yall

Guys - the title says fights at the Ralph. With that out of the way, I won't be surprised if some loudmouth gets into a scuffle because he yells some sh*t about the Bills moving. I'm also willing to bet it won't be a Canadian Bills fan, but rather an obnoxious fan of a visiting team. Doesn't mean anyone should get beaten, I'm just saying it's likely to happen.

It's pretty easy to state the obvious. What would you actually propose as a solution?

How so? I clearly stated that it "could contribute", although I feel the level of impact is lower than others. Obviously there is not one sole issue that contributes to any problem at any level. If you go back and read my other posts, I'm not totally defending Gitmo, but I can't currently think of a better option. (Still there should be tribunals at the very least)

Come on BF, let's be real here - my point is that it isn't likely that someone who could be convinced that blowing themselves up is going to have Gitmo be the final straw. They have already been brainwashed to some extent. Could it contribute? Sure, but likely not to the level that some people here have suggested. I don't think there would be a net loss of radicals who are willing to kill in the name of their religion if Gitmo never existed. And to your harping on the "rational" point, say what you want, but by just about any standard, someone who has beliefs that cannot be swayed by logic isn't being rational, and this would include would be terrorists. The same could be said for creationists or anyone else who ignores fact in favor of mystical beliefs.

I also feel it isn't valid, as the most of the Japanese Americans (and Japanese Canadian's - FYI Canada was just as bad and for some reason they are always let off the hook on this one...) hadn't done anything to deserve being put into camps. They weren't fanatical murderers who feel our culture and way of life was some tool of the devil. As far as this "OMFG Gitmo is recruiting them!!!" nonsense, try to keep in mind that there have only been detainees in Gitmo for what, 6 years? Was there a shortage of radical muslim nutjobs prior to Gitmo?

I'm not a big fan of Disturbed, but I have heard some live tracks and they are very tight. So even if your aren't fully into their style, you might be able to appreciate their abilities.

Of course, it was Israel's holy land long before that, but hey, let's only pay attention to the last 60 years... Radical islam predates any American involvement in the ME. Beyond that, look no further than countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan to see where radicals are killing and violating basic human rights with impunity, and virtually no good reason to blame the US or western culture. But that doesn't stop them as it's a very convenient excuse. The truth? I have no obvious reason to assume he is lying to me.

If you are going to view the "they hate us because of our freedom line is simplistic" approach, the same can easily be said for your response. Radical Islam and it's desire to subjugate has been around a lot longer than the US. To say their hatred is fueled only by our presence in the ME ignores history and the nature of their religion and it's intolerance of other ways of life and belief systems. It's a nice quote, but I wonder how BF (not BlueFire )would have felt in the age of nukes and suicide bombers? I have a feeling there might be a caveat or two there. I'm not advocating trouncing all over human rights, but try to look at the situation with a bit more objectivity. AFAIK, the population at Gitmo consists of what are essentially POW's. The unfortunate part is, we can't just let them go, back to their places of origin as the bulk of them will simply seek to reorganize and continue to attack innocent people who don't agree with their interpretation of Islam. You let POW's go home when the war is over and one side has won. That simply hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. But how do you give them a trial? Of what crimes are they guilty other than being enormous douches that will most likely attempt to kill people if they are released? I just don't see a good solution. If there are genuinely detainees who are there with no just cause, everything should be done to send them home. But ferreting those out wont happen overnight. As a side note, my best friend is a guard at Gitmo. He has always been pretty liberal, both socially and politically. His take on the situation is that every single person they have there is a killer. They will do everything they can to inflict harm upon any human being that doesn't share their POV. Edit: Also regarding the articles claiming prisoner abuse - again, according to a person who I consider a best friend, it's utter BS. He claims the prisoners are treated with kid gloves and are not beaten or mistreated. Yeah, they are still prisoners and that no doubt is awful, but these stories of beatings sound like complete nonsense, and are more likely propaganda after listening to his first hand accounts. He has been there almost a full year, so perhaps things have greatly changed, but again, according to a guard with first hand experience, the abuse allegations are nonsense.

