NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) Yes. there is. The Saudi government was aware of these cartoons months ago, they had talked about it then - and had even asked for a meeting with Danish government officials regarding them. Extremist Islam is at a peak of popularity right now and encouraging these protests are a way to appease that base. It's the same principle that has members of our government pandering to the people who follow Falwell, Dobson and Robertson. This is the creation of false outrage to overshadow a government's own ineptness. I agree, Rex, that some of what we are seeing is as you describe. But I think there is already enough hate towards the US in the Arab Muslim world, so that such encouragement isn't even necessary. What is lost in all this for many people, sadly, is that this hate towards the West didn't just spring up from the ground. Israel, Europe, Russia and even more so the US, can blame themselves for a big part of this. We sowed the seeds with our manipulation of that region. We are not the ONLY reason for it, but we are a major contributing factor.

The thing that was missed in the article is the question I'd ask: what about the guest list? If a Congressperson has a guest for SOTU, I guarantee the name goes on a list ahead of time. So, this person, walking into the building, has already met the following security scrutiny: 1. Invited guest of a member of Congress, who is present in the building 2. Name on the list, which means identity checked ahead of time 3. During ID check ahead of time, would have found out the man has a security clearance and is clearly not a threat 4. Physical ID check on entry, against list of names 5. Detection for metal, bomb material, etc. on the way in And then, he sits through the entire speech before security does anything. THEN they drag him out and question him, after he has sat through the event without incident?! This isn't about rights being trampled on - this is about complete and utter incompetence on the part of USSS, FBI, DCCPD, FPS and any other security agency responsible for that event. They should be embarrassed.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) WaPo. So in other words...the President is lying when he says the program is only used against people speaking with Al Qaeda. It actually is data mining of a huge number of overseas calls. Note also the acknowledegement of some domestic calls being monitored as well. A small number, but still, a number.

QUOTE(whitesoxmurph @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 04:49 AM) The United States will attack Iran by the end of 06 unless there is a significant and verifiable change in their position regarding the development of their nukes or unless someone takes out that nut case running their country. Israel will be a silent partner in this, not wanting to provoke retaliation from any of its "neighbors". Europe will will sit this one out with the possible exception of the British, who will at the very least state their support for our actions ( The French of course will be shocked). The UN will do nothing more than launch many investigations leading nowhere. If the Security Council votes China and Russia are likely vetoes. The attack itself will a tactical strike, most likely in one of two variations. 1- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C strike(Tomahawk Cruise Missile, conventional land attack variant with high explosive warhead). This Attack Variation has a a fair chance at disabling the Iranians. It will set them back a few years most likely. This Variant exposes no American Military personnel to any danger. It is also likely in this scenario that a second strike would take place weeks or months after the initial one. The NRO would monitor the facilities that were hit and we would hit them again, when the Iranian scientists come back to retrieve anything of use that survived the attack. 2- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C (see above) and TLAM-D (Tomahawk Cruise Missile conventional land attack with bomblets) followed by Stealth Fighters and Bombers. The TLAM-Cs would take out any Iranian anti-aircraft sites around the target areas and along with the TLAM-Ds would also hit every Iranian Air Force base in the country. The Cs would hit Planes, Hangers, Barracks and Bunkers while the Ds would hit the runways and any taxi-ways long enough for a plane to take off on. The Stealths would go in and hit the sites themselves with whatever conventional munitions are deemed ness. (Bunker Busters etc..) We of course would have an AWACS plane monitoring the situation from just the other side of the border, with the ability to vector fighters (F-15, F16 etc..) should any Iranian planes get off the ground and happen to get to close to one of our Stealths. This Variant has a much greater possibilty of setting the Iranians back a decade or more and this plan could be followed up with a second Cruise Missile attack, as in the First Variant. The problem with this plan is of course that a Plane could get shot down and the Pilot killed or captured. IMO Interesting on the details. But I guess I don't see us attacking Iran, for a few reasons. One, our military is too stretched. Yes, we could accomplish what you are saying without a problem. But you cannot attach Iran with the last 5% of your military assets, because you need to be ready for the potential backlash. That backlash (counter-attack), would take much more in the way of resources than what you suggest. Two, Isreal has much more at stake in a nuclear Iran than we do, so their motivation to act will be much higher. Three, if we were apt to do this sort of thing with a major aggresor country, why did we not do it to North Korea? We could attack Iraq easily enough, but attacking Iran is more on par with attacking NK, which we didn't do, despite knowing they were building nukes and where they were being built. Iran and North Korea both have large standing armies, significant air forces and some limited naval bits. Both are ruled by psychos. Lots of similarities, and we didn't do it to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/05/...cape/index.html Wonderful. More fuel for the fire.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) How about one man, one vote for the UN? Those that dislike the electoral College for American Presidents, would you agree to allow China and India a billion plus votes each? When (if?) it becomes technologically practical and economically feasible to actually get those votes on major issues and representation, then yes. Until then, another method will have to suffice.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 03:27 AM) If by cleaning up the UN you mean eliminating waste, corruption, etc. then I agree 100% If you mean they should agree with everything any single country wants, including the US, then I disagree. We are a super power and rank third in world population, but I don't think the UN functions very well if they just rubber stamp anything we want, or the Chinese want, or that India wants, etc. There are countries we want eliminated, and their are countries that want to eliminate us. The UN should be one vehicle to resolve these things peacefully. That can only happen if countries are free to make pronouncments like Chavez just did. And I assume his view did not come as a surprise to anyone with an internet connection and a brain. Just to clarify, I wouldn't want to eliminate any country from the UN. They all need a chair at the table. I just think that some countries' human rights records are so obviously disgusting, that there is no reason why they need to be given "their turn" on that particular committee. That placement should be earned, and voted on by a majority of countries (not a select few).

