are legal residents, so they need help. They then hold a sort of job fair in Juarez, and pick the 300 they want. Those 300 are checked by US law enforcement against various criminal databases, etc., then they are issued guest worker permits. Voila!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 03:15 PM) Illegal immigration will not be a problem when we force our free trade partners to make worker's conditions closer to what we enjoy here. It will be LESS of a problem, but even with major reforms, there will still be border runners in significant numbers. Maybe sometime many decades from now, that will have changed enough to stop the flow. But its not going to stop anytime soon.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) Or you could withhold aid to Mexico until they make it better for Mexicans to stay in their own country. That's a good idea as well. Or at least force them to use the money more in areas near the borders.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) Yeah, but even on a "right turn on red" you have to stop at the red light...behind the line. Correct. I don't want to make this a big reenactment or anything, I'm just saying, if he stopped behind the line, looked one way and saw no one, then looked the other way and saw no one and went, and someone had biked into the crosswalk from the first direction (especially if against traffic), then boom. Thats why bikes aren't supposed to be on sidewalks/crosswalks (one of the reasons). Either way, if the driver ran the red light, he's an a**hole.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) No it's not... not the only way. Why I said "some". And you can bet that if some story buried way deep in a list gets tons of hits, it will get moved up.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060...02148-1710r.htm This is absolutely right on the money. The newsies were in a fury because this issue was about the way it was reported. That is the one thing they can, and will, get personally involved in. All those other issues (which are all over the news too) require reporting, so they report it. The author misses that important distinction.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) The '06 elections will continue this trend. The early stuff I am reading indicates otherwise. There was just a poll reported recently that pointed out that many Republicans running in the midterms are having to distance themselves from the Prez, for fear of what he will do to their campaigns (anyone have a link? It was reported here too, but I can't find it). I think you'll see a shift back to the left, to some extent (history says thats likely anyway, all being equal). But we'll have to see.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) And just like I asked in the other thread, who controls what stories people are hearing about? People are spoonfed, boring twits for the most part. The interest generated on the Cheney story is because they are screaming about it the loudest. It's kind of like crying FIRE in a theatre. It gets people's attention, only because they're screaming FIRE the loudest. See my answer in other said thread. I guess I just refuse to blame the media, who are just doing what all businesses do. I don't blame movie makers for making crappy movies, because people go to them. I don't blame CNN for making Cheney's shooting a top story, because people read it. In fact, on many news sites, that is how stories get listed on the splash page - by number of hits. You, on the other hand, want to blame the media. Sounds amazingly like an argument that "liberals" are often accused of here - blame everyone but yourself. Where is the personal responsibility?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:20 PM) The White House when they can, for one. There is that. Reporters can only get to information they are allowed to access. So if there is an exception to the rule I stated, its government restriction. And somehow, I don't think the White House is employing any liberal bias on that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) Who controls what stories the people hear? the people who read the stories. Its simple marketing. If newsies reported stuff no one read, they'd go out of business. Yes, papers/tv stations/radio stations have to make choices, but they do it in their own best interests. That means delivering the product people want. If they ignore a story they don't like for whatever reasons you are indicating, then someone else will report it, and if they get more traffic... there you go. Simple business. They will deliver what sells.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Go Cuellar. He's right. I agree with his stance on toughening the borders, and sending back illegal immigrants. But deputizing the militias... sorry, minutemen... is a horrible idea. You want to put a bunch of untrained, armed locals in charge of our borders? Fabulous. And the wall thing is a bad idea. As I mentioned in a previous thread on this, the better method to fixing this problem is technology. I agree on employing more Border Patrol personnel, but you can make them much more effective by giving them better tools: cameras, sensor arrays, more helicopters and aircraft with FLIR, GPS-integrated radio systems, etc. That will be cheaper and more effective than a cement wall. If you put a wall in, you do horrific damage to ecosystems in the southwest. That, and the cost savings as above, make the tech approach much smarter than a wall.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) Who the hell are you to decide what most Americans agree on??? The majority of Americans have only been fed one story on the national news. That f***in speech should not have been made over there. Lead the news off with that...let the people decide what they think is more important. Sorry, I thought it was clear why I said most Americans agree. I stated in a different thread (sorry for the confusion) that since people are reading the Cheney articles so avidly, and don't seem to care much about the speech, that people have made a choice. People are eating the Cheney thing up, like it or not. Again, the media services its consumers, like any other business. They publish what will get read. If they don't, they don't survive. Too much competition.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) No it's not. It's been MADE INTO a big story. If I shot you in the face for a hunting accident, it wouldn't get written on the back of toilet paper. If you shot me in a hunting accident... 1. I'd wonder why you brought a gun into a bar, because thats the only place I do any hunting. 2. Looking at some of the arguments we have had in this forum, people would likely suspect that it may not have been an "accident". 3. Anyway, I think the American public has made it a big deal, not the media. The media is just a device. People read what interests them. Obviously, this interests them.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) nice to know. i really had no clue that you as a bike.... can't be in accordance with traffic laws and... a) ride on a sidewalk B) ride in a crosswalk so its nice to know. i guess ill just have to use my helmet all the time and get in the lanes with cars... which, ironicly... will put me at more of a risk... such a paradox. i dont mean to sound like a jerk, just trying to be honest... i do appricate the info thou. I know, its a bit counterintuitive, but there are some good reasons for it. I actually ride to work during the warmer months as well, and there are the occasional scary moments. My route is mostly bike laned, so I'm lucky that way, though some drivers just wander on over anyway. And you should definitely keep that helmet on.