lostfan

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) no. by redeplying them to mor eimportant areas. He has not said he will bring them home. He talks about redeployment outside of Iraq. Yes, the TOTAL number of troops int he middle east would go down. But many would get moved to the ACTUAL war on terror, vs the false one we are involved in today. Let's also not forget that the military is not the only tool we need to use against terrorists btw, and we can't do it by ourselves either.

I don't really want to beat a dead horse but nothing distracted us farther from the war on terror than Iraq. Before the invasion Iraq had close to zero to do with the war on terror, at the most it was a very low priority. NOW there are terrorists in Iraq - not to be confused with the insurgency that will mostly dissolve when we leave - and that is a result of our own piss poor planning, as is the looming sectarian conflicts that were mostly in check. Albeit through some brutal methods, but which is worse really? Instead of confronting the hornets in the nest all we did is kick it and spread them around some more. So now we're stuck. We actually have to do something about it, we can't just hide our heads in the sand. This is where it really gets tricky because there is no clear-cut solution, just a bunch of ambiguous shades of gray. At this point there are only strategic long-term decisions. There is no such thing as "victory" at least in the sense that we are used to and there is no such thing as "defeat" because no matter what we do short of outright genocide, radical Islamists are going to claim "victory" for themselves as long as enough of them live to see another day. And they will, because al-Qaida is not some clear existential military threat the way some of us act like they are, it's not like we can just send a big ground force into some town and settle it once and for all. They're persistent and extremely adaptive, every time we kill one of their leaders some other guy steps in and takes his place and we just disrupt their plans for a few months/couple years, but in the near term they gradually start losing support. The sooner we all understand this and get on the same page the better, the polarizing rhetoric using words like "surrender" or doing extreme left-wing nonsense like protesting recruiting stations is actually pretty idiotic and does nothing to help us. Had he not undermined his own effectiveness with that Iraq invasion and left me sitting wondering what could've been I actually would've had a high overall opinion of his presidency in spite of the fact that I couldn't stand him when he first took office.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 12:20 AM) Anderson in CF is crucial beyond words. How many runs does he save over the course of a season if he's getting regular minutes, especially with our lack of defensive range out of the corner OF slots? AJ is a strong defender from a mental aspect, IMO. His tools might be slightly below average to average, but half of the defensive battle out of the C slot is actually knowing what in the hell it is you're doing, and AJ succeeds. Now, there's only so much that you can do with Danks/Contreras/Floyd, and our bullpen in 2007 was historically bad, but if you give him some personnel to work with, he's a defensive asset. At the very least, have defensive assets out of the SS, CF, and C slots. ^^Haha, I know what point you were making but wrong sport my friend IMO AJ has good awareness to do things like blocking the ball in the dirt but he's got no zip on those throws to 2nd at all most of the time. Overall he is a pretty average defender, nothing special. He's a good contact hitter when he WANTS to be, there are times when I want to high-five him for putting the ball in play when that's all he had to do to keep a rally going and there are times when I want to pull a Michael Barrett on him after he strikes out on that annoying "arrrghhhh please let me hit a homer oh whoops" uppercut swing. The only one on this team that should be doing that is Thome.

I know the Bulls kind of suck and people aren't paying all that much attention but what do you guys think of how Noah is doing since he's been getting the minutes at C? Personally I think he's been doing a really good job. I sometimes wonder where his head is, and I was ranting when they drafted him because they appeared to be ignoring other needs, but he looks like he's actually going to be a good center in the NBA. He's been doing really well defensively, the only times I really saw him overmatched was against Yao Ming (but seriously who isn't), and when they play the Pistons or other teams that are light-years ahead of us in terms of cohesion on offense. Offensively he's obviously not the low-post scoring threat the team needs but he isn't a liability or a complete black hole or a liability so that's automatically an upgrade over Wallace there. Noah will actually make uncontested layups and people have to guard him, and although his FT % isn't anything to brag about it's like 20% higher than Wallace's at any given time.