My 2 cents on the whole cops are dicks/mostly great guys argument: A lot of it has to do with which force you are on. I know plenty of NYS Troopers and even have one as a brother-in-law. They seem to be pretty professional for the most part. Contrast that with a city police officer and sherriff that I worked with in a national guard unit. These two would brag about how they mistreated people. They would discuss putting black suspects in half-nelson type holds and 'rock' them against the hood of the police cars to make it appear like the suspects were resisting, all the while yelling 'STOP RESISTING'. Plenty of scumbag cops out there.

Did you even bother to follow the thread? I would suggest you go and read a few posts on page 2.

I'm glad he can play guard, after seeing him play center...

In the eyes of either party - if you don't own a pharmaceutical company, you don't really matter.

Oh good one, you really got me there. I was just trying to show there is not one measurable category in which Clinton leads (unless you can somehow measure corruption). Oh wait - you can measure that, and in fact, she is solely in 1st: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...e_queen_of_pork

No - Florida and MI disenfranchised themselves when they decided to break the party primary rules. It had nothing to do with the candidates. The only !@#$ here aside from the FL and MI Dem party idiots who put themselves into this mess, is the one candiate that decided to stay on the ballot and engage in the asshatery... (any guesses...???) But obviously she can do no wrong in your book.

Um, you know that he actually leads in popular votes, states won, and delegates, right? Because only a ninny would count popular votes in states where the only two choices were 'Clinton' and 'Undecided'.

Probably. But if I have to eat a chicken wing thats been sitting on the floor, I'll take the one that barely violates the 5 second rule, as opposed to the moldy one with dirt and spider eggs all over it.

How did I know you would respond first? I should have just sent you and BF a PM...

My wife wants me to make copies of her favorite exercise DVD's so that she can have a set in the living room and in the basement as she works out in both locations. I was hoping someone knew of a good freeware package that could burn usuable copies. I can do this either on a Mac or PC platform. Thanks in advance. And thanks for sparing me the "if she wants to work out, what is wrong with walking up and down the stairs to get the DVD's?". I've already gone down that path...

Believe me, I have plenty of ire for them as well. But then again, they sell the stojan, and we eat it. Who is to blame?

It appears that the clip was pulled - see PastaJoe's post about the Clinton campaign calling foul, saying it was a forgery. I wanted to watch it again myself to see if that was the case, but it looks like it has pretty much been pulled from all of the major news sites. At one point in time it was on Drudge and ABC, but they both have dropped it as well. He is in one very crucial way - he is nowhere near dirty as the Clintons. I don't know that point can be made with empirical evidence, but I'm willing to bet most of us think its true. Voting to confiscate guns in a state of emergency is not a responsible position, especially in the eyes of those who understand the rationale behind the second amendment. In fact one could quite reasonably argue that a state of emergency is exactly the type of situation for which the 2nd amendment is designed. There is no mention of hunting or collecting in the constitution. So it's either hypocrisy or naivety on her part.

Haven't they had like 17 debates already? How many more do you need to convince you who to vote for, unless you have been living under a rock. Given Clinton's history of being an outright fkin liar, I can't beleive anyone in their right mind would take a word she says at face value. She lies. Every day. (They all do, but she does it way more often and has no regard for the truth) Why you think for a second that any policy she claims to support right now is the one that will be enacted if she is in office is a mystery.

Dude, she doesn't change her opinions over the course of years, she does it over the course of days. I always suspected she had a d*ck. Now I can clearly see it's firmly planted in your mouth.

She paints herself as pro-gun during the Pennsylvania primary and yet voted "Yea" on a bill to allow firearms to be confiscated during a state of emergency. (Obama voted "Nay") She was for NAFTA, then against it. She was pro bringing jobs to WNY and anti-outsourcing. The first (and only) company she welcomes to WNY? An Indian outsourcing firm. I'm against torture - but also for it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2...bill___her.html "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home." followed by "We’re going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq. " It goes on and on PastaJoe. You can defend her all you like, it just serves to highlight the kool-aid stain circling your mouth.

Not talking honestly about policy = not talking policy.

All politicians do it. I was merely taking exception to the fact that someone felt she was actually honest about something. She is the worst of the worst and I cannot wait to see her lose. My only fear is that when this goes to convention, and Obama wins the nomination, and them loses to McCain, we will see her again in 2012. We can only hope that NY'ers will wise up and not elect a Senator who will spend more time looking to the next job and less time focusing on the needs of their constituents. (Wishful thinking...)