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) That's true, but according to hi8is here, the guy almost ran a red light. So even if he was 4 feet to the left, he would have been hit if the goon ran the light. I guess I thought he was turning right. If not, then yeah, he falls in that moron category I mentioned.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) as some of you know i got a dui..... as a result, i no longer am able to drive a car, but rather.... ride my bike around town. today on my morning ride to work, i was crossing the street. i was in the crosswalk, had the right of way, and the green. im almost all the way across the street when some idiot comes up and begins to run his red light and make his right turn. he would have ran it too if i wasnt there. he stoped, i surved, and we missed eachother barely. i just rode away thinking, what a moron. then he honked at me. that made me snap. i slammed on my brakes, litterally.... threw my bike down and jumped of it... turned around and walked as fast as i could to his car with both my arms outstreached.... he rolls down his window and asks me, "WHAT ARE YOU DOIN?" since he was the one that almost hit me and ran a red light i was kind of confused. the adrlinine in me was overwelming. i snapped. im sure i woke people in near by homes up.... i havent screamed and yealled that loud in a long time... the guy was odviously completely clueless.... the second thing he said to me was, "thats for people, not bicycles! you cant ride your bike in that!" (refering to the crosswalk) after this moron just either mangled my body or killed me... i was on such a short fuse.... to be more accurate, there was no fuse..... every car in sight knew just how i felt about this genious memeber of the gene pool. after hearing that story... lets all say a health f*** you to him. =D hi8is- I'm glad you are alright. But I have to tell you this: he was right. Crosswalks, just like sidewalks, are not for bikes. You need to be in the road, as you are a wheeled vehicle. If there is no bike lane, you have rights to the normal lane of traffic. This is the way the traffic laws work. There are many reasons why bikes on sidewalks are a bad idea, but your experience illustrated one. You are going faster than people on foot, and you make it difficult for people turning to see you in enough time to adjust. If you were in the road with the other traffic, they may be able to more easily see you. That all said, there are certainly plenty of morons on the road in their cars who could care less about bikes, no matter where they are. Gotta stay alert, which you did, so that is good.

May an independent wade in? First, the quotes used by this author were actually taken (it appears) from the JEF website (Jeddah Economic Forum), who was paraphrasing Gore. I see nothing anywhere that tells us what he actually said. We have double heresay here. So I am skeptical. And I may be OK with him saying that the US has committed terrible abuses against Arabs since 9/11. Why? Because we have. Iraq, anyone? But I hope the context was correct. If he was intimating that it was happening in the US, then I'm insulted. While there have undoubtedly been a few isolated criminals committing hate crimes, that does not make it widespread. If he is talking about our foreign policy towards the Middle East, however, I agree with him completely. Now that all said, I think he goes over the line (if he really said what is being paraphrased) when talking about indiscriminate rounding up of people, and people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances. For one thing, to use the word "indscriminate" makes the US look like they just rounded up folks who looked Middle Eastern, which is untrue and makes us look like buffoons. And the only people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances are the really bad folks. As for comparing this to the Cheney hunting accident, there is no comparison. The current VP shooting someone is a much bigger story than a questionable speech by a former VP and talking head. Thats pretty clear to me, and apparently, most Americans agree.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Stop there. That's it. That's my point. They are there to enflame, and basically be a hemmoroid. Nothing more, nothing less. And when the big boys got 'scooped', now they're going to get EVEN with this 'BASTARD'. It's wrong, despicable, idiotic, whatever lame metaphor you want to use. We have a former VP basically committing treason (well, that might be a little strong, but his words in such a speech were CALCULATED) in another country, and we have a hunting accident in this country. Which is the bigger story? Oh gee, I wonder why? I was trying to point out to you - these talking heads are not the same as "the media". News is reported by reporters, and they aren't always out to get even with people. And I guess I don't see where you are getting this big conspiracy thing. Do I think that the Vice President shooting someone is a bigger story than a former VP giving a questionable speech? Of course I do! And so do most Americans, as is made clear by how often people are clicking those links on CNN and MSNBC and what not. This is not some vast liberal conspiracy. There are undoubtedly some people who dislike Cheney, but taking his name out of the picture, this is still a pretty big story.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) I think his good reason to think that is because the 16-1 tear we went on with Dye in the 3-hole. I wouldn't put streak that in Dye's lap. Nothing on Dye, he's exactly what we need in RF and the 5 slot, but he just isn't in the same league as a 3-hitter that Thome is (assuming Thome is healhty).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) You're twisting my point, as usual. The media is a bunch of lazy bastards who have vendettas against people who 'wrong' them. I don't care who, what party affiliation, what the circumstances are, it's true. Kap, you sound just like the conspiracy theorists you are complaining about going after Cheney. Columnists and talking heads tend to enflame - that I grant you. Its their role. But "the media" is not what you say they are. The media delivers what sells, pure and simple. Otherwise, no one would watch or read them. There are all sorts of news outlets nowadays, so if one were to start acting irrationally and not deliver what people wanted to see/read/hear, they'd be extinct pretty quick. And further, knowing a number of people in the press (a few very well), I think that reporters are akin in persona to defense attornies. No one likes watching them do their job, and people yell and scream about "how can they be so slimy and manipulative?" They can and do because that is how they HAVE to be for free society to function. Defense attornies need to defend the worst of criminals to the greatest extent possible, or else the justice system loses itself. Reporters have to dig, poke and prod, so that we have true freedom of speech and access to information.