lostfan

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) Just wanted to make sure that there was understanding here. There is a difference between the old Mosaic law that was needed before Christ came and what is followed now. You don't see any Christians out sacrificing sheep or anything like that because the old things have passed, and I doubt that you would see any Christian following those. You would be completely missing a main point of Christianity in that Christ's death and resurrection gave a direct access to God. Of course that was probably your point. It is all about what is being taught. Are they being taught that they killing is a valid punishment for not being like them, or are they being taught that the old way of things has passed away? Does Islam have something like this? Maybe, but I do not remember studying that at all. The problem is that we are seeing people being killed and these Islamic laws being followed. That is the difference that I see. Now that I have derailed this, back to your regularly scheduled program. Not exactly - well, that's a subject of debate even within Islam as to how to actually interpret the Koran. The thing isn't written in chronlogical order and there are parts that have gotten lost centuries ago so in some places it's hard to say what the last guidance was, are they supposed to kill/forcibly convert the infidels or are they supposed to live with them peacefully? At some point in his life God said both things to Mohammed but they were under different circumstances. Also apostasy is punishable by death within Islam, that much I can say for certain, it isn't even an extremist view.

Did anybody really expect him to get convicted?

Well I guess this is as appropriate a place as any to post this:

Man, what a shame. I really liked him.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) Right, that's my point. The tech bubble was going to happen whether or not Clinton raised taxes, so citing economic expansion during that period as evidence that tax increases don't hurt the economy doesn't work. It isn't that clear-cut. I wasn't saying that though. I was more saying that tax increases are just one factor, and too often people act like they're the only factor that does anything to affect the economy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) I'd say that the extremely rapid expansion of the tech sector counts as "other factors," and that turned out to be a big, huge bubble. The burst of the bubble made the economy stumble, but not really collapse since the overall economy was in relatively good health. Oh and it should be added that Clinton didn't really have anything to do with that, neither the expansion nor the recession.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Or 3. There are other factors in the world. The commodities inflation and mortgage bubble have more to with the collapse in job creation right now than anything else. That Krugman graph totally ignores those realities. Not to mention things like the Clinton recession and 9-11 that also caused huge hits in the economy. If you want think it is prudent to increase taxes on the people who are the creators of jobs in an enviornment where we are losing jobs as it is, there isn't much I can say. How does this explain the 8 years of expansion under Clinton in spite of his tax increases, though?

I also was in some conservative Facebook group yesterday reading their opinions and there were a couple of guys that were saying the money we spend on AIDS research is a waste of money. LOL. Okay...

