RuntheDamnBall
-
Posts
11,398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RuntheDamnBall
-
-
If RW brought in Jimmy Johnson, I would probably go to his house and do donuts on his lawn, and leave a bag of stevestojan at his door.
Hell, if he does that, why not get some premiere head-coaching material like Deion to go with him? Deion says he's good, so he must be, right?
-
If it's family, one's a tragedy. If it's a military commitment of 125,000 men, 1000 is nothing. Ultimately, conquering and occupying a country for the loss of 1000 soldiers is astoundingly cheap in military terms.
The key being: "in military terms". Don't mix your contexts. In fact, get used to not mixing your contexts. A LOT more Americans are going to become casualties before the war on terrorism is over.
Though the military one does not particularly agree with me (I've got problems -- "you mean beyond pacifism?"), I think mixing contexts is actually important as it forces one to consider the situation from another perspective; in fact I think it's very important. I know the military folks won't agree with me on this, as it is so ingrained in military philosophy to have a singular perspective that doesn't disturb from the objective at hand. I respect and honor those who have served. But I'd never make a good soldier because I cannot separate humanity from my perspective and I would not be able to take part in a conflict that I did not agree with. I am too in love with life, and I don't just mean my own.
Michael Moore's example in this case kind of trivialized the situation and probably alienated some people, but I think he was dead on in this: if all the members of Congress had a child in the military, I don't believe you would see them for a second voting to send their children to Iraq. On the other hand, if they were going to Afghanistan to fight the people who actually attacked us, I think you would see less hesitation.
My point was that Iraq was a war of choice and that those 1,000 soldiers is a lot considering there were very sketchy reasons for taking over a sovereign nation by force, as compared to the worst battles in our civil war.
And am I the only one who thinks we have much more to worry about in NK and Iran than we EVER did with Iraq?
-
1,000 people is nothing? Can you honestly say you would feel this way if one of those 'nothings' was in your family?
And Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles fought in a war fought over completely different circumstances, and it wasn't a war of choice (unless you're among the sick few that think there WAS a real choice to disband the union).
And 3,000 WTC dead is three times as many as in Iraq. Where is the vindication for these people? What happened to getting bin Laden 'dead or alive,' 'smoke 'em out'? Now it's just, "to tell you the truth I don't spend that much time on him."
I want to see that war won and the man who started it brought to justice, as promised.
Oh, and us liberals are too busy having wine and cheese parties and discussing foreign films to debate here all the time. I wish I could help fight an outnumbered battle in an echo chamber more often, but my lobster is ready and I have to go do some yoga [/sarcasm]
-
If I could rid the world of Deion Sanders, I would probably nominate myself for king, it would be that valuable of a service to football and society.
Speaking of fast bigmouth !@#$s, does anyone else want to shove Maurice Greene's teeth down his throat? Just watching that guy swagger around with that smug look on his face makes me fume.
It was nice to see Gatlin, who seems like a standup guy if there ever was one, beat him in the 100m.
-
Jay Farrar: Feed Kill Chain
off his new live record.
-
It'd be easier if they didn't have the wrong uniform on.
Or any, for that matter. Hi-yo.
-
-
this is "news"? And you trust this guy? He looks like Bledsoe after a bender and 59 sacks.
-
-
Umm, not until 1992. That was the first 'Dream Team' of pros.
And if I remember correctly, it's only hockey and hoops that supply pros for the Olympics.
I understand what you mean, but the rationale is not there.
-
Man, please tell me how you really feel about American Idol. From your posts I get the impression you are not fond of it, but I am left uncertain. Please elaborate
-
And that brings up yet another point. What, precisely, should we be protecting? The safety and welfare of the people is an obvious one...but this country was founded on certain ideals and principles, among which are the rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble.
Now, it's all well and good to tell people "You can't gather here, for your own good"...but you have to realize that protects the people at the expense of the civil rights our country's founded on. Conversely, you can allow the gathering...and protect the civil rights at the expense of the people's safety. But which SHOULD the government be protecting...the people, or the people's rights?
Strikes me as an important question to consider, if you want to figure out precisely what it means to "win" the war on terror...
Point well-made. It's murky territory.
-
No Tom was using one of his rights to modify his posts after the fact. basically being an evil bastard at your expense.
Yeah, figured that one out
Sure. I don't think most, if any people, are going to shout in people's faces or threaten people. Like I said before, most people are smart enough to recognize the stakes are high and this will only hurt their case. I hope a few idiots don't ruin it.
-
I've been told a lot of times I couldn't go somewhere, for various reasons. I'd just go another time. Why is there a big deal involved unless one plans on being part of the protesting mass? And as has been pointed out-there are venues for that.
I find it highly unlikely that if a crowd of 2000 people forms, all 2000 are going to jail. There will be a central rabble rouser(s) hauled away.
I doubt it. But if there is no rioting or violence and they haul anyone away, people will be intimidated enough to leave. There have been a lot of police vehicles in the park today and I have no doubt this is what for. People are being made to feel that they will be arrested just for being there.
-
Man, Captain America should change his name to Dr. Doom. I always thought Dr. Doom was pretty cool anyway.
-
-
Peaceful also means non-violent. I think as long as no one is physically harmed there are no grounds for arresting people. But that's my interpretation. A riot is one thing, and I don't think most people want a part of that. It would be completely contrary to the cause and just make the public think, "look at the crazy protesters," and shift the focus away from anything they have to say.
DC Tom, there are plenty of deadbeat protesters, I'll admit that. There are plenty of deadbeats listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of working in their offices, too. But that's just an easy way of defusing someone's message.
I will be walking the dog, and I was hoping to go to the park and hear what people had to say. My point was, I'm going there anyway. If I stay and do that this weekend, do I suddenly become an unruly protester?