Chicago sports talk radio is absolutely horrible. It's kind of unfortunate that I have to share the fanbase with some of those idiots and mouth-breathers. On message boards (be it Soxtalk or elsewhere) I find the ones with medium-sized memberships with good, mod staffs that do not Goderate (this excludes a certain other board and some people probably know what I'm talking about) are the best places to discuss sports. If I'm looking for information on a trade or something I come here first before going to a major site, then if it's big news I go to another site to confirm it. However, if you go to a place that's really big and has a ton of members like Sportsline, ESPN comments sections, or one of the Yahoo boards it's usually overrun with trolls and general idiots who do not really deserve to allow their opinion to be heard, so it's an exercise in futility.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 11:27 PM) If the dollar keeps going the way it's going right now... I don't want to think about it. I'd have to believe it's eventually going to stop

QUOTE(JohnCangelosi @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 05:59 PM) <!--quoteo(post=1591119:date=Mar 20, 2008 -> 12:41 PM:name=kwolf68)-->QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) <!--quotec-->What poster is this in response to? It seemed every post in response to the thread in response to the original was right along your lines of thinking for the most part. Most said they didn't mind JR being smart with his money, didn't mind him making a profit, and credited him for not taking advantage of the fans like those owners in KC and Minnesota did. If it is your wish to engage in a debate/discussion about the morality of the corporate profit motive that is one thing, but this thread didn't seem to be calling out for such a discussion. And I have to laugh my ass off about the Obama/Hillary comment. Are you stuck in 1967? The mainstream Democratic Party has absolutely no problems with corporate profits. The life-blood of the Democratic Party is the same that fuels the Republican Party, and that IS corporate power...Anyone who believes the Democrats are about some sort of quasi-revolutionary agenda to overthrow corporate power and hand the means of ownership over to the workers is absolutely delusional and clueless and has listened to way too many Mike Savage monlogues. First, we know this common rap that most Sox fans believe we're too cheap (see: Aaron Rowand/Torii Hunter) and it's all JR's fault. This is as common as the day is long. It's such a ridiculous argument that I believe has some type of antisemitism ties to it. Second, regarding democratic principles-sure, raise taxes on all business owners, large and small. Raise taxes on Capital gains when they are responsible for investing in the very companies that pay the common man's wage and create jobs. Damn rich, they keep creating jobs, they should be taxed more! We gotta put an end to this! Greedy bastards are responsible for 60-80% of new job creation in America! Yeah, that's really PRO business. Give me a break. They are for handouts and trying to "save" jobs locally when in reality the people who are losing jobs need to react to a changing economy and upgrade their skills (see: Michigan Auto Workers). Instead they want protectionist policies that only dis empower the very people they are supposedly trying to "help". You don't have to "believe" the antisemitism ties because it's absolutely true, some people don't even try to hide it. It just makes me shake my head. We've had a top 5-ish payroll for a few years now. Not to thread hijack, but if you want to complain about reasons that jobs are leaving the U.S., don't get mad about our high corporate tax rates b/c in the grand scheme of things they're almost trivial, be mad about the very quiet sodomizing we are taking from China in our trade deficit with them. If you owned a company would you pay an American $45K a year or would you pay an Indian or Chinese worker to do the exact same job for about $10K, with no tariffs?

You actually hear the same thing about the Bears still, the old "McCaskeys are cheap" line when McCaskey doesn't even run day-to-day operations of the team anymore (Ted Phillips) and hasn't for years, and you hear people complaining about them not going out and splurging on the most expensive free agent every year, apparently not knowing they were within $1M of the salary cap in 2007. I just thank God the Bears don't run their front office like the Washington Redskins.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 10:34 PM) I am not an originalist. I do not believe the framers of our constitution were the most brilliant individuals to ever walk our earth. They did manage to write an amazing document that has served us well for over 200 years. To keep strong, I believe we can, and should, carefully update the Constitution when necessary. I believe they intended the citizens to grab their guns and come a runnin' when the government called. Such is clearly not the case today. I believed they realized that most citizens would be shootin' up some food, and realized a gun would be a necessary tool. Such is clearly not the case today. I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns. I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose. I think owning a gun is fine. I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at. I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed. I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens I think for a gun to be useful for home protection, it needs to be readily available, unlockable in seconds, and loaded. I think that is a recipe for disaster with kids in the house. I felt a home security system was a better option for my family and kept all my weapons securely locked, partially disassembled, and my ammo was under separate lock and key. I slept better at night knowing my guns would not hurt my kids. Great post... plenty of common sense here. Only thing I have some issue with is the part about guns being readily available - the easier it is to access, the easier it is to be found by an intruder and used against you. That's a slippery slope. What are your thoughts on gun collecting by the way? Curious.

I think fanatical gun control is flat-out stupid fwiw... just my 2 cents. Criminals don't obey laws, it's not fair they get to have guns and we don't. However, regulations and certain restrictions are completely appropriate.

