RuntheDamnBall
-
Posts
11,398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RuntheDamnBall
-
-
Well, for most Dolphins they end up wearing this uniform at least once, sometimes more.
man, you stole that one right out of my playbook. B)
That said, if any of these guys get cut they can just buy a Dolphins hard-hat and try and get a job in construction.
-
Chicot, resident terrorist apologist checkin in.
When you take children hostage and threaten to kill them, no cause can justify that.
Perhaps if the hardcore muslim world spent more time educating its young citizens (men AND women) instead of indoctrinating them in 100% Islam and nothing else so that when they enter adulthood they have no marketable skills to speak of and cannot get jobs they then revert to their teachings that the West and Israel are the ones responsible for their quagmire in life, when it is in fact their own culture that has failed them in its teachings. Hence with no work, no money and no hope, its easy to strap on a vest full of TNT and head to the nearest Jew/Westerner.
I wish there were a good way that we could help support the kind of education efforts you speak of while making sure that the money and support got to the right people, and without the Muslim nations feeling like we're lording it over them with our supreme knowledge. This is the problem of colonialism. We want to help build productive, increasingly democratic societies, but it is tough to do this as an outside, foreign presence and not be seen as an infiltrating force that is destructive to the culture and community of those we are helping (ie we're trying to Westernize them).
If Muslim communities here in the U.S. could do more to support these kinds of efforts and accentuate the positives of the life ahead of them, I think it would go a long way. This is so delicate. And we need most to give people that hope. I think when Bush offers these kinds of ideals, he is saying the right thing. I just don't agree with his means to that end. I sometimes wonder if there IS a means to that end. But I just can't believe that the situation is hopeless, Islam is inherently evil, and we can't do anything to help. We need real ideas, fresh ones, to face this situation. If we can get there, it will mean untold good to this world.
-
tell me, is the so called blood on Putins hands as you put it from the children being held hostage inside that school? I think not. this is a terrorist act, plain and simple. These animals have no regard for anything that normal people consider to be sacred. they are insane, and only thier elimination will end thier actions. Unfortunately these nuts have nevered moved forward out of the 15th century.
You're right, they haven't. But the Chechen rebels were at one time not part of Al Qaeda's cause. Putin opened the door for Al Qaeda by denying Chechens sovereignty, and like I said, Al Qaeda has made Chechnya its cause. Chechen rebels are at fault for accepting Al Qaeda's help, and none of this makes what AQ is doing right. They are dead wrong. But it cannot be argued that there is no cause to that effect. If Putin granted Chechnya its wish for sovereignty, or even just allowed the Chechens a place at the table to discuss the issue, Al Qaeda doesn't even set foot in its borders because there is no cause. Instead he declared the Chechens to be terrorists and, well, what do you know, in come the terrorists to help them out and champion their cause.
I am not saying anyone should kowtow to terrorists. Far from it. But we should be just as worried about attacking the roots of Islamic extremism -- that is really what this war is about, terror is just a means to that end -- as we are about defeating more terrorists. And the roots of (Islamic) extremism lie in poverty, marginalization, and suppression of opposition by those in power.
-
BTW, if you get a chance read the Washington Post from today, they are basically saying this race is over and Kerry is lost. They said he and his compaign team do not how to respond to anything or move forward. They said the Repubs have basically ignored anything bad said about them and rolled on, but Kerry and crew (pun intended) still have figured out how to let it ride.
If there is any hope for this country at all, the undecideds will be focusing on the debates, and not the one-sided grandstanding and talk-show defense going on at either convention. Only when these guys are face-to-face and not in the comfort zone of their supporters can we hope to get any real moments out of them.
Until then, people should take all this convention stuff at face value. The converted are going to agree already with just about everything being said. The undecideds (what I don't get is how one can still be undecided by now!?) will either drift back and forth like a crowd from a Simpsons episode ("program for kids!" "oh yeah, the taxes..." "but what about the kids" "taxes"), or, if they haven't heard enough, expect real vision from somebody at the debates.
That said, the Dems absolutely HAVE to go after Zell and point out that his views new and old are full of, ahem, complexities.
-
The Muslims need to take heed soon. Plan A appears to be going into terrorist/repressed countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq and providing people the room they need to promote freedom and some semblence of democracy. If these countries fail to take advantage of the opportunity granted them, how much longer will it be until America gives Russia free reign to wipe out of the Chechans, Israelis a free pass to bomb the heck out of the Palestinians, and perhaps we justify bombing the heck out of the Syrians and Iranians with much less regard to civilian casualties and winning hearts and minds.
