lostfan

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 11:55 PM) Surprisingly, yes. Let us assume that he is actually as good as Jordan to begin with - he has 6 NBA Finals MVPs before the comparison is even valid.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 8, 2008 -> 11:40 PM) And the Celtics are seriously choking on a fat one. This will be an all-time choke if they blow this game. Well now. It looks like the Lakers finished the job the Celtics didn't want to eh?

Biggest chokejob in the history of the NBA. People are still comparing Kobe to Jordan????

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 10:45 PM) I'm sorry, I should have said Islamofascists. You know that even "Islamofascists" aren't even all the same either, right? That there are pretty major differences between, say, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, and Hamas? That they get all their support from different places, for different reasons? Just saying.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 10:33 PM) Okay, so should we stoop down to being barbaric savages and chop of the heads of threats against us for the whole world to see? Yeah, we're no better than them so we shouldn't even allow them to live! Off with their heads! What the hell are you talking about? This post didn't come out of left field, it actually came from the south goalpost.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 08:36 PM) I'm pretty sure he did, yes, and he's asked to receive the death penalty. Here's the other side of the token on the first part...as the FBI proved in the interrogation of Saddam Hussein...there does not and absolutely should not be a distinction between getting operational information out of a detainee and getting information that could be used in trial. The only way that there is a difference is if you choose to torture a prisoner to get information out of them. But make no mistake...torture is a choice in that case, and it is for virtually every reason the worst possible choice. Well they also had evidence, witnesses etc. to use against Saddam that we won't otherwise have against a terrorist operative. Summary executions ftw (thought about putting that in green, but nah)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) I think we all would. But that's the problem with the system we've set up. The people running this country decided that the laws didn't need to be followed in certain circumstances and tried to set up a system where they could do those things. But when the courts decided they didn't agree with the memos written by the guys in the DOJ, suddenly all the work by the people who wanted detainees tortured in the name of America wound up not only serving to humiliate the country and inflame the world against us, it also served to make trying them fairly nearly impossible, so we keep going through this sideshow dance with the military tribunals trying desperately to set up a system that isn't directly in contravention of the U.S. constitution but also doesn't force us to let go of the genuinely bad people that we tortured. It wasn't just because of morality that torturing these detainees was a bad idea. There were quite a few practical reasons why it was a terrible idea, and these court losses for the administration are a direct result of them. This is where it gets kind of tricky IMO. When you detain a terror suspect and question them, in the beginning, you're looking for information of intelligence value. Operational details etc. You're not looking for a confession or information to be used in a trial or whatever, maybe indirectly but that's not really your priority. That's the questioning style you're gearing towards. Didn't KSM openly admit to being the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks by the way?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 07:34 PM) they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security. I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball. If that was the only issue, this wouldn't be a question. Nobody here really gives a s*** about the actual terrorists, for all I care you could put them all in a room and gas them to death but it's really not that simple. Plus it's not like we're giving rights to terrorists. What it means is that we can't hold onto people indefinitely for no reason in a virtual black hole and just cite "national security" as the reason. What if an American was in the same situation somewhere else? Wouldn't we be kinda pissed off? Let me tell you - believe it or not - not everyone in detention is a terrorist. I know that's kinda hard to believe for a lot of people but it's true. And I'm telling you this first-hand.

McCain disagrees with the SCOTUS decision from today. From a strategic standpoint I'm not sure I understand what he's doing, and it also pretty much contradicts what he's said in the past. He's supposed to be trying to shed the McSame image FFS, not endorse it. I guess it will fire up the GOP base who don't want liberal judges appointed to SCOTUS, but did they really need that motivation to vote against Obama? They won't win him the election, the independents will.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) Back in the WAY old days, the media was way worse than it is now. If you see some of the stuff newspapers would print in the 1800's and early 1900's FOX looks very rational. lol, yeah I think the SCOTUS ruling on slander/libel changed all that.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) as far as CNN, it's more of the direction of news (the stories they chose to emphasize). Wolf Blizter and Cooper Anderson are definitely pro-Dem. CNN has also been very pro-Obama, any news network that openly campaigns for a candidate or party, can at best have a 2 or 9 rating with me on the scale we are currently using to evaluate. Ok, I can buy that. I don't really think that much of Blitzer because he just kind of follows the wind, I think Cooper is a really good journalist though. Yeah he's a Dem (as are the majority of reporters), but he at least hides it somewhat and his reporting is accurate. Larry King is Larry King, all he really does is invite guests on to talk about whatever the news item of the day is or interview celebrities. I wish Roland Martin had a bigger role, because he is one of the better journalists on there. I wouldn't say CNN is openly pro-Obama though, they gave a lot of credibility to (what was, in my opinion) pro-Hillary propaganda that didn't have much of any factual basis, and their coverage of it was basically pretending that she still had a chance when the writing's been on the wall since TX and OH. Mostly because it got high ratings. CNN really just emphazes what gets ratings though, that's the bottom line IMO. Their coverage of the war was pretty soft, only looked slightly anti-American in contrast to Fox's blatant cheerleading and touting the party line the whole way. They were called "liberal" or "anti-American" because they referred to the American presence in Iraq as the "occupation" instead of whatever the Bush adminstration-approved phrase was, but the word itself is neutral. What we were (and are) doing is the exact definition of the word, I see nothing "liberal" about it except a guilty conscience from the negative connotation of the word. Now, when you compare CNN to international media (which is what I was mostly watching at the time) like BBC, Sky News, CNN World, and (lol) Al-Jazeera, it was pretty moderate and pro-American. edit: I probably shouldn't have put Sky News on that, they're pretty moderate too.

