StrangeSox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) Well, the rules are hypocritical and wrong. Enforcement may be hypocritical, but the rules themselves are not in my understanding of them. They used their position, power, and military apparel for inappropriate support of a religious group. Denomination doesn't matter.

From the Guardian, FWIW. Rumors/ allegations of Bush-Hitler ties have been floating around for years. I'm surprised if you hadn't heard someone make that claim before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

Rules is rules, boss.

Sounds like you came on way too strong and she didn't like it very much.

I know, I know, the show doesn't come back on the air for another 6 months or so, but a friend sent me this video: http://darkufo.blogspot.com/2007/07/lost-o...tation-six.html It's another orientation film.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) Ok, I'll stop. Honestly, and you all know I say this all the time. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Most of you want to come in here and take the tact that we're all at fault for everything bad that happens in Iraq. The truth is, we are trying to stabalize the country - but the fanatics over there aren't going to let it happen. To say that we're totally responsible for the chaos is not the truth. To say we're partially responsible because we didn't have a plan to maintain the balance of power, yes, that's right. You all have to see that much, instead of totally, 100% blaiming the Bush Administration, like a lot of you like to do. We are 100% responsible for creating the situation, not neccesarily for perpetuating it. I don't see how it can be argued that the US didn't create the instability that allowed the ensuing insurgency, sectarian violence, and civil war fester and grow into what it is today. It has taken them over 4 years to get together a decent plan and to try to put it to use. We won World War 2 in less time.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) So we go over there, try to maintain the peace, and get blamed for messing the whole country up? Nice. We went over there, invaded a country and overthrew a government. This wasn't a peacekeeping mission, ala Bosnia or Somalia.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:59 PM) They could CHOOSE to live peacefully and harness the opportunities we gave them to be a "free" country. Or, they might not. We're partially to blame, but not all to blame - and it disgusts me that some of you here think this is entirely our fault. That's a rather beneign way of stating a foreign army overthrowing a government, occupying, and running the country for over 4 years. We didn't give them much opportunity when we completely destroyed ability to form a government and stable security forces early on (de-Baathification and disbanding the army).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:14 PM) Now, the good 'ol US of A is TOTALLY responsible for the mess over there. Not Al Queda, not repressed people lashing out because they can, not idiots hell-bent on creating a civil war, THE US is responsible for all of this. We created the situation that allowed for all of this to happen. If we don't invade, it doesn't happen. If we invade and don't totally f*** up their country, government, and army, it doesn't happen.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 08:43 AM) I wasn't sure where to put this, it didn't seem to need its own thread... CNN does an interview with the person who runs a major national gas price survery, used by many media outlets. You just have to read this - it gets funnier as it goes on. She starts logically enough, talking about the effects on prices, refining capacity, etc. Then by the end, she just goes off the deep end. I mean, not just saying she doesn't agree with global warming... but she actually says that conservation or trying to use less oil is bad. Anyone else a little dismayed that the person who is providing this supposedly objective data to the media is so laughably subjective and biased in her views on that subject? And before the responses about global warming not being definite start, I don't even mind that part. Read deeper than that - she is actually advocating using more and more oil as if it were a good thing. That closing paragraph is particularly good: "I don't accept it as established fact, nor do I accept that it would be caused by petroleum consumption, nor do I accept that the human species should not affect its environment. So even if it were someday to be shown to have some small effect on the environment, I see no crime. In fact, taking into account the many, many millions of people around the world that envy our way of life, it would seem more humanitarian to wish them the kind of plentiful petroleum products and vehicles ... that we enjoy ... to lift themselves out of [a] backward, poor way of life. " So its ok that if we pollute and destroy the environment. Its our god-given right! And, we need to help thos "backwards" people and get them some oil!