WWIII. Sounds like a good idea, make the ENTIRE Arab world feel victimized and bring them all together under the Al Qaeda banner. This strategy would only fulfill every ultra right-winger's belief that all Muslims are terrorists. If Nuke'em all is Plan B, we are in some serious deep stevestojan.
Lord knows, all those civilians deserve it and are all capable of killing us just because they're Muslims. Do you never think about, how, by accident of birth, you are American? That it could just as easily be you on the receiving end of some collateral damage? It's great how we can magically grant and take away freedom in this world, not just in our own country, especially if you're brown and worship differently. Please explain what is conservative about this to me. My hands are in the air.
A note on the Chechens: their cause has attracted some bad people because they were denied the sovereignty that was given to just about every other province of Russia that asked for it. It's become a cause celebre for Al Qaeda, another opportunity for them to claim that Muslims are being victimized, another chance for them to hurt innocent people. There is blood on Putin's hands there.
-
Maybe he was a little upset at having urine or blood sprayed at him from squirt gun toting 'protesters'.
I have searched for and didn't find anything about the ACT UP folks doing this, but say I give you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently your Mom and Dad taught you that two wrongs make a right. Kicking someone when he's down=good family values.
Or maybe it was the harassment he endured in trying to enter the arena?The harrassment comes courtesy of the 1st amendment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. And if you REALLY don't like it, don't hold your convention in enemy political territory.
My point was, why did the kid get away with this?
Oh yea...I'm sure it had something to do with his rich parents, because we know in your world all conservatives are rich...right?Naah, most of the Republican delegates are though (and news flash, Bush ain't that conservative). I can find this information for you if you want it.
-
Just to point out that the violent behavior is coming from all sides here in NYC:
Channel 7 news here in the city showed footage of the ACT UP (AIDS awareness group) protest that somehow made its way onto the floor of MSG. The protesters were (rightfully) arrested, but what caught my eye was the young republican who kicked one of the protesters who was on the ground being wrested down by police. The republican kid stated in an interview following that he was defending himself -- against someone who was down on the ground, subdued by the police?!
I sure as hell hope that this footage is forwarded to the police. This kid should go to jail for assault. I don't care how much money his parents make.
Did anyone else see this?
-
Good to see the Republicans are now embracing flip-floppers, not to mention someone who once embraced the last bastion of evil in Bill Clinton.
Zell has been a Republican since 9/11. The only reason he's interesting to anyone right now is that he calls himself a Democrat for some unknown reason. It must be the only conviction he can hold onto.
-
Indeed. Organized religion's greatest failing might lie in the nature of being organized. What happened to being deeply spiritual on a personal level? So many religious people feel the need to impose their systems of belief on others, it's hard to even believe there is anything spiritual going on in these heads.
-
`Putting immanent causation of this event on the religion of Islam is a mistake; the Muslims that took this action weren’t motivated to do so solely by the Islamic religion. They didn’t, in a vacuum, wake up and decide to take hostages, with no other reasoning but the teachings of Islam. Just as members of the IRA didn’t wake up one morning and decide to commit acts of terror against the British, based on solely on the Catholic faith. There were, and are, a lot more factors in the actions of both of these groups. If you are going to make the argument that Islam is a violent religion based on the despicable (and inexcusable) actions of a few; then you must make the same statement about Catholicism.
The atrocities committed by the IRA didn’t lead me to believe that Catholicism is “not a peaceful religion”, nor should the act of Islamic terrorists lead anyone to a similar conclusion about the Islamic faith.
Good example -- better than mine -- and well stated.
Fundamentalism + marginalization (or at least the impression of it) breeds terrorism
-
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Adolf Hitler
And the Hitler example is beside the point. The point that just about every religion has engaged in hateful activity is not, nor is the notion that fundamentalism of any kind can inspire and justify the worst of deeds including slavery (in the Bible, must be OK), and I could go on forever, but it would not get through to you anyway.
You need look no further than the Christian Crusades for an example -- one that still inspires hatred in many Muslims. It cannot be overstated how many innocents were killed for this terrible cause.
The rest of your post is so far off base that I'm not even going to bother.
-
Do you know what 'religion of peace' Hitler ascribed to?
Please guess which one. When you figure it out, think about what you're saying and see if you would blame Hitler's tactics and beliefs on that religion.
There are plenty of nasty fighting words in the Bible. There's a lot of good in it, too. Islam is not perfect, just like any organized religion. The problem is when anyone decides their religion is worth dying and killing for, and believes fundamentally in every word, rather than applying the words to a world that we know so much more about than we ever did when they were written. Islam is not an isolated case of this. Please read your history books before making another ignorant statement like this.
-
I know, we still have a ways to go in this election. But with Giuliani, Pataki and McCain in the spotlight at this RNC I wonder if we won't see a big struggle for the soul of the GOP in 2008.
