Comments Posted By Svenghouli
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 82 Comments
I was wondering what the government is doing about the leaks themselves. We all know the goal of a newspaper isn't just to spread the news. It is to sell newspapers. The best of course of action is cut of the newspapers from their source. This is important especially relating to a highly classified program.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 3.07.2006 @ 13:34
The Cubs are actually shelling out decent money for their payroll. Last season they were dishing out about $15 million more than the White Sox. Their current payroll is hovering around $90 million. The biggest problem the Cubs have is their manager refuses to discipline players for making mistakes. It is painful to see all the confused looks on the Cubs player when try to field a ball. The Cubs also hasn't developed any position players in their minor league system. That is where many teams develop their stars. I mean Pujols didn't come from NY or Boston. It is sad when Jim Hendry references prospects that the Cubs lost(such as Eric Hinske) to how well the Cubs minor system is doing. Even with Hinske, the Cubs system is putrid. Despite what McPhail or Hendry say about year 12 in the 15 year plan, the Cubs need to be demolished and rebuilt.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 2.07.2006 @ 12:42
LET'S TORCH THE FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT
I believe the only reason why flag burning is an effective form of protest is that it considered taboo. If you take away that effect by making it legal, its damage is greatly decreased.
pc,
define free press. a press that is completely free? that would be contradictory. the goal for all news firms should be objectivity. everyone has opinions and they should respected. however, it is in the best interest that Americans know the facts but as long it is free from bias. It should be the people that infer their biases. when a form of news media only displays news from one point of view it ceases to be media, it becomes propaganda. The New York Times just like Fox Radio is a propaganda vehicle. Unfortunately, it is only acceptable to lampoon Fox Radio as such.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 27.06.2006 @ 16:23
MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR TERRORISTS
Rick,
You are right. A couple years back a "soldier" who was ani-Iraqi war was reporting on a blog about his platoon. The army shut it down because they claimed that in the blog it depicted position and military strategy. They stated that it was a resource the insurgency could use against them. A lot of people were pissed off because soldier lost his "right to free speech". Of course we like most sane people realize that the army is seperate from rest of the United States. It doesn't have to adhere to all of the rules that we civilians have to adhere. In fact, they have stricter rules of their own. They question now is does National Security have its own rules seperate from the rest of the country.
I have an interesting question. It may seem childish, but I want some answers for this.
If the Constitution was written before Benedict Arnold commit treason, would he have been within his rights. I think it is safe to assume that most of us consider this not covered by the first amendment. The question why is this not considered protected and while the New York Times is considered protected. While, the Times did not act intentionally treasonously did they accidently? Or was it just an example of partisanship being declared more important than America herself?
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 27.06.2006 @ 16:50
THE "NEW MEDIA" STARTING TO LOOK OLD
I saw a TV ad for "The Nation" magazine on TV today. I am going to assume they don't like Republicans. I am also going to assume they are for the most part pompous idiots.
I just read an article about America and the World Cup. The ding dong's were going on and on about how American fans viewed our participation of the World Cup as a militaristic venture. They claim that one of the larger fan club's "Sam's Army" help perpetuate that image. Anyone who understand's international sports realizes such statements are inane. The United States is mild in its "militaristic ambitions". I remember seeing pictures of German fans before the Poland game that read "17 mininutes in '38. 90 minutes in '06". Polish fans were wearing shirts that stated all of the military victories their nation had against Germany. All nations view sports as different form of battlefield. Look at back at why the recent Olympics haven't done as drawing crowds. During the Cold War, it was the only place where the Soviets battled with the Americans(well except one air battle during the Korean War.)
The boobs who wrote the article probably have little experience dealing with athletics first hand. It may be melodramatic to compare any game to war, but that is just how many people view the strategy and intensity of sporting events.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/zirin
Guys sorry for my Dennis Miller rant. The Nation just bugs me. I just can't put my finger on the reason why.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 24.06.2006 @ 01:43
"TELL THOSE DIRTY FASCISTS TO STOP THE NAME CALLING!"
I think both sides of the political spectrum have acted like monkeys flinging crap. The only difference is that there is a greater media presence for the left. Therefore, we hear how childish the left acts more often. This may seem like a suggestion for a hippy drum circle, but I think this will help the overall cause. We are all Americans before political idealogies. It is because we are Americans we hold different beliefs in the way the country should be run. To say one administration is without fault is absurd. It is just as foolhardy to not see any value in an administration even if it adheres to a different value system.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 22.06.2006 @ 14:41
THE IMMORALITY OF THE DEMOCRATS' POSITION ON THE WAR
"You stated that the Dems political future rests on us losing.. that is not a position, that is rhetoric and politics …."
The truth is that the Dems political future does depend upon our failure. This may bug many Republicans, but when W ran for president the first time around he made the statement that as a nation the US will not try to be nation builders. It was because of the failure in the Balkans and Somalia that prompted that position and also won the support of millions of Americans in 2000.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 21.06.2006 @ 12:22
crosspatch,
Robert D. Kaplan is great. He is a journalist that actually gets deeply entrenched with the soldiers mainly army special forces and marines. You should read "Imperial Grunts". It is a very interesting read. Apparently, he is also an advisor for the army. He was once a soldier for the IDF; so he has more military experience than the average journalist.
This is a direct quote from Wikipedia about him:
"Kaplan predicts that the age of mass infantry warfare is probably over and has said that the conflict in Iraq caught the U.S. Army in between being a "dinosaur" and a "light and lethal force of the future."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Kaplan
Hey bubbafett;
Most people remember how glorious a victory WWII was, but not very many people remember the military failures during the war and the problems that accompanied occupation of Germany.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 21.06.2006 @ 01:02
"We don’t need a “massive Army†anymore. With weapons systems that are now available, we are probably 10x more lethal with the same number of troops that we were in the first gulf war."
Crosspatch,
You are partially right. If you read anything by Robert Kaplan, you would have learned that we are developing better military techniques not just bigger badder weapons. Smaller groups of better trained soldiers that are willing to blend with the locals would be loads better than the massive army occupation. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to properly train soldiers for this type of warfare.
Why do we have big armies? Because would you be the one to fire around a million people? There are entire towns that exist because of military bases so the losses would be well beyond those million soldiers.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 20.06.2006 @ 22:14
Uh Kathy,
Those people are actresses. They probably don't know a single thing about history or issues. They just vote Democrat because that is the sexy thing to do in Hollywood. You know like Kabbalah and Scientology. While you are at it you may as well reference Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Connelly who idolize murderous Che'. As for those in politics that are fugly, hmm the Kerry and Gore girls make me realize why Al Gore is chasing after Manbear Pig. Plus, considering there is a Bush girl that is a model. I think it truly is a stalemate.
Comment Posted By Svenghouli On 15.06.2006 @ 03:09
