calvino Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 3) The Stadium. Ok first of all, when I go to a new park, I like to walk around get sense of the ball park and the people. Check out all the different types of food, etc. Little did I know when you buy an upper deck ticket you are held captive in the upper deck and cannot go to any other part of the park. This is frustrating. Out of the 10 parks I went to this is the only one that does this. I understand if it was a sold out game, but it wasn't that full. Yeah - that's my biggest beef with the place - especially when you bring kids, since they can't go to the concourse if you have an upper level ticket. I think it's ridiculous. And your right the upper deck is far away from the field. You can blame the lovely Ligue family for this -- right after this father and son incident the Sox instituted this rule. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/sports/baseball-2-fans-attack-royals-coach-at-game-in-chicago.html and to fit in the thread - saw my first Sanders, 2016 bumper sticker this morning in my neighborhood -- a middle-aged white female was driving, too. Guess Clinton may need to campaign a bit in my southern Chicago suburb, after all. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I didn't know about that limitation on the upper deck tix. That's really lame. I like Sanders - he's my guy, but he'll never make it. I believe in the notion that you have to look the part. Sanders looks like he just woke up. I've resigned myself to the scenario that we're going to be looking at another Clinton v Bush election. Christ. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 and to fit in the thread - saw my first Sanders, 2016 bumper sticker this morning in my neighborhood -- a middle-aged white female was driving, too. Guess Clinton may need to campaign a bit in my southern Chicago suburb, after all. Living in Madison, WI I see Bernie stickers and signs all over the place. I would say they are about equal to or slightly more than the Hillary stickers I see, and out number the Walker stickers 2 to 1. But Madison is weird. I've resigned myself to the scenario that we're going to be looking at another Clinton v Bush election. Christ. Me, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I agree. Sanders is my candidate but sadly, you are correct. It will be Bush v. Clinton. Our nation is bizarre. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I could see rhe conservative wing trying to rally around Cruz or Walker to prevent Bush from winning. Link to post Share on other sites
dagwave Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 saw my first bernie sticker on way to work in Harrisburg, PA the other day....i reacted positively, like " somethings happening here", then cynically thought, "no, it's not" Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I heard Jeb on npr saying how he wanted to beef up the military presence in Iraq, which I think includes boots on the ground. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I heard Jeb on npr saying how he wanted to beef up the military presence in Iraq, which I think includes boots on the ground.We currently have about 4000 troops in Iraq, so boots have been on the ground for quite some time. And, judging by the current situation, they're clearly not enough. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 What amount is enough? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 What amount is enough?It depends on what the president wants to do. But had we kept about 30,000 troops there as a stabilization force ISIS wouldn't be in control of large swaths of Iraq. We still have tens of thousands of troops in Japan, South Korea and Germany more than half a century after the wars ended for a reason. Iraq should have been at least a 50-year commitment. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 It depends on what the president wants to do. But had we kept about 30,000 troops there as a stabilization force ISIS wouldn't be in control of large swaths of Iraq. We still have tens of thousands of troops in Japan, South Korea and Germany more than half a century after the wars ended for a reason. Iraq should have been at least a 50-year commitment.You're probably right. Too bad that's not how it was sold. The focus now, IMO, should be on containment. I am a bit tired of listening to candidates talk about destroying ISIS. If we "destroy" them, they will morph into something else just like much of Al Qaeda morphed into ISIS. Go after their money and keep them from growing. If opportunities present themselves for taking back land, go for it, but with minimal U.S. boots on the ground. I just don't see that as serving our national interest. Long-term, our strategy needs to be to win the propaganda war. I am very much a pro-Islam person. I do not think the religion is, by nature one of violence and radicalism. However, the radicals have a powerful propaganda campaign that is very effective. Their lies about the U.S., Israel, and the West are accepted as fact by millions. Unfortunately, we have given them a lot of ammunition to feed the propaganda so they don't have to rely entirely on lies. The more energy-independent we become, the more we should start dealing with OPEC nations based on our values, not our needs. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Long-term, our strategy needs to be to win the propaganda war. I am very much a pro-Islam person. I do not think the religion is, by nature one of violence and radicalism. However, the radicals have a powerful propaganda campaign that is very effective. Their lies about the U.S., Israel, and the West are accepted as fact by millions. We also have our own, more subtle propaganda machine quietly stoking the flames of Islamophobia in the U.S. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Well, there's that, and that's not helpful either. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 It depends on what the president wants to do. But had we kept about 30,000 troops there as a stabilization force ISIS wouldn't be in control of large swaths of Iraq. We still have tens of thousands of troops in Japan, South Korea and Germany more than half a century after the wars ended for a reason. Iraq should have been at least a 50-year commitment.Fuck.That.Shit. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Fuck.That.Shit. Like it or not, it's how things like this work. Had we pulled out of Germany, Japan and South Korea immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the 60-70 years of peace and prosperity they've enjoyed would have been unlikely, if not impossible. (See what I did there?) Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Well the Germany story is tough because on the one side the U.S. almost WAS the west German government initially which shows how essential we were in the development of today's prosperous and peaceful social democracy that is Germany. But then again take out the Berlin Wall tension and it might have been a less severe Cold War. All speculation aside, this shows that when you topple a government, if you expect stability, you're on the hook for a half century. This hard-won wisdom was horrifically absent from the Bush doctrine and the American mythos surrounding the prospect of invasion. The U.S. could have never been able to afford the level of commitment you speak of in the midst of the recession, especially after Bush's tax cuts. I mean shit, you think our national debt is jacked now? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 Like it or not, it's how things like this work. Had we pulled out of Germany, Japan and South Korea immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the 60-70 years of peace and prosperity they've enjoyed would have been unlikely, if not impossible. (See what I did there?)how about we don't start those hostilities? WWII excepted, of course. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 A friend of mine was killed at the hands of Iranians and a friend of a friend is currently being held captive in Iran, so forgive me if I don't buy their faux peacefulness. By the way, "Death to America" refers to *all* of us. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 As a nation I think we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our potential enemies. If ill will warrented war we'd be knee deep in N. Korea and Russia. No sane American would ever want to throw away lives in an ill-advised war on Iran which bares more than a passing resemblance to our recent follies, ones which cost the lives of far too many American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 A friend of mine was killed at the hands of Iranians and a friend of a friend is currently being held captive in Iran, so forgive me if I don't buy their faux peacefulness. By the way, "Death to America" refers to *all* of us.maybe if we get out of their fucking grill, they wouldn't be so defensive. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 A friend of mine was killed at the hands of Iranians and a friend of a friend is currently being held captive in Iran, so forgive me if I don't buy their faux peacefulness. By the way, "Death to America" refers to *all* of us. I recognize the resorting to force may be tempting in the face of rhetoric and behavior that emanates from some parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts. Or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ does not mean that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus. - President Barack Obama Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I have a good friend who was born in Iran and lives in Tehran. She says that most Iranians are disgusted by the hard-liners in the government and are generally hospitable to Western ideals. Last year she said something interesting to me--she said that it's interesting how most Iranian citizens don't believe their government's propaganda about America, while so many Americans accept the propaganda they hear about Iran. I don't mean to minimize the threat from hard-liners in Iran, but I think it is wise to always clarify the distinction between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I heard Jeb on npr saying how he wanted to beef up the military presence in Iraq, which I think includes boots on the ground.I heard another bit on this from npr. Granted it was the first substantive foreign policy statement from a candidate that most people heard, but I found how beautifully npr took him to task felt pretty partisan. Basically, they played through each of Jeb's proposals for dealing with ISIS and quoted recent military intelligence demonstrating how ineffective each idea is. Then they closed with Jeb defending water boarding. He may be able to speak Spanish, but he's telling the same tale that his brother did. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I really wish people would stop with the "we've been in Getmany and Japan for CX years after WEII" as a way of arguing that we should have stayed longer in Iraq.the length of time spent in those two countries is completely different than Iraq. And the two situations are not comparable. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I wish Cheney and Rumsfeld had pushed for the Iraq war by promoting it as a 50 year commitment. That would have been a great way to avoid the war altogether. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts