Kid T

A lot of the troops coming back believe that they are helping the Iraqis, and things are improving. However, the majority of the people that say this are common soldiers with no real view of the overall picture. They just saw one portion of the war. Members of Congress and former/current high ranking military officers would have more reliable views, IMHO. 911862[/snapback] What an ignorant statement, you're on a roll this week. The majority of people? Who the f*** are these people? Show me these people. Yes - Let's take the word of a politician with his own agenda over the word of the countless MEN actually over there fighting this war interacting with the Iraqi people on a daily basis. "common soldiers", shut the f*** up. 911936[/snapback] Here's the scenario that I believe to be true. An Iraqi neighborhood, similar to anytown USA prior to the war suffers from missile strikes targeting nearby military targets. A couple of schools are destroyed. US soldiers eventually arrive and help to rebuild the schools. The soldiers come home thinking that they've "made a difference"...but have they? It depends on under what context: compared to the pre-war situation, no - but compared to the post-war situation, yes.

It's unbelievable how so many posters here lack reading comprehension skills. Yes, it's true that the number of soldiers KIA pale in comparison to Vietnam, however, this aspect of what Hagel mentioned does mirror Vietnam. "We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing. "What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together." So for those of you slow on the uptake, the comparison to Vietnam had nothing to do with how many soldiers died in battle. Rather, the comparison has to do with the lack of exit strategy by this administration. Without an exit strategy, our troops basically serve the purpose of further inciting insurgents who believe they are ridding us as occupiers of Arab land.

Wow, pure and unquestioned pwning. And its being ignored. How can the premise that this cite destroyed be restated again? 906090[/snapback] Thanks for the props - but in my experience, many conservatives will ignore anything that wasn't put out by the right-wing propaganda sites (newsmax, Drudge, FOXNews, etc.). Something like the bi-partisan 9/11 commission must surely be a tool of the liberally biased media. :banghead

Beyond the fact that newsmax has little credibility, this repeated assertion about Clinton and OBL has been addressed by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission. In Chapter 4 of the report, it states: "Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

Sara Silverman had the line of the night in my opinon: People say that Pamela Anderson would be nothing without those tits. But it's not true. Nope, not true at all....she'd be Paris Hilton.

For anyone interested, courtesy of hotdeals.org * Amazon.com - 20GB iPod for $217 Apple iPod 20GB M9282LL/A for $240 with free shipping. Add one to your cart along with a $15 iTunes Card. Then apply coupon code FREEAPPLEFUN in your cart and select free shipping, to get both for $217. Instead of the iTunes Card, you can get a FM Transmitter with the 20GB iPod for $231 after coupon.

A couple of thoughts: 1) As noted by others, it would be extremely difficult for a nurse to contract AIDS this way. She would have to have the blood enter her bloodstream via an open sore or in rare cases, through her eyes or mouth. 2) I believe it's standard procedure for any healthcare professional who is at risk of contracting AIDS from a patient (usually through an errant needle stick) to immediately start AIDS therapy prophylactically. 3) In many areas, this would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. I hope the nurses are okay. Like teachers, their jobs are often underappreciated and they aren't compensated very well. I hope the AIDS patient is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If you're interested in sports journalism as a major, perhaps some good advice is to actually seek advice from experts. Email some of your favorite columnists and ask them for their opinion. Email addy's are readily available (usually included in their byline these days). I'd be willing to bet that their advice will be more appropriate in helping to guide you towards what you want than some random posters on a message board.

Don't think it's been mentioned previously but Madden 2005 dropped it's price to $29.95 to compete with NFL 2K5. With the exclusive license, Madden 2006 is back to it's original (price gouging ways) $49.95.

People need to grow thicker skin. 892071[/snapback] I would argue that if people were to recognize our civil rights, most wouldn't need to grow thicker skin. Like it or not, that's a price of democracy.

They? Again, you miss the point. Look past your own rhetoric and you'll notice that not all Arabs or even the majority of Arabs have threatened to hurt us. I've said not all Muslims are terrorists, but in this era of Muslim extremism those that want to hurt us share common beliefs.Those that want to hurt us may share common beliefs (as in "they want to hurt us") but they don't all share the same race. Yet you persist in believing that racial profiling is appropriate. With the manner you focus on minute wording I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends on this board. Frankly, if those on this board tend to make bigoted comments, I don't want to be anyone's friend. Is racial profiling better than random profiling? You say yes, yet you bear no proof. Again, my point stands that random checks combined with profiling of suspicious behavior bears the best results. Question: Is random checking infringing on our rights? 891224[/snapback] Perhaps. Take a look at the case in NY where they have enacted random searches in their public transit system. Illegal search and seizure sound familiar?