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 11:20 AM) I understand you can't have a 100% "free market", but I also don't think government should be "running" anything such as health care, for example. I'm with you... My stance on specifically health care has been that I don't want it to be government-run because it just won't work the way we want it to. The quality of health care in this country isn't an issue, so since that isn't broken we shouldn't fix it. The problem is the cost and availability, separate issues that tie into each other. So that's where the reform needs to happen - not simply pumping tax dollars into a new program.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) Waht happened to kobe last year? Basically they were a fringe playoff team because he was the only good player on the team.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) I'd compare this Laker team to last year's Cavs. One superstar and some inconsistent role players with little experience in championship situations. Pau Gasol has instantly made this team a championship contender. Which says a lot in the West. I wouldn't say that his lack of "playoff experience" (a concept I personally believe to be ridiculously overrated) has hurt him either, his performance in the Finals so far has been adequate. It was Kobe himself who choked, his 2nd poor performance this series.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) But we also saw that Jordan required a mature Pippen to finally get over the hump. This Laker team is pretty weak and they still made it to the finals. We never saw Michael take a weak Bulls team to the finals. They had a mature team with Pippen and Grant (Rodman later). I don't think this Laker team is weak though. I think they're actually a championship-caliber team, and I thought they were actually better than the Celtics. Gasol isn't exactly a nobody either, acquiring him freed up that offense in a big way. Also I can't think of any weak teams that have made the Finals recently. I mean, maybe the Pistons would fit that definition, but they are pretty much a solid ensemble without a superstar driving them and they're the exception and not the rule. There is no superstar who can single-handedly take his team to the championship, not Kobe, not LeBron, not even Jordan.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) I agree. They should be able to get whatever they can. I don't begrudge any player for this. I'm just saying from working at the different ballparks fans tend to feel betrayed by the perception of greed and boo these players. That's why Thome gets booed in cleveland. He comes off as a good guy (which he is) but then leaves Cleveland for more money. Agreed too. I think what I'm saying here is that people from Cleveland are stupid?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) It isn't about government regulation, its about how it is regulated. For example. Each individual piece of the financial markets have a governmental regulating body. None of these bodies know what the other agency is doing, and have no connections to each other. Things like futures, stocks, options, banks, bonds, etc should all be regulated in the same manner so that the related industries are in sync with each other. Now we have a mismash of contradictary rules that make doing business confusing and more expensive than it has to be. To top it off, most of the regulations regarding the financial industry were written in 1933! During the Depression... lol It just trips me out when people think that we can do away with all regulatory bodies, and then they cite the fact that the 1880s (which was practically the Wild West) had some of the most success for businesses ever. Well yeah... it was also some of the most corrupt and abusive to workers, too. I don't really want to return to that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 09:00 AM) This Laker team is not even remotely close to being as well-rounded as any of the 6 Bulls championship teams. I think the point is that Shaq had a lot to do with those championships than Kobe did, and Kobe's legacy should reflect that, but it's not, and being compared to Jordan's instead. Could you imagine if, say, the Cavs right now had Shaq in his prime? They'd be unstoppable. Or with the T-Wolves when Garnett was there? Hell, the fading Shaq even brought a championship to not-really-that-good Miami (although obviously with the help of the refs calling fouls on people who breathed too hard near Wade).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) You think the health care industry is bad now? Wait until the government screws it up but good. In so many words that's what I was saying. Medicare for instance - originally a good idea, but ended up indirectly raising the price of prescription drugs.

As long as they aren't openly promotiong radicalization and/or endorsing jihad I don't see any justification for stepping in, or anything like that since it's a private school. I might not be a fan of the rhetoric, but we have to promote freedom of religion.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) Jim left the team on his own for more money. That will get alot of players boooed. Most fans don't like players who seem greedy and leave. It's mostly just Sox fans who blame management when guys like Ordonez leave for more money. Most fans on other teams blame the player. Like someone said earlier Sox fans are a fickle bunch. I for one don't boo anyone who is working thier rear off. I my boo a bad play but not the player everytime. In this day and age, booing somebody for (gasp) wanting to take another 20 million dollars to play elsewhere is naive, and borderline stupid actually.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 09:36 AM) Ever hear Jack Cafferty. He's obviously against the war but it seems to me he rips on everybody, and that's the only "liberal" thing about him because mostly what he does is rant and complain. Besides, being for or against the war and the way it's been conducted isn't, or at least shouldn't be exclusive to liberals. I also counter your Jack Cafferty with Lou Dobbs, aka Mr. "I hate immigrants."

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 08:22 AM) Yep, that's where "Kaperbole" ™ comes in. It drives me crazy to think that the Democrats think that the government should have all these programs, when time and time again it's shown privitization is more effective then the government will ever be, in anything. There is a balance though. I mean I'm all about "OMG FREE MARKET" but there has to be some form of government intervention so it doesn't get out of control (because it will), although not to the point of socialist-style price controlling etc. And it has to be done the right way or the free market will be f***ed up worse. Case in point: Health care industry

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 09:19 AM) It's ok, because the government can run things and take care of us all, so all of our money should just go to the government so that they can take care of everything for us. It works so well in China, why not? Redistribution of wealth is against everything this country is set up to do. That's hyperbole.

That is too much economy-speak for me to read, I had to skip over it and try to find the main points. Besides the EU I don't know where else companies would leave to that compares to the wages of US workers because of higher taxes... I think it has everything to do with cheap labor and relatively little to do with taxes.

Well, not only do I never recall any Bulls team folding like that at any round in the playoffs, but certainly Jordan was never one of the primary reasons for the choke. Granted, Jordan did have Pippen though. For the second set of championships, once they added Rodman those teams did not have a single exploitable weakness, anywhere.

If we had a crystal ball that let us know who was a terrorist and who wasn't, I really could care less about what happens to them. For all I care we could lock them in a building and set it on fire. But in the real world it just doesn't work like that.

I think my post probably belonged in the GE thread btw... Oh well