Joe Scarborough tries to hide his bias a lot of times but he is definitely a Republican and doesn't care for Democrats. I don't really see CNN as all that biased. Honestly. I mean which of their anchors brings the bias? All they do is report and interview, really.

If KSM was allowed to go free because he was "tortured" I would seriously consider killing him myself, if I ever had that opportunity. Consequences be damned. Then again I can always just claim I was tortured if I got arrested.

QUOTE (Frankensteiner @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) Sorry, you lost me at irrelevant. k. 5 of his last 6 starts are all quality starts. Like I said. Irrelevant. Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant though, especially when the logic doesn't fit.

QUOTE (Frankensteiner @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) What was his ERA and WHIP coming into the game? He's been having a really bad season. Irrelevant - Verlander is a legit ace, and when he struggles, you shouldn't expect it to continue. He obviously had a different game plan against us this time, he stuck to it, and it worked (as evidenced by all the popups).

QUOTE (Frankensteiner @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) Robertson, Verlander, and Rogers have been terrible. I don't want to hear how Detroit is a solid team because they have horrible pitching. We couldn't do s*** against them. We played that poorly. Verlander is not a horrible pitcher. Only against us usually.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) I would guess that prosecutors do this sort of thing whenever anyone is connected to a major political figure. It doesn't mean they're out to get Obama, it's just that bringing down any crooked politician has got to be one hell of a colorful feather in a prosecutor's cap. They were doing it to Jason Grimsley trying to nail Barry Bonds too.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) It'd be much easier to take if we had struggled like this against them. To let Detroit back into the race with three just awful efforts from almost everybody outside of Mark Buehrle is inexcuseable. Even if we had won one out of three it'd have been no big deal, but we did the one thing we couldn't afford to, and that was get our ass swept. Contreras and Vazquez didn't have quality starts, but they battled. Contreras was a victim of Ozzie's poor managing, and Javy just got worked over by a lineup firing on all cylinders. It's not like they were off, and throwing wild. If they bring the same stuff against most other teams they're good to go.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) because we all know 3 games defines whether you are a very good team or a laughably bad team. At times, I find it difficult to tell which one the Sox are.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) Here comes a classic Paulie DP. One time last year I saw Paul hit a chopper to 3rd that went foul with runners on 1st and 2nd... I thought "hey, he's trying to overachieve and hit into a triple play this time!"

Buehrle's allowed 1 ER through 8, 8 baserunners, 6 K's, 0 extra base hits. At least he is not in line for a loss.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) Rogers is not a good pitcher. For that reason I don't have a very good feeling about this game. I was kind of hoping to be wrong here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) The answer is obvious to me, there isn't enough money in it. Forcing them to do so would be akin to me saying to you that you have to quit your $100k a year job doing what you want to do, to a minimum wage job working at the soup kitchen, with the possibility of being able to make money later if it is profitable. That's not what I meant, I was referring more to companies investing more into alternative energy, because at some unknown point in the future that will be the next big thing, and you want to be the one holding the cards as opposed to the one trying to deal to get them. Or you would think.

Buehrle's still good to go for another couple of innings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) I have a lot less of a problem with this. I just have never really agreed with forcing people and companies to do things for moral reasons. Using that same kind of logic, I could make an arguement for compulsory military service. Does anyone really want to see that? I know I don't, and it is for the same consitutional reasons that we can't force it. Sort of a catch-22, because in a perfect world the businesses would take these initiatives on their own. My thinking is this though, if the companies are thinking ahead about their long-term viability, why WOULDN'T they?