Giuliani & Pataki are on the record as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and McCain's differences with his party on some issues are major and well-documented.
If these three are the prime contenders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, will the social conservatives and religious right feel sold out? Or will they bite their tongues and go along for the (likely victorious) ride? Or will none of these candidates make it out of the southern primaries?
I, for one, see Giuliani and Pataki splitting a lot of votes with the edge to Giuliani (he's more dynamic) in that case. I do wonder whether McCain has hurt the image of 'being his own man' with his somewhat reluctant role in the spotlight as a supporter of Bush in this election. Obviously it's what he has to do for his party but he looks very uncomfortable and might have been better off not putting himself into the situation. He may have damaged his rep with a lot of Dems and libertarians who liked him as a maverick and now see him as a sellout, and he has never been loved by the ultra-right.
This is all just speculation and conjecture, but, I think, fascinating stuff.
-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have never believed that terrorism can be eliminated and I have never believed that GW and his administration thought that either. Maybe their is an assumption by myself, GW and others that when you say "win" the war on terror that does not imply elimination, it implies protecting this country from catastrophic attacks like 9/11 and crippling the general terror network out there. Maybe GW should have clarified that assumption early on, but I was never confused.
I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists either, but you are twisting your own words. You say that "creating conditions to make terrorism less acceptable" means "winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations - including the Arab world". You did not say it means winning over the hearts and minds of terrorists (unless you are implying the entire Arab world are terrorists!). I think it is vital and rather obvious that to win the war on terror we need other countries to agree to fight the battle as well. You can see through the success of Pakistan, Britain and others that others have done so. We are "creating conditions" where terrorism is less acceptable. GW did not mean, nor has he ever implied, that we will win this war on terror by "winning the hearts and minds of terrorists".
Not only did you twist GW's words, you twisted your own words.
Not so. I was only saying that to defend myself. I thought you had implied that I believe we can win over terrorists, which I of course don't. That's why I included that.
What I meant by including the Arab world was not to imply they are all terrorists -- quite the contrary, I think if we can strengthen relations with the Arab world they will want to do everything possible to root out terrorism in their own nations. I also think we need to level with countries like Saudi Arabia and seriously consider what we are doing there. And we have to stop pissing Arab nations off with situations like Iraq, where our botched postwar planning is hurting us tremendously, 'catastrophic success' notwithstanding. Even if they didn't like Saddam in there -- nobody did -- it's clear they are not happy with what is going on right now. I think we've created a condition where terrorism is not only acceptable in Iraq, but is a viable #1 option. That is a problem.
-
Obviously, GW's choice of words wasn't the best, as we have seen from both candidates, but anyone with half a brain can see the intent of the two quotes. I don't see anything in this that shows GW "embracing the idea of changing people's hearts and minds". I don't see anything about these quotes that indicates any change in philosophy about the war on terrorism.
I think it is pretty obvious that GW's response to Lauer was simply making the point that we can never eliminate terrorism. I doubt there is anyone out there that believes terrorism will ever be eliminated (including Kerry and Edwards, despite their attempts to attack GW on this) and I find it hard to believe that you think GW ever believed that.
Look, honestly, I DON'T believe W ever thought this was a winnable war in terms of eradicating terrorism. But that doesn't take away that he said it, and made it integral to his campaign -- it is part of the fabric of his rhetoric.
I've taken the idea of "creating conditions" to make terrorism less acceptable to mean winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations -- including the Arab world. I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists. But I think that's what he's implied here, which heretofore has always been something that is decried by the Bush administration. It's been as if simply listening to the rest of the world and its concerns is a sign of weakness. If he has changed his mind about that, I appreciate it.
-
What's to address? As a politician, he shouldn't use an absolute. People will seize it (as you did) and use it against him. Especially when another terrorist incident occurs (and it will).
The war against terrorism likely won't ever be "won" in the traditional sense of the word. There's no way to remove the darkness from human beings and as long as it exists, there will be pawns willing to strap explosives to themselves and blow up day care centers in the name of whatever the fug.
Nobody addressed it because it was a fuggin' stupid question.
Well, then, why HAS Bush been using absolutes? That was my question. In fact, he is CELEBRATED for speaking in and governing on absolutes. You don't base your campaign on "winning the war on terror" and then admit it can't be won without facing some questions. Especially when any possible change of heart, policy or attitude in the other candidate is viewed as a sign of weakness.
If you think that's a stupid question, I'm sorry. It's central to the campaign. And I'm sick of essential questions about Bush being shrugged off as if they don't matter. The press is asleep.
I think Bush is right in now admitting the war on terror can't be won. But that he is suddenly embracing the idea of changing peoples' hearts and minds, when he has heretofore claimed that one can't reason with terrorists, is a MAJOR shift. It should be discussed.