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 10:09 PM) uhhhh, wha? jumping to some conclusions there? Do you remember when he was being put into his position, all the uproar over his workplace harrassment? I'd have to go find the links, but he did and said some obscene things in his previous jobs. That, plus the fact that he has openly endorsed the US pulling out of the UN, are why people were so upset at the choice.

With all the recent tumutuous events in the Middle East (Hamas victory, response to the cartoons, Iranian nukes, continued unrest in Iraq, high oil prices, etc.), I've started feel a lump rising in my throat. It seems to me that, as unstable as things were a few months ago, they've gotten much worse recently. I'd just like to ask the opinions of people here: is there a new war coming in the Middle East (aside from the current Iraqi insurgency and Palestinian/Israeli flare-ups)? Is it soon? Who are the players, and how will it play out? Things are getting pretty ugly, and I see a lot of indicators that it will get worse. I don't know a time frame, but here are my thoughts, to start out: --As I've posted before, I think that if Israel can get decent info on Iran's nuclear facilities, they will strike to kill the program. --Iran's leader is a nut job. Many Iranians seem to know it, but they also hate America to varying degrees. I don't know who will win out there, but I am really hoping the people realize the level of danger, and push the government to be more reasonable. --The Russians are a scary part of all of this - if Iran is attacked, there is a good chance Russia would stand up with the Iranians (depending on exactly what is going on). --Other countries like Pakistan and the other Stans could quickly destabilize if a war involving Iran occurs --Our military is stretched awfully thin. If something happens that requires their attention outside Iraq, we could be putting them at huge risk. --I don't know if the current US administration has the willingness to take a chance on real peace. I think they are just too stubborn, and they won't step up to the diplomatic plate unless the are forced to. --I think if there is one key piece to this whole puzzle, its the Palestinians. If Hamas stands up as a political party a la Sinn Fein, and makes real movement towards peace, that could help keep things stable. If on the other hand they are unable to do that, or worse, they become more aggresive, then there could be another Lightning war involving Israel, Syria and others in that area. Nothing good could come of that.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Does the phrase "seperation of Church and State" ring a bell to you? If you're going to offer religious ed in public schools, you're going to have to offer ALL religions a course. It isn't fair to pick and choose which religions to teach or not teach in a public school. Evolution is not a "belief." It's a "scientific theory." The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is a "scientific theory" as well. It's also contradicted by the Bible. Um... did you actually read my post? Because if you did, you'd find I agree with you 100%. Beliefs should be taught in religion, science should be taught in public schools. I was making the very point you are banging on.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183792,00.html Well lets see here. -The UN has countries like Syria, Cuba and Zimbabwe on its council on human rights -They squander the money they get from us on bribes to dictators like Saddam Hussein -They blow off a meeting chaired by Ambassador Bolton to explore ways to reform -They hand out awards to men like Generalisimo Chavez for "uniting Latin America". He then calls for the fall of the United States government in his acceptance speech. We need to stop funding the UN until they clean up their act. If they dont want to clean up their act then they should be kicked out of New York. It'd be a lot more fitting for this corrupt, hypocritical organization if they set up shop in one of these tin pot dictatorship countries they seem to love so much. I actually agree with most of this. The UN is awfully good at embarrassing itself, and its corrput as hell. I think it could do great things, if it didn't spend so much time tripping all over itself. Its amazing the countries that get their time on the human rights committee. The one part I'd disagree about is Bolton's "meeting" request. Bolton is a walking nightmare - racist, sexist and out of control. I wouldn't go to a meeting he requested either. Hey wait, maybe this is why he was sent to the UN - he fits in so well!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183812,00.html Buncha little savages is what these people are. Those cartoons with Mohammed having a Turban made of dynamite grow more and more accurate by the day. Yup, that's right. Nothing worthwhile in any Muslim human being, they're all savages. Nuke 'em all, right? And before you ask me, no, of course I'm not justifying their actions. The ones who are violent should be punished (though they won't be). I just refuse to submit to bigotry.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:25 PM) Good luck trying to get those religious classes taught in a public school. Which is as it should be. Church and state - it seems pretty clear. Both entities have a lot to teach, but you cannot teach beliefs as knowledge and call it a public school.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) I'm not surprised that most of you would not understand the meaning of the word obsession. Go look it up. The meaning is clear. In general you do not find any "obsessive" attitude any where close to what you do in America in the rest of the world. Only a left-wing nut job would suggest obsessive behavior = personal freedom. The rest of us rightly view it as a lack of dignity, decency, discipline, & self control. I guess what you interperet as obsessive behavior, I see as some of the same striving for personal freedom that this country was born of. I'm proud of it. But hey, they sure do seem to have a lot less of that in Japan - just look at the way women have generally been treated in that culture (despite recent improvement). Enjoy your yourself over there.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 12:00 PM) Despite the fact that I'm a conservative Christian, I'm sick and tired of people whining about the lack of a "spiritual alternative" to evolution in biology courses. Evolution a scientific THEORY and is NOT meant to contradict anybody's spiritual beliefs. On the other hand, intelligent design (and similar theories based in the spiritual realm) has no scientific basis. While it is more than appropriate to teach it in religion or philosophy courses, it is completely inappropriate in the context of science. IMO, the solution to this is for one to take religion and philosophy courses alongside biology. The student can make up his/her mind about the origin of mankind. I agree.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) I don't understand what this means. I think I do... "Obsession with acceptance of one's existence" = personal freedom. Think about it. I guess Juggernaut is saying that personal freedom is a strictly American thing. Aside from the fact that he's manifestly wrong (virtually all cultures recognize this to some extent), it sounds like he is saying its misguided. That explains a lot of his other posts.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 09:14 PM) As someone said earlier, if PK is on the bench, it's prolly because Mack is taking his spot. That doesn't make much sense, since Thome is an excellent defensive 1B (which people seem to be forgetting). When PK gets a rare day off, Thome would be the smart choice at 1B. Mack can DH or play whatever other position has someone with a day off, where there isn't a better backup.