This team makes baby Jesus cry.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) And America is 100% at fault. /rolly I must have missed those daily car bombings before we invaded. There were several crucial mistakes made early on by our civilian leadership. Monumental mistakes that we still haven't recovered from. These mistakes led to the current environment and our inability to control the country. We created the situation and couldn't keep it in check.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) Could also be an average day in Minneapolis. Is it wrong if I thought of posting the same exact thing? Any way, it does make a point. Here, it becomes a tragedy given national coverage for days. It'll be thoroughly analyzed and investigated. In Iraq, it is just another day. Tomorrow there will be more bombings, more fighting. No need to worry about a dozen people being blown up today, another dozen will go tomorrow.

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) sadly, with the way the girly armed podsednik is hitting he'll be around for a long time. i'm guessing he'll have 9 more stints on the DL before his career with the white sox is over. So he'll be gone by next May?!

Pods is now DHing. This team is epically bad.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) yes, one bad season after winning a WS and 90 win seasons and now we are a laughing stock. Maybe its just to you. Well, that's sort of the point. Look at how far this team has fallen: wire-to-wire lead of one of the best divisions and an 11-1 post season record, to 90 games and missing the playoffs, to the cellar.

It's nice to see other teams go through pitching woes.

LOL. Nice pitching by "the rocket."

QUOTE(BaseballNick @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) What is it exactly that you're basing this on? Those are just ridiculous statements to make. Floyd has not pitched well at all since being called up, but he's made two starts this year; one against a red-hot Twins team that tore apart our whole pitching staff, and one against the Tigers, who are arguably the best team in baseball, in a game that we actually came back to win. 100+ innings of sucking at MLB-level baseball?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 08:30 PM) I concede that, and I did a long time ago... but for some folks to say that BushCo has DIRECTLY connected 9/11 and Iraq, it's just plain wrong, and I find it irritating. There's plenty of crap to pile BushCo on, and this is NOT one of them. They linked them indirectly, but intentionally and deceptively. That is how they built up support for this war in the first place, along with all of the other turns-out-its-total-BS boogeymen they marched out in 2002-2003.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 03:56 PM) They did! Holy s*** you people have selective memories. The White House said OVER AND OVER that 9/11 and Iraq were NEVER directly linked... yet you people STILL want to focus on something that was a MEDIA phenomenon. Several years later, yes. About September 2004, IIRC.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) No, they didn't. They may have said the two ideas in the same speech, but they NEVER said that 9/11 and Iraq were directly connected. Now, they did say that Iraq was a part of the larger war on terror. That is TOTALLY different then what you are trying to insinuate and the distinction needs to be crystal clear here. Again, that is more on the MSM. It's called a bait and switch... by both sides. They mentioned them together deliberately to link them in the minds of Americans. They knew that by constantly mentioning them together, people would link the two and support the war without question. If that wasn't their intention, they would have clarified it when something like 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible/ linked to 9/11 around September 2002.

QUOTE(Colorado Sox Fan @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Right, Justin, and there are top NFL picks that have been busts, but I don't think the best strategy for the Sox is to tank the season in the hope of getting a top pick who may take years to see the majors. They don't have to purposely tank the season in order to end up with one of the worst records. They may do it while trying their hardest. And really, what's the difference to the fan between 70 and 80 wins?

I don't understand why the environmental standards aren't enforced. They already dump about 20 times as much mercury as they should into the lake with zero consequences. Humans can be the dumbest, most short-sighted animals on the planet some times.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) I think the "surge" was to try to buy more time to get these people to see that they have to get along... Now, there's the arguments that "for 5,000 years, these people have fought"... really? I guess. There's a larger, more sussinct (sp) deal here that if there's stability, the parties can find a way to live together. How do we know that they "aren't going to do the most important thing"? It's not really been given a chance to succeed... and that is largely due to BushCo's handling of things. This all should have been realized in about, oh, the fall of 2003. Fall of '03? Bush Sr. and Co. realized it back in the early 90's and decided that forcefully overthrowing Saddam with the US military would create the exact mess that we're stuck in now. Today, insurgents drove a tanker truck loaded with explosives into a crowded gas station. At least 60 people are dead. These people aren't just attacking American soldiers; they're destroying themselves. Our presence there isn't helping this any. We're going to dump many more billions and several thousand soldiers into this thing, only to have to walk away in a position much worse than we are now.