The other joke is, you believe that the crusade against the United States began with the USS Cole attack. It may have been the first attack in which YOU felt threatened, but such crusades have been active for decades - they've just been committed by the KKK, Eric Rudolphs, and Timothy McVeighs of the world. You don't think that ideologies rise and fall? Is violence toward blacks in the South the same now as it was 50 years ago or more? So would you say Muslim terrorism in the United States right now is no more imminent than it was 50 years ago? Just yesterday a guy up the street from me was arrested with ties to Al Qaeda.I don't believe ideologies necessarily rise and fall. The attention span of the media and the American people however do. As to violence towards blacks in the South, I can't answer the question not having experienced it personally nor any other evidence. I can say with some certainty that there have been more violence towards blacks in the South in recent years than terrorist attacks by Muslims. As for your other unrelated comment - It's funny, lots of people have been arrested "with ties to AQ" yet few are actually convicted. And here's the true sign of your true ignorance - repeated once again. Racial profiling isn't "searching people who have a history of violence". It's searching people who look like someone you think will hurt us. And why do we think they will hurt us? Because they have and they say they will again.They? Again, you miss the point. Look past your own rhetoric and you'll notice that not all Arabs or even the majority of Arabs have threatened to hurt us. You however advocate treating all Arabs as if they had. That's why I've repeatedly called your comment bigoted, because it is. You see, we can't identify those that truly wish to harm us by sight. You may think you do, but you'd be wrong. And random searching works? 891161[/snapback] Is racial profiling better than random profiling? You say yes, yet you bear no proof. Again, my point stands that random checks combined with profiling of suspicious behavior bears the best results.

I'll admit that I anticipated that someone would inevitably get tripped up with the irrelevant numbers An interesting preface since the rest of your post is built on irrelevant numbers. Tell me, do you think a screening procedure that considers race as one factor among many would be less effective at catching potential terrorists than an identical screening procedure that does not consider race? Yes? No? Feel free answer...if you have an opinion on it, that is. As far as substance goes, we might actually be in agreement here. :thumbup 890886[/snapback] Yes, because your entire case is built on the preface that brown men are more likely to be terrorists. An assumption neither proven or factual. And profiling based on race offers little to no advantage. 890848[/snapback] Would stopping a greater proportion of people exhibiting suspicious behaviors offer a screener some advantage? (yes) What about a screener who stops a smaller proportion of all children but a greater proportion of all adults with his limited time? Does he get some statistical advantage in using this method? Why or why not? 890889[/snapback] And just out of curiosity, what proportion of those screened are children? Further, what proportion of those children are not accompanied by suspicious adults? You see, many people like to throw out these specific cases of a child being searched without context. Too many people become fixated on the few random articles (inevitably referenced ad nauseum by right wing organizations in favor of racial profiling) without realizing how few children are actually searched. So perhaps the better question involving numbers of relevance for you is: how often are these hypothetical scenarios you present reflective of the real world?

Again suspicious behavior will not be neglected since this is about profiling over random searching. And profiling based on race offers little to no advantage. You've yet to demonstrate any sound reasoning in favor of racial profiling. Society and history go through trends. Right now the greatest threat appears to be Muslim extremists. Ever since the embassy and USS Cole bombings there has been an evident crusade against the United States. And they won't stop. I disagree. The greatest threat comes from fearful conservatives such as yourself who are so quick to disregard the civil rights that so many brave men and women have fought and died for. Your ready willingness to barter (presumably others) civil rights in the name of safety (even though such measures have yet to be proven effective or reasonable) is right in line with allowing the very terrorists you mention to win in affecting how we live our lives. By eroding civil rights and resorting to racially motivated attacks (and let's be honest here, treating one person worse than another based on their race is an attack) the concept of Democracy is weakened. The other joke is, you believe that the crusade against the United States began with the USS Cole attack. It may have been the first attack in which YOU felt threatened, but such crusades have been active for decades - they've just been committed by the KKK, Eric Rudolphs, and Timothy McVeighs of the world. When the United States engages in genocide of Muslims, then maybe your comparison to Nazi Germany could begin to make some sense. Ah, I see you have failed to employ reading comprehension skills. I have made no comparisons to Nazi Germany. If you bothered to read closely, my comment was that racial profiling is no solution. I could have chosen any "hailed" solution that was a complete failure - I simply chose the first that came to mind. Searching people in order to save lives of American citizens from those that have a history of violence is not the same thing. 890778[/snapback] And here's the true sign of your true ignorance - repeated once again. Racial profiling isn't "searching people who have a history of violence". It's searching people who look like someone you think will hurt us. Your comment is not based on fact - it is simply grounded on bigotry. You see, we can't identify those that truly wish to harm us by sight. You may think you do, but you'd be wrong.

