lostfan

Yeah, I'm afraid it's about to be ass whippin' time. I hate being the bad guy but if that's what it is, it can't and won't slide. Questioning her and getting her to admit wrongdoing is like interrogating an Iraqi. She is a really awful liar (as evidenced by what looks like an orgy of evidence), but she is persistent and just keeps making new s*** up as she goes when she does it. So the key is to let her keep lying until her house of cards falls down.

Man so check this out. I bought Saints Row 2 sometime in October or something, not long after it came out. A couple days later before I opened it, my stepdaughter takes a pic of herself with it and puts it on Myspace. I was wondering "wtf for?" but otherwise no big deal. Then the game goes missing, I can't find it for anything. I b**** at her a little bit because the game isn't where it should be with the rest of my Xbox games, and I have a 2-year old that routinely displaces and misplaces things and I pretty much assume that's why. A few days ago while I'm b****ing b/c I really want to play it, she asks me in an oddly defeated-sounding tone "What would you do if you couldn't find the game?" I said "be an asshole, and just keep b****ing until it's found." Fast forward to today, and I'm looking for it everywhere and I still haven't found it but while looking through my Xbox game pile I happen to notice the first Saints Row is also missing and I don't know why. Out of pure curiosity, I go look on her Myspace and I see one of her friends from school has written "can I borrow dat" on 10 November. So, uhh, I hope that doesn't mean what I'm suspecting it means because it would make her: -a dirty liar -a thief -seriously stupid as all f*** ...I'd honestly rather my 2 year old have accidentally put it in the trash and lose out on 60 bucks than have my suspicion confirmed here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 04:10 PM) The media also tends to be very inaccurate when it comes to any sort of gun report, so I'd be skeptical about their claim that full-automatic AK-47's are being purchased in significant quantities from the US. There is just a ton of red tape to buy one, and they are not sold at gun shows. Also, gun show guns account for about 1% of guns used in crime.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm -> acrobat file on the bottom. Just to toss this in, I went to a gun show recently here in MD, and I saw some AK-47s and they were only semiautomatic. Same for the AR-15s I saw, both the rilfes and carbines. It was odd because I look at the selector levers and expect to see "auto" or "burst" from using M-16s for so long and it's just not there.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) Wrong brother. I am the one who posted that story. And if people think Miss England is fat, what does that make Kim's ass? It makes it beautifully smackable

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Not without likely bringing down the government itself, which is of course the catch 22. The government might do that and then fall apart pretty rapidly and you might get lucky and have another government reestablish control, or things could suddenly get dramatically worse to the point that you start getting really scared about those nukes. Hence why I am not a particularly big fan of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries... it only works if you install a puppet dictatorship which nobody reasonable really wants to do. And why I was more or less content with the status quo of Saddam and think we really blew it there.

QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) Probably trained in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's not that the Pakistani government is involved, it's that they don't stop the problem. Pakistan's a f***ing mess... first off their gov't doesn't even have any control over their intelligence services, secondly there is basically anarchy in those northwest regions and they have no control there either. So some elements within Pakistan get money from the Middle East to support terrorist groups, then the other elements get money from the West to fight terrorism. I mean, I really wonder if the Pakistani government even COULD stop the problem if they wanted to.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) John Oliver says what many people are thinking: .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;} The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c Mumbai Tragedy Barack Obama Interview John McCain Interview Sarah Palin Video Funny Election Video AWESOME :lolhitting

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) It dominated the news cycle for like 3 years. I dont think they were concerned with what time of day they blew those towers up. Yeah, but when you're sitting there buying plane tix and you have a choice on what time you were going to do it, why not pick the morning? That's not like something that required any extra coordination whatsoever. Just take the extra bonus of that day.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 12:30 PM) Good point. Can anyone say what was September 11th known for before 2001? So many people were asking "well what does September 11th mean?" and "oh they chose 911 that's so devious!" I was like... uh that's the day they bought their plane tickets for. Early in the morning so it'd dominate the news cycle all day. Why's it got to be a significant date? Does it really matter?

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) Yeah, but KW isn't going to block Beckham for 3 or 4 years if they really believe he will be ready soon and I imagine he's untouchable right now. That would be dumb. That's not really what I mean. I'm saying that if KW wanted to open up a hole at the MLB level for Beckham he will do it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) I'm aware, but these attacks are relatively easy to coordinate, i'm sure they've seen. I've no doubt they'd one up, but I'm just saying, I don't know if a big explosion is the next big Al qaida thing. An explosion is sort of one and done. Imagine coordinated sniper attacks in cities, freezing the nation for a prolonged period of time. It'd appear they are in power. They'd have an upper hand. The numbers wouldn't matter. It's all about the effect, yeah. Body count to them is nice but it's about the psychological impact. But... it'd be something where everything happens really fast. And it would be multifaceted, and complex. As far as symbolic value I'm not a believer in dates having much significance. Like if it can be done on a day like the 4th of July or something, great, but if that's going to diminish the impact or effectiveness of their attack, then no.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) I think you are underestimating distance. I think that initially this probably wasn't the strategy of Al Qaida as most of their attacks in the 90s were large bombings. But since 2001 the most successful attacks have all been these sieges. They seem to be big on imagery, and the sustained coverage of "martyrs" on the loose in America. That said, I think an attack on an elementary school would be brutal on them. They'd lose a lot of support, basically the world turns a blind eye on Chechnya right now and Russia is doing some pretty brutal stuff there. The sieges are also not necessarily AQ, fwiw. But you are right that they are media whores. Frankly, they are much more advanced than we are at PR and image control.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 10:31 AM) I am not smart enough to answer question 1, but the answer to question 2 is it depends on how the administration reacts. Even though they ended up going overboard with the patriot act and phone wiretapping and so on, the INITIAL reaction of the GWB administration after 9/11 was good, or at least was preceiving to be very good by the public (if you remember, his approval ratings for a while were very high after 9/11). The reason he got re-elected is he was supposedly "tough on terror", and that goes directly back to his administration's 9/11 reaction. Just my opinion, and I agree with Flash's professor who said Al-Qaeda won't act again on American soil until they can top 9/11. In that sense, maybe the lack of activity attackwise on our soil the last 7 years is a byproduct of us preventing "the next big one" and not us preventing terrorism in general. If they wanted to set off a bomb in a mall and kill a dozen people, they could do it even here in America. But they have their eyes on bigger things. This is called the "paradox of warning." If your intelligence is good, and in fact so good that you are able to project a threat and either redirect your resources or neutralize the enemy to stop it from happening, then of course it never happens, and your everyday citizen wonders if the threat is even real anymore. And on the other hand, if you don't actually catch the enemy but just make them change their tactical plans, it also makes it look like the intelligence was wrong, when in fact it was 100% effective.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) Great post, and I agree 100%. Another great "soft" target would be elementary schools. They usually don't have much in the form of security, that is normally reserved for more "dangerous" high schools. Imagine if people were scared to send their kids to school? That's not really AQ's style. Propaganda, PR, and the "moral high ground" is a pretty big deal to them, as ridiculously ironic as that sounds. They won't score many points in the Muslim world by targeting kids, and they could face a lot of strategic backlash by doing that. It's the same general concept as Hizballah although obviously AQ's line in the sand is further up, ever notice Hizballah doesn't attack civilian targets? Not coincidentally, a lot of people see Hizballah as legitimate resistance rather than a terrorist group. Now, I realize that terrorists have done this in other parts of the world, but we also must remember that "terrorism" isn't a monolith. One group is not like another and there is more than one source. AQ just happens to be the most dangerous. Having said that, you guys are dead-on when you're talking about the "holy s***" factor with AQ, and all the residual effects. That's what they want, it's about more than just body count or total property damage.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) Up until a few hours ago, I thought the Sox were looking hard at Furcal and Hudson. However, after reviewing these recent moves, we have so much "depth" with regards to middle infielders that it wouldn't make sense to sign one of these guys. Eh this is Kenny Williams... almost nobody is untouchable and a trade is pretty much never out of the question. I'm not too worried about "too much depth" being a factor.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) I think we'll see the Sox trade Dye and than sign Abreu to a 2 year deal with a 3rd year option. The problem is a lot of these guys are going to be more bargain type of signings who don't sign for a while (when they finally realize the market they are expecting isn't out there). Abreu would be a stellar fit in LF and the 2 spot in the order. Sure he's on the downward portion of his career but he is still a well above average offensive player (who will post a very high OBP and hit for average). That kind of situation always makes me think of Lance Briggs... came crawling back to the Bears once he realized other teams didn't think he'd automatically be Patrick Willis when he left the Bears.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:09 PM) Or a 2 year deal for Manny Ramirez to play LF and DH occasionally, with Quentin moved to RF in the reported Dye trade. Can you imagine Manny, Quentin, Thome and Konerko as the middle of the line-up? Doubt it would happen, but nice to dream. And I wouldn't count out either Nix or Viciedo quite yet. I know you're daydreaming but I'm getting the impression you're stoned right now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 09:15 PM) I might be in the minority here. But I'd like to see us develop our own talent (even if we didn't draft it). If you can land a true impact guy, fine. Other than that, develop them and bring 'em on up. That's what I meant by "real trades." Prospects are really just that until they are proven at the MLB level though. But they have value to the team in and of themselves whether they play for you or not, you absolutely need them if you want to be consistently good.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 09:07 PM) Hey now, I am on record several times on this site saying Kenny could turn our system around almost instantly simply by trading our veterans...not many agreed.... Well the key is not sacrificing the MLB roster. Farm system means dick if the MLB team sucks. So I will consider all this a major success if one of Fields or Viciedo pans out, if another SP is added, and a leadoff hitter is acquired (Furcal I suppose).