-
No. There was a specific application for a permit for a gathering in Central Park that was denied on the "It'll ruin the lawn" grounds. Instead, they get to march somewhere else.
(So technically, their freedom to assemble isn't being violated...just their freedom to do it in Central Park. Can't say I necessarily agree with the decision...but then, I don't really care whether a bunch of professional crybabies and spoiled college brats get the chance to chant "Bush sucks!" in Central Park anyway...)
"there" freedom is as good as yours, DC Tom. This 'professional crybaby' worked his ass off for two degrees, is paying 90% of his salary in rent and is knee-deep in loans. Good to see that intellectual discourse is alive and well.
-
I think that's the point; UFPJ was trying to organize a rally in the park responsibly rather than have it be spontaneous, as it may well be, if people decide to go there.
Trivialize it if you must, I supposed I opened it up by mentioning my dog, but if someone was telling you where you could and could not go and spend a day with people in a public place where you were causing no harm, I am certain you would not be happy about it.
There is a right to assemble, and this 'isolated' point in the century happens to be at the dawn of an important election. I think it is no less than un-American to try and suffocate protest or move it into locations that are more desirable for the very people whom the protest is aimed at. Like it or not, that right is part of our constitution and part of what terrorists want to destroy.
I will return to my original point, which is that terrorists have already succeeded in making ours a less free country. I personally believe the Bush administration to be complicit in this, citing the Patriot Act and surveillance on peaceful protesters using anti-terrorism funding, and I think the warnings amount to scare-tactics. That's my view, everyone is entitled to his or her own.
-
Yes, but the city has been warning people that they can be arrested for assembling in the park this weekend. The reason being that the lawn could be hurt (if there is a more crybaby rationale out there please share). My point was, I could be walking my dog, and because of the city's policy I could be arrested if I stay and listen to what people are saying, or if I'm even walking around a big group of people.
-
I was right across the river, and got a phone call just as the plane hit the pentagon, friends sister in a "government agency" who happened to know it was happening real time. It was probably 1/4 to 1/2 mile away. Don't tell me I don't understand. I was off a ship for 2 weeks near beirut. Soon after a bunch of my friends died when an !@#$ drove a !@#$ing car bomb into the barracks. Don't tell me I don't understand.
You don't understand. If we had better alerts then, and Our country wasn't trying to recover from the stupidity at the time of the two previous admins in both cases, they both probably would have been avoided.
Alerts are good, trust me. It means they know we know.
I didn't mean you don't understand the situation, and I definitely didn't mean you specifically. Your service is commendable and the loss of your friends is tragic, and I wish it could have been prevented. But I do think the situation is different in the military than in an urban setting. Military personnel generally know they can be put in harm's way and should get all the information they need to be safe. I just don't think an entire city necessarily needs to know intelligence information unless it is a very real possibility that citizens are in danger.
I think we can differ on our opinions of administrations. I think the current one had plenty of time and indications that the Sept. 11 attacks were possible -- not necessarily on that date, but that it was possible. There was a lot of vacation time (recovering?) there that could have been used to fight terrorism. I think Clinton could have done better and I think Bush could have done better. So does the Sept. 11 Commission.
-
You are a newcomer here and have missed a lot of conversation about this stuff.
1. Things are being observes, reconned and probed every day. Slow news days, it can fill some pages.
2. Sometimes you actually want THEM to know that YOU know.
3. What rights have you lost because of the current administration?
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
thought I addressed that, sorry (genuinely).
-
It never occurred to you that maybe the media's blowing the whole thing out of proportion, in search for a juicy story? I don't see where they "issued a warning"...they advised law enforcement of the possibility. Looks like the reporters read the bulletin and said "Hey, let's make this a story!"
I think that's exactly what happened. We're in agreement here. But the story got from the FBI to the AP. The FBI doesn't have to share this information if it doesn't want to.
-
If someone nukes Central Park while I am walking in it, the likeliest of situations to be sure, please, give me a call. I wouldn't want to be a mile away where I would also get nuked. Thanks for your concern.
Look, I understand heightened alert. I know what it's about. But releasing the threat info can be damaging, as
1) it pinpoints what our response to the situation would be and may even make it easier for terrorists to figure out what holes might exist in that response
2) it freaks people out unnecessarily. If you don't live in NYC you may not understand. Comments like "stop whining" don't cut it.
I would rather not know about the threats, or just have a general idea of what can happen, which we generally do, and we look out for things, instead of specific false alarms, which if you know your children's stories generally make people complacent and unprepared when the 'real alarm' comes. Not to mention that the last false alarm cost this city a lot.
Question/scenerio for the lefties
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Attaway, blame union workers for getting steamrolled, picked apart, and sold out by their leaders.
Good show, when's the tarring and feathering begin?
I think you are dead right with most of your post, and I think there are plenty of cases where unions are too strong for their own good -- a lot of teacher unions (even though I am one) for example, theater and film, baseball, etc. -- HOWEVER, working class folks like my dad put their lives at risk on high wires everyday and are getting told that they should work on their own with less safety provisions taken and no crewmen to help them should anything go wrong. They need a union to protect them, and they're not getting that protection from the union OR the government because it's all about the dollar. That guy hanging out of the bucket electrocuted because the job went to the lowest bidder is a direct result.
Unions aren't perfect, but the alternative, while cheaper, lowers the standard of living and safety for an awful lot of people. Companies that have been EXTREMELY profitable are moving, to make even more money and to be held less accountable. Nobody held a gun to these CEOs' heads and said, "move your office to Bermuda and by another Hummer or you're going to get it." The greed in this country is infuriating.