NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 07:02 PM) If Iraq was never a threat, why did the UN have weapons inspectors in there for years? And why did Saddam keep kicking them out? Iraq wasn't a threat, in part, because of those very inspectors. Everything published by anyone which included any sort of hard information clearly pointed out that the sanctions and inspections were working, in that they were keeping Saddam's military down, and his nuclear ambitions only a pipe dream. It seemed pretty darn clear to me then, just as now. I am not one who supported the war before, and don't now. I disagreed with it then as well. The US government's case was a pathetic attempt to cover up the real reasons for the invasion - getting an anchorhead in the Middle East, bringing the war on terror to a better tactical environment, and oil.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 07:14 PM) Some organizations that "police themselves" for various acts. US Military Police - Internal Affairs Attorneys - Bar Association Doctors - AMA Congress Tex, in every one of those cases other than the military, someone in one of those groups who was molesting a child would be handed over to criminal authorities. And even the military might do it under certain circumstances.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) And where would we put that army? Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons. I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy. Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something. Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other. It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees. The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves. And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point. The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well. Iran will be dealt with, one way or another. I find it really easy to distinguish one regime from another in this case. Iran and North Korea were threats. Iraq wasn't. We f**ked up. And Israel won't be looking for a war. Just taking out Iran's nuclear and long-range missle capabilities. That's all they need to do.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) I have to agree with everything here, of course there are exceptions. If you were working for Enron, how would you know you'd suddenly lose everything? Couples trying to raise a family on $30,000 a year won't be eating caviar, but they shouldn't be eating dog food, when they retire. But if you cannot depend on the United States of America to fulfill it's social security promise, how can you depend on the stock market? Enron was sad, and they are paying now. But a lot of those people had their entire savings on ONE STOCK. That's pretty darn stupid. Maybe the better approach to this is education. Part of high school economics classes should be about spending, saving and investing. Actual, practical stuff.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 08:04 PM) Thome: "No, seriously Gene, they just made me pee in this cup."

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) It should be handled by both. The police take care of the "crime against law" aspect, the church takes care of the "crime against religion" aspect. But when I hear this, its a difficult situation. What happens when someone makes a baseless accusation? It happens. Happened to a good friend of mine in Scouts. And that's what I think of every time. But if its a serious accusation, damn right the police ought to be involved. That's EXACTLY why you let the police handle it. The Church sure as heck isn't capable. I'm sorry by I see nothing difficult about this situation. Any "Church justice" is a miscarriage of law.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) As far as I know...the proper intelligence probably still isn't available. We've never found any cite at which Iran has enriched uranium beyond what is necessary for electricity production. Had anyone known of a site where they were doing so...feeding that intel to the IAEA would put Iran at a horrible disadvantage. That even assumes of course that it would be possible for Israel to actually pull off the strike, given that Iran seems to have built their program in a dispersed manner with buildings made as strongly as they could in order to protect against an Israeli strike. I'll reiterate what I've said on this before... 1. Israel absolutely has the military capabilities to pull off a strike on numerous targets in Iran. They have the right aircraft, the right ordinance, and the right infrastructure. The only problem would be the length of the route, but that can be solved easily enough by way of the Red Sea / Arabian Sea approach and extra fuel tanks. 2. Israel won't attack unless they are pretty darn sure they have a handle on where all the right facilities are to be attacked. 3. If Israel does acquire said knowledge, they will attack, and attempt to destroy said facilities. I have no doubt. 4. If this happens, things will get far uglier than they currently are all over the Middle East. 5. The only thing keeping Israel from this path is the extreme difficulty in getting the information they need.

I can't say strongly enough how important it is for the victims, society and the Chuch as well that crimes be treated as crimes. Arrest, convict, incarcerate. It's the only reasonable way. The whole "its in the family" argument makes me cringe.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I have no problem with it... When the guy stopped moving they stopped...works for me. If he is still on the ground fighting and squirming those cops don't know if he has a gun somwhere or a knife. He did just endanger hundreds of peoples lives with his chase, including the lives of the cops....what's to say he isn't armed?? If he had put his hands on his head or behind his back or something...then that's one thing...but I see his arms flailing around....so f*** him. Unfortunately, some cops obviously see it as you do. I personally think law enforcement officers are justifiably expected to be above such reprisals. If he's flailing, you act against that. Kicking and punching he guy in a circle around him is not any part of good DT or arrest training. Its retribution, and it shouldn't be tolerated. Now, I also believe cops should make a lot more thatn 25k a year, given what they do for their communities. If you paid them better, treated them better and set a higher bar for entry, you'd have better cops. It's pretty simple.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) I saw this footage on CNN last night, this clip is missing out on the car chase. The Cops had to bash in his car to get him to stop, then he ran, then they became a lynch mob. When I saw this, all I could think was "How can these cops think that they arent being videotaped? How dumb are they?" And when they had the guy down another cop ran up and started stomping and kicking. Bad judgement isnt restricted to the bad guy in this case. Adrenaline, my friend. You'd be surprised what words and actions want to burst forth when you're in a situation like that. It takes a lot of self-discipline, training and management to keep people from lighting off like that. A lot of cops don't have enough of those tools to stay in line. You can blame it on a combination of poor selection of police officers (guys making it on the force who shouldn't), poor training, poor management and poor job conditions. And most of all, you can blame it on the cops themselves. This guy could have killed five people, and that's still no excuse for that beating. Yeah, that's a tough position to be in, but if you can't handle the responsibilities, then go do something else.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) A story of a facility that "helps" these assholes.. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=1207749 From that story since 1996 2, TWO, rapists have completed the program but still require ongoing counseling... at yours and my expense. And still they are NEVER cured. NEVER. Sorry.. but I don't want them in my neighborhood. Around innocent unsuspecting children. No effing way. You'll get no argument from me, Steff. I don't want them around my neighborhood either, and as I indicated, I think we are too light on them. I was just pointing out that its not 100% recidivism. And we need to be careful who we include in that group. Violent offenders, felonious offenders and child offenders deserve a lot worse than they get right now.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) Exactly. Which is why I wish every drunk driver was sentenced to life in prison. DUI also being something that tends to be repeated, and people keep getting back out on the street with their 2000 pound unguided missles. Not to diminsh the original topic, just pointing out another crime we are too light on in the U.S. On topic, there are cases where sex offenders stay clean after therapy. It does happen. Just not often.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) I didn't pick up a used car salesman feeling from Clinton until the middle of his second term. I think he was under so much stress that he wasn't able to relax and be himself. Same thing with Bush. I know if I had a weekend to spend backpacking with Bush or Clinton, I'd take Bush in a heartbeat. I think he is a much better conversationalist than he is a platform speaker. As a platform speaker give me Reagan, if it was a weekend retreat of a spiritual matter, send in Carter, if I just needed a big blow out party, send me the Bush daughters Bush would be better on the trail, I agree. As long as politics didn't come up, ironically.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) He isn't as polished as Reagan or Clinton, but I do enjoy listening to him, but prefered his speeches before becoming Presidential. On the one hand, his tone bothers me. He seems to spend much of his speeches chiding someone - feel like a child being lectured after I missed curfew. On the other hand, Bush doesn't project that used car salesman feeling that Clinton was dripping with. Bush seems more genuine to me (though somewhat misguided).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Plus some of it is staged, they know when the President wants applause. (ALL Presidents) Again, this is the same, no matter who is delivering the address. It does seem worse with Bush, because his speeches are usually made up of shorter sentences, smaller words and more succinct dialogue (not inherently bad, just the way his speeches are written and delivered). This makes for more pauses.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) Well after the opening the NASD is down and the Dow is up. Google recovered from being at $350 after the suspension was lifted to be at just under $390 now. I sort of figured. Google is a bellweather, but it's earnings report alone wasn't going to cause a market panic. More would be needed (and that may be coming).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) Yeah and dont forget about the Bush Weather stopping machine which can halt hurricanes in their tracks. :rolly Please tell me you aren't defending Bush's response to Katrina. You can't be serious. The federal government completely screwed the pooch on that one, and Bush was at the helm. FEMA's fault you say? Oh that's right, Bush put "Brownie" at the head of that agency as a favor job, despite the fact that he hadn't ever been within 50 yards of an emergency. Brilliant.