BTW we haven't taken this turn in the conversation yet and it didn't occur to me earlier but it needs to be said - a lot more of black problems, as a race, are self-inflicted than some care to admit and they should be thinking about that before they start thinking about who to blame or what people think of them. That isn't what started this whole mess but in theory it should be the easiest thing to fix. At least simple things like "get up off your ass and go do something." Other things, like "I got robbed on the way to the store b/c my neighborhood sucks and I can't afford to move out" or "the schools around here are pathetic" you can't do anything about.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) If we didn't bomb Japan, we would have lost at least half a million soldiers, if not more, trying to invade Japan. We gave them all the warning in the world, but they brushed it off thinking there is no way we'd bomb them. If they didn't surrender after Nagasaki, there would have been another bomb dropped, and if they still refused, another one, and so on. You are completely correct, that was not terrorism, but war. Well... at that point I don't think we had any more yet. We could've made more since we knew how of course, but from the way I understand it we were basically bluffing (if you can really refer to killing 130,000 people as "bluffing"). The stuff you said about surrender in the next post is pretty spot-on though, I was reading some article about Japanese soldiers they'd find in the woods like 30 years later who'd been lost from their units or whatever. These guys were some hard-core old guys who as far as they were concerned were still in the military and just were waiting to be reunited with the army, had no idea the war ever ended, and refused to believe it when they were told.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 12:41 AM) Besides, I was only teasing you. I think everyone was really, it's just like NOT laughing at fart jokes. You can't do it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 21, 2008 -> 04:34 AM) i honestly think you guys are going to piss away a sure win in Nov. I'm pretty sure the Democrats do have it in them to f*** this up Hence why I'm registered Independent

Better:

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:40 PM) Yellowcard. One more inflammatory post, and this is closed. What did I do? The second line of my post had the words "you" and "your" in them but it was referring to me. I'm behaving myself. I think.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:19 PM) If you were running for President, sure. And I will agree with you it is silly to 'flip out'. No where did I flip out. However people flip out over any slight verbal miscue from a white person in power, so I was just pointing it out. You know, to remind you that it happens both ways. To channel my inner lost fan, reading comprehension is a skill. learn it. I didn't say you flipped out, I was trying to make a point... however, after seeing your replies it appears your focus wasn't on Obama saying "typical white guy" as much as it was on the double standard. Which, considering what I was actually trying to point out, I don't really disagree with. Yeah maybe my reading comprehension does suck, you have the same arguments across several different forums on the internet and they get crossed up in your head sometimes.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:15 PM) Despite the rules being more open here...name calling on either side is not permitted...please keep an eye on the personal attacks, before someone who actually has the power to get annoyed by this statement shows up. This has been a nice thread, it'd be a shame to watch it closed. I'm trying really hard not to.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:12 PM) Dude, your post definitely implied he was a racist. How? I quoted a comment of his and used other examples of the PC police flipping out over other things, asked him if he thought they were his feelings (and admittedly trying to lead him into saying "no") that are minor and suddenly I am calling him a racist. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:08 PM) I don't really care what color people are. I have had or do have friends of most races, and will employ anyone who will make me money, regardless of color or race. All you whiny liberal beyoches scream and moan when a white guy says anything that can be considered racist, and I am just pointing out that it goes both way. Change the word white with black, and the race of the person saying it from black to white, and see the media frenzy. When I am hiring someone, I don't see color, I see potential dollar signs. The ability to to the job is all I care about. Same with friends. not the money part, but the I don't care part. So you are, in fact, saying that it's fair for people to accuse me of being un-PC (or whatever you want to call it) when I say something like "white guy" or "white girl" (in reference to actual white guys and white girls) because of a double standard that doesn't have anything to do with me? (Note: it's equally as silly for someone to flip out when talking about a "black guy" or "black lady")

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:09 PM) lol OK buddy. you're response is either intellectually dishonest or you are dumb as hell your pal, mr_genius I was accusing him of a ridiculous degree of PC-ness not being racist. Please stop the name-calling and try to pretend you matured past 11 years old

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:03 PM) Of course, accuse Alpha of being a racist. Nice retort. But hey, you got nothing else. Go to the well. Reading is fundamental, this is actually not worthy of a response though so I actually don't know why I am wasting keystrokes.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:54 PM) He utters the phrase 'typical white person'. Are you the type of guy that would flip a s*** if you were a co-worker of mine and I said something about a "white guy" or a "white woman" and make a big deal out of my use of the word "white" and how I was being politically insensitive... or... the type of guy who wonders why the 10% of black students at a majority white school like to hang around each other, and speculate as to why they're being racist by refusing to associate with white people? Or any other number of silly-but-true hypotheticals I've observed. I'm really getting that impression.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 07:46 PM) Regulated and organized are two different things, and you have to be aware of what regulated means in 1792 vs. 2008. touche

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 07:39 PM) calling out the unorganized militia. In the unlikely event this were to happen though, wouldn't that be in direct conflict with the first 4 words? ("A well-regulated militia")