Before we got Thome, Gload served a purpose on the bench as a left bat, backup 1B, etc. But now that we have that left bat as our DH, and he can play 1B, and Borch (Sw) will likely be around for the 4th OF spot, I think Gload has seen the end of his days here. They might offer him a minor league contract, if he'll take it, and he can play AAA. If Thome gets hurt, he'd be handy to have around. If he won't take the AAA contract, they'll release or trade him.

QUOTE(SpringfieldFan @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) I don't know if the patents reasoning completely explains the oil companies' behavior. Patents don't last forever, so if I were an oil company, I wouldn't be waiting until they run out before I persue the innovations. Also, they don't necessarily apply outside of the U.S. do they? The possibility of another nation leap-frogging me on a new technology idea would be a major incentive to me. In fact, I heard a piece of a story last week on the radio about Iceland taking the lead in researching clean hydrogen power. If I am Exxon, I don't sit on my butt right now, regardless of my earnings...or my patents. SFF And that will likely cause pressure, and eventually push them along. But they won't be in a hurry until they need to be.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) Actually, the oil companies hold the patents to a lot of the "new" technology, which should answer your own question as to why it has not been explored more. Interesting. I didn't realize that. That could make things dicey. They are making so much off oil, why use the new stuff just yet? Might as well wait it out. That means the only way it really gets going is if they have competition. Other companies would need to build their own versions of PV solar cells, wind power generators, ethanol refineries, hydrogen power condensers, etc. Let's hope some of Bush's $10B+22% goes to companies outside the big oilers (I'm not holding my breath).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) If you take the combined earnings (not tevenues) of Exxon, Chevron, and DutchShell from 2005 ALONE, it could fund NASA, the Justice Department, and the No Child Left Behind Act this year - and these are some massive programs in our government today. That's sad, isn't it? They could also put enough money into alternative energy research that we'd very quickly be able to implement non-oil energy generation in lots of aspects of our infrastructure. If one of those companies gets smart, they'll plow back a bunch of those earnings and do just that. Why? Because they'd ensure that they'd not only be first and best in those areas, but they'd guarantee their long term future in the energy markets beyond just oil. It's smart for so many reasons. Which is why I can't understand why they don't do more of it.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) There's another Constitutional Ammendment that gives Americans the right to bear arms. And in many places, one needs a license to own a firearm. The fact that the government isn't giving out the licenses for free (or the guns, for that matter) is irrelevant. Actually, its highly relevant, and that's a good comparison to make. In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I made that very comparison (FOID cards). Further, organizations like the NRA who support protecting the second amendment have pointed out this very thing. Again, you cannot charge for a right. And, BTW, mosts states don't - IL is an exception with the FOID card. In most states, you can own at least some types of firearms (shotguns, rifles) as an assumed right.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) There are actually firms around now that specialize in temp work in the professional fields. Lots of them, particularly in accounting and finance. In fact, Manpower is making tons of money lately in those areas. They are also doing killer business in Europe, where contract, temporary and other indirect employment methods are skyrocketing.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) with the guaranteed jobs, im guessing that this means that people hired to fill their spots are fired??? I don't know if there are protections in place for that or not. Most likely, when people leave, companies hire on a temp basis, or not at all, so it wouldn't come to that.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) wonder what will happen to the employment rates when all of the reservists eventually come back from Iraq and Afghanistan looking for work? The reservists and guardsmen will get their jobs back by law (if they had them), in many cases, unless they choose to go elsewhere. But the net effect will cause others to not be hired, so that's going to be a little painful.