One more thought to share. Bush has said since his 2000 campaign that he is a uniter, not a divider. Evidence has of course shown otherwise. He wants to say debate is OK, but only in his particular framework. Its kind of a joke, and his speech had that laughable line in it again about "responsible criticism". But the Dems have been just as nasty back. If they really want to start some momentum going into the midterms, this is their chance to look like the uniters. Give Bush a couple things he wants, and show the press over and over again ow the Dems compromised. Support him on the non-partisan stuff - alternative energy spending, etc. Then introduce your own initiatives to make real changes. And save the negative stuff for the handful of issues the Dems just can't abide. This is a huge year for party balance. Its time to see if the Dems can be as good at positive marketing as they are at Bush-bashing. And its time to see if the Republicans in Congress clean the dirt off, and stop the internal fracturing.

I have to say, I was a little annoyed with the Dems applauding the social security thing. I actually agreed with them, in that Bush's plan had major problems. But by applauding racously like that, they look like whiners. The negative stuff has helped push Bush's numbers down, which is good (people are waking up to how bad he really is). But, now its time to do something positive. Time to ramp things up - propose new initiatives. Let's see if they are capable of that.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) Politics aside, Im most pleased with the President getting serious about ramping up alternative energy research. That, above all, was what I wanted to hear. For the first time ever, I am responding to a Nuke post with: I do hope they are serious about it, and move on it. He talked this game a few years ago too, but we only spent 10 billion. Considering that's roughly a third of one year's profit for Exxon alone, I'd say that's not enough. We need to get serious, like Bush says he will. I hope we do.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) Google. I don't know if Google's volatility will really push the markets that profoundly. I guess we'll find out shortly.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Oh, and by the way...I think tomorrow looks like it may well be a very very bad day for the stock market. What's your reasoning? Is there a technical point being hit, or do you mean Bush's speech is going to rattle the markets? There certainly are some fiscally huge things he plans to discuss - health insurance, oil, etc.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) I know first-hand that ExxonMobil doesn't give a rat's ass about alternative energy. Then again, it appears that some companies are finally coming around. But it'll take a while. If it took 15 years for HDTVs to become commercially-available in America, hydrogen fuel cells in a large percentage of commercial vehicles will take at least 50. That's why it might be a good idea to give them some sort of a nudge. American companies in general tend to be very short-sighted. I'm not at all surprised to hear that Exxon-Mobil could care less about alternative energy - that's because all the people running it will be dead by the time we start having real supply nightmares. The government can be longer-sighted here, on behalf of the country, and show them the road.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) But of course, the counterpoint to that "theory" is to say that if a company knows what all of its competitors are paying their execs in total...they will actually have to pay more in order to "stay competitive" or "attract top talent" or whatever other B.S. they use every time they give one of those massive CEO contracts out. If half of the money was hidden as stock options and unreported...then it also is unreported to the guy who wants that same contract. Executives know what other executives make. The market pressure is more important in this case, I think. Boards want to make money. That will override any pressure that any single CEO candidate might bring. Boards are all about stock performance. This won't be a fix-all, but it will likely have a significant positive effect.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) I know that GAAP (Accounting regulations) is changing so that all options, etc. for executives are reported. Part of S-OX has some of those requirements as well. This was a market thing, not so much GAAP. And I don't think they are amending Sarbanes Oxley. I'll go find it... Found it: http://hr.blr.com/display.cfm/id/17749 Its a new SEC reg.