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:55 PM) Yeah, that is what is so odd. And actually, back then Shelby was still a 2B prospect. So of our 3 best 2B prospects, we traded one 2B, moved another to the OF, and kept Getz. Now Getz is at the bottom of the long-term depth chart, or near it at least, so talk about a turn-around in the span of little more than one year... I really like it. A strong farm system, and in so little time, who knew? We actually have bullets to make real trades now if we wanted. We still have holes to fill at the MLB level now obviously but it's only December.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:46 PM) Also, Lillibridge's inclusion is kind of odd. How many MIF prospects do we need? Maybe some of the posters really aren't dreaming and we really are after Peavy? Or else we're after Roberts, or something. Or, as someone else suggested, the Sox plan to move Lillibridge to CF. It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out. It wasn't really that long ago when we had pretty much NO infield prospects. Danny Richar and some scraps.

QUOTE (tommy @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:43 PM) I'm not so sure if Carlos can play all the RF, he barely plays good D in LF. He came up as a RF, the only reason he was playing LF is because Dye is there and CQ almost wasn't even on the MLB roster to start the year ironically.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:33 PM) http://www.talkingchop.com/2008/12/2/67800...cquire-javier-v ROFL, they think we're just gonna throw in Dye because Flowers is involved... um no

BTW a word of advice to anybody who hasn't reached the end of the main storyline in Fallout 3 - if you want to do other things in the game before beating it, know that the game abruptly ends, with little warning. The farthest you can go in the storyline is "The American Dream" before you get to the point of no return, so stop there if you want to do other stuff in the game. Actually you can start that quest, just don't go to finish it because it basically rolls right into the next one when you do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 12:18 PM) It will happen ( I don't know exactly when), and because of the constitution a President is very limited in what he can do to prevent it. There are too many holes in this country, and you can't close every one, no matter what some people think. Unfortunately the way to most completely mitigate it is to curb civil liberties and essentially become a police state. And since I take intelligence-related college classes I see people discussing this in class periodically, where I hear people basically say that. When I tell them that what they're calling for is basically becoming like China, they either back down, don't respond, or deny that's what they mean.