Again, prove me wrong by giving examples from the last four years. And I'm not talking about blowing up SUVs either. That is completely different. I'm talking about deliberate planned killings of American citizens. If in the near future during this age of the war on terror a white male is believed to have killed countless innocent human beings, then by all means search me. Until then search those proven to be responsible for such acts. And why limit history to just the last 4 years? Surely you're familiar with other terrorist attacks in recent history. The fact is, suspicious behavior is suspicious behavior. Being Arab, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other ethnicity should not be grounds for suspicion. The left in this country takes political correctness way too far. Political correctness? It's not politically correct, it's just correct. Of course you totally overlook how the right wing has come to embrace the curtailing of civil rights. Your comparison to Nazi Germany is ridiculous. 889686[/snapback] No more ridiculous than your views. My comparison is apt - your "solution" is no better than Hitlers'. Don't be mad because I called you out and exposed your initial fraudulent statement for what it was. In a suburb of Kansas City, a screener notices 150 suspicious-looking people during a given one-hour shift. He only has time to grab 15. Again, since this is a KC suburb, let's say this is the breakdown of those 150 hypothetical, suspicious-looking people: 10 old, demented senior citizens 40 miscellaneous middle-aged people 20 miscellaneous young women 15 young black men 40 young white men 15 young latino men 3 young asian men 1 young arab man 5 wild little boys with ADD 1 partridge in a pear tree Do you honestly think the probability of picking that one young arab man should be no higher than the probability of picking one particular young white man? Is simply considering the subject's race when making a decision really that stupid and counterproductive? 889934[/snapback] I think if the screener saw 150 suspicious looking people, there should be a search of 150 people. The rest is simply a smokescreen to engage in racist behavior.

First of all as I said in the post-September 11th world there is a new breed of terrorism. This isn't 10 years ago. There is a culture of extremists present that want to kill as many Americans as possible. Give me examples from the last 4 years of non-Muslim terrorist activity. As for your last sentence you need to reread my post. It's not an issue of looking for suspicious activity or not (that won't be neglected). It's about targeting those in this new era of terrorism that are more likely to be suspects instead of every 5th person in line. 889532[/snapback] Dude, perhaps you should reread your post. Your statement that all terrorists are Muslims is downright insulting and false. Again, my assertion isn't that we should maintain simple random checks - but we should augment it with profiling for suspicous behavior. Robert Reid and John Walker Lindh could easily escape your racial profiling. Racial profiling does nothing but help the terrorists win - because we stop believing in freedom. I'm guessing that you're white and don't have to worry about racial profiling so it's easy for you to surrender it by indicating how great a solution it is because it doesn't affect you. So stop and think for a moment about the history of bigotry and racist policies of this country...then think about the strides we've made toward equality - and how quickly your "solution" would completely eradicate it. It is no more of a solution than Hitler's version of the "final solution".

BUT if you look at what Bush said he did not say he wanted ID taught in a science class , his quote on the issue is being misunderstood or twisted , beyond the fact that Bush does not advocate teaching ID in a science class this debate is moot 100% of students will be exposed to evolution and maybe 1 percent will ever be taught ID ...it is a non issue outside of one county in GA and Kansas 888757[/snapback] The direct quote from the first line of the article: WASHINGTON ? President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. "Discuss alongside evolution" implies to me that it's the same class as evolution is being taught. Perhaps you're interpreting this differently that most. As for your other point, this could become a precedent. If successful, do you really doubt that the Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et al won't be trying to force the issue in every county they can? The bottom line for me remains that ID is a religious theory and holds no place in public school unless in a religion/philosophy class where religous theories (please note the emphasis on alternative viewpoints) are discussed.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. 887407[/snapback] What an ignorant statement. Of course all terrorists AREN'T Muslims. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City? 888418[/snapback] Predictable and typical response. You will need to give more evidence than that. A lot has changed in ten years I'm afraid. 888886[/snapback] It's a predictable response because unlike your assertion, it's true. Are you seriously doubting that the OK City bombings weren't done by white males? More to the point, perhaps you are the one that should provide evidence of your absolute statement that all terrorists are Muslims. By the way, Eric Rudolph says hi. What makes you think they will neglect suspicious activity? I think the point here is that our resources would be used more intelligently if we targeted those by race rather than random searching of every 5th person in line. 888896[/snapback] I think the point is it our resources would be used more intelligently if we targeted those exhibiting suspicous behavior instead of those who happen to be of a certain race. :banghead

This whole topic is a joke i suggest someone post then read what Bush actually said specifically focusing on then students will understand the context of the debate at no point does Bush say I support teaching intelligent design instead of evolution. For what it is worth I dont see why either theory has to be incompatible with the other not that I advocate teaching intelligent design in schools 888710[/snapback] It's not that the theories are incompatible. What Bush advocates is that ID be taught alongside evolution. The problem I have is that ID is not a scientific concept and shouldn't be taught in a science class alongside evolution. ID should be taught in Sunday school or by parents. ID is grounded in religous beliefs and if taught in public schools, becomes a de facto endorsement of religion.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. 887407[/snapback] What an ignorant statement. Of course all terrorists AREN'T Muslims. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City? Racial profiling isn't the answer. Giving up our civil liberties isn't the answer. Profiling based on race is stupid...profiling based on suspicous behavior is smart.

yea, like toronto and tampa bay :plain 872053[/snapback] Well, let's look at runs scored per ESPN (7/23) Toronto - 487 Tampa Bay - 438 If Toronto were in the NL, they'd rank 3rd behind Cincinnati and St. Louis. If Tampa were in the NL East, they'd be 3rd in the division - ahead of the Nationals, the Mets, and yes - the Marlins.