-
Is there no one else who will address my original question up front?
I am surprised.
-
If all the votes are counted and no one is trying to strong-arm black voters out of the democratic process, it shouldn't be a problem either way.
But I think all sides should be concerned about the electronic voting machines.
-
But as for "flip flopping"...the fundamental truth is that between Bush ("I'll win the war that can't be won...") and Kerry ("I voted for it before I voted against it"), neither one is even remotely capable of expressing himself. Would it be so hard for Kerry to have said "I voted for it...until so many meaningless and bloated amendments were attached to it that I couldn't in good faith support it."? Would it be so hard for Bush to say "We need to do more to win the war on terror...but to "win" the war we have to make terrorism unpalatable as a geopolitical strategy."? (Okay, that would have been hard. Too many big words for George.) Just face facts: both these guys are complete numbskulls...
Good post, DCT.
Kerry would actually have been better served by saying "I voted for it, but I thought it should actually be paid for, unlike the Republicans' plan." Period. Any sentence that reeks of complexity would have voters changing the channel by word five.
With Bush we are spending money we don't have so we can make money that doesn't exist, and watching a president promote himself based on his ability to win a war that he says is unwinnable. If Kerry would seize on this he would win over a lot of fiscal conservatives, I think.
-
From a speech given in Troy, Ohio, this past saturday, full text available at http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3393:
THE PRESIDENT: I'm running -- I'm running because I know we have more to do to wage and win the war against the terrorists. America's future -- America's future depends on our willingness to lead in this world. If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This is not going to happen on my watch. (Applause.)From an interview with Matt Lauer given today -- just two days later -- full text available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
"I don't think you can win it," the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."Nuance? Flip-flop? Where is the steely resolve, the certainty, the strong leadership?
-
-
K Kittner
Jim Miller
Tee Martin
A Wright
Drew Brees
Doug Flutie
J Germaine
Doug Johnson- Leftwich Starts, Garrard already listed above Johnson as #2, could be cut
Rodney Peete
C Weinke
M McMahon- Rick Mirer as #2? Head case McMahon let go to pursue a starting job?
J Palmer
J Blake
T Rattay
Trent Dilfer
Seneca Wallace
Brock Huard
Jason Garrett
Brian Griese
Tim Hasselbeck
My dream guy would be Wallace or Brees. Wallace adds a slash type dimension that Mularkey could use as another weapon. Brees is a starter on a bad squad. Wright is my sleeper, he played great when forced to start due to injury.
I think Wallace has won the #2 job in Seattle. Don't think they'll be parting with him.
You might see a surprise cut in TB with Brad Johnson -- depends on if Simms has won the job or not, and how much they like the younger Griese over Johnson. I don't see them paying both Griese and Johnson. Screw Griese though.
Also, take a look at the Raiders. Tee Martin and Tuiasosopo (in addition to Gannon and Collins) on that roster. Either of those guys might be a good stopgap. Martin has played with all our Tennessee guys.
And I wouldn't mind a shot at a (healthy) Dilfer.
-
this really makes you guys feel better? what a miserable waste of time.
-
I was there for some of the protests today, both the march and in the park.
Thankfully there were no mass arrests and the police were smiling and extremely helpful. It was a two-way street as on the whole the protesters were very peaceful.
There were a few people who couldn't resist fighting back at some of the counter-protesters, who were trying to get in line with us and stir some things up, ripping up their own signs and calling us racists -- because Democrats generally don't support school vouchers?
But in general it was a spirited day for democracy, and a good showing for people who are not satisfied with what they've gotten in the past four years. And contrary to some postings on this board, the makeup of this march was extremely diverse, not full of 'professional protesters' -- a lot of grandmas, veterans (including some from WWII!), people of all colors, religions and ethnicities, young and old.
A lot of folks migrated to central park, where I went with my dog. Heavily policed, but the atmosphere was less tense than even the past few days as spontaneous protest and gathering was held without any violence or tension to speak of. I am thankful for the job the NYPD did of ensuring security, rounding up people who were only there to cause trouble, and protecting both protesters and people just enjoying a day in the city / park, and I made effort to tell many of the officers I saw just that.
Gildon or McKenzie?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I haven't seen much of either of these guys. Anyone know how many D-Lineman we usually keep -- is it 9? If that's the case, is it 5 DTs and 4 Ends?
If we keep Gildon, and keep him as an End on the roster, that's 5 ends including McKenzie. I think one has to go. Gildon is the more recent FA signing but I do recall McKenzie playing OK when he had the shot last year -- which wasn't too often. I think McKenzie goes, but I am not sure if it's the better move. Discuss...