timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Are you kidding or serious about that last part? He studied and wrote a paper at a US army school.

That was a joke.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

 

[Ilov80s]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Great point. Muslims see Jews as the oppressors and evil. NAZIs saw Jews as a weakness.

 

[timschochet]

The return of that George Zimmerman thread makes me cringe. I'm embarrassed by my participation in that mess.

 

[timschochet]

I've decided, after much soul searching, to root for the Baltimore Ravens.

 

[mr roboto]

I've decided, after much soul searching, to root for the Baltimore Ravens.

Good choice Tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've decided, after much soul searching, to root for the Baltimore Ravens.

Wait - you come from Steeler people, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Great point. Muslims see Jews as the oppressors and evil. NAZIs saw Jews as a weakness.

Whew 80s, man you are coming from a good place but this is so, so off. There is outright racism going on here, of the worst, ugliest kind.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Tim I was not going to make your Dad's point. I was asking about events on the ground, Paris' largest synagogue closed for the first time since WW2, for instance.

I feel like these discussions are too long and too hard, but I will say I think you're wrong and tragically what the French may have done is they have been so inclusive and bending to cultural differences that they have allowed racism in of the worst kind, they have allowed in xenophobia and racial hatred in the interest of preventing it. Horrible mistake, it has to be opposed everywhere.

 

[Ilov80s]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Great point. Muslims see Jews as the oppressors and evil. NAZIs saw Jews as a weakness.

Whew 80s, man you are coming from a good place but this is so, so off. There is outright racism going on here, of the worst, ugliest kind.

You think so? I certainly did not intend it that way. Racist towards whom? I don't mean all Muslims, if that's what you mean. I am referring to those that are radical and support terrorist attacks against Israel or Jewish people. Let me know, I have no I'll will towards any of those groups.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Great point. Muslims see Jews as the oppressors and evil. NAZIs saw Jews as a weakness.

Whew 80s, man you are coming from a good place but this is so, so off. There is outright racism going on here, of the worst, ugliest kind.

You think so? I certainly did not intend it that way. Racist towards whom? I don't mean all Muslims, if that's what you mean. I am referring to those that are radical and support terrorist attacks against Israel or Jewish people. Let me know, I have no I'll will towards any of those groups.

Sorry, lousy internet, that came across wrong. I didn't mean you.

I just meant these jihadists/islamists/extremists do have severe racial prejudices towards Jews, ugly stuff right out the nazi playbook. Talk about cartoons, they have no problem with ugly antisemtic propaganda, including cartoons and graffiti, sometimes for children.

 

[timschochet]

I've decided, after much soul searching, to root for the Baltimore Ravens.

Wait - you come from Steeler people, right?

i am a lifelong Steeler fan. So this is a hard matchup for me. Frankly I'd like them both to lose. But since somebody has to win let it be the Ravens.

 

[jon_mx]

The return of that George Zimmerman thread makes me cringe. I'm embarrassed by my participation in that mess.

Outside of BK and a couple others and CH on the other side, I did not think it was that bad. Although CH and BK were probably the most prolific posters Your biggest downfall was putting way too much weight into what the talking head lawyers on TV were saying, which in most cases were extremely biased towards getting Zimmerman convicted. My posts were reasonable but my people assumed I was saying stuff similar to CH, but I was not.

 

[timschochet]

The return of that George Zimmerman thread makes me cringe. I'm embarrassed by my participation in that mess.

Outside of BK and a couple others and CH on the other side, I did not think it was that bad. Although CH and BK were probably the most prolific posters Your biggest downfall was putting way too much weight into what the talking head lawyers on TV were saying, which in most cases were extremely biased towards getting Zimmerman convicted. My posts were reasonable but my people assumed I was saying stuff similar to CH, but I was not.

You were fine- I disagreed with you a lot but you didn't embarrass yourself. The worst, even worse than Carolina Hustler, was JoJo the Circus Boy. He was really ugly and stupid.

My problem wasn't listening to the talking heads; it was listening to Christo. Christo, speaking with the supposed expertise as a lawyer, stated that Zimmerman could not offer a self-defense argument unless he testified. Everythinng I wrote was based on my presumption from that statement that Zimmerman would be subject to a cross examination. But Christo was wrong.

 

[jon_mx]

I forgot about JoJo. He was gawd awful.

 

[jon_mx]

Some welcher still owes me $100 from that thread. Some lawyer who was absolutely certain Zimmerman would come to a plea bargain agreement.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, regarding your earlier post. My dad already gave me this lecture yesterday about how these terrorists are anti-Semitic "just like the Nazis". Well yes and no. They are like the Nazis in that they regard all Jews, regardless of age or sex, as the enemy (which of course makes them evil).

But the Nazis hated Jews mostly because Jews represented a threat to their racial "purity". This makes the Nazis more analogous to the ultranationalist of today and to people who hate immigrants and want them all deported. Muslim terrorists hate Jews basically because of Israel.

Tim I was not going to make your Dad's point. I was asking about events on the ground, Paris' largest synagogue closed for the first time since WW2, for instance.

I feel like these discussions are too long and too hard, but I will say I think you're wrong and tragically what the French may have done is they have been so inclusive and bending to cultural differences that they have allowed racism in of the worst kind, they have allowed in xenophobia and racial hatred in the interest of preventing it. Horrible mistake, it has to be opposed everywhere.

Tim follow-up to this:

- what would make a young man from Mali, raised in a nice waterside village south of Paris, want to specifically attack a kosher grocery and kill four Jewish men?

- why would he care about Israel or Palestine?

 

[timschochet]

Because the occupation of Jwrusalem is considered an affront to all Muslims, just as it would be to all religious Jews (or to Christians back in the day- see the Crusades).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because the occupation of Jwrusalem is considered an affront to all Muslims, just as it would be to all religious Jews (or to Christians back in the day- see the Crusades).

You think it is Jerusalem, or the existence of Israel? Two different things.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't get why so many liberals want Warren to run for president right now. She is still mainly a single-issue politician and needs to demonstrate her views on a lot of other things to justify this much love. Her issue is important, but she can get a lot done for it by being in the Senate IMO.

 

[joffer]

I don't get why so many liberals want Warren to run for president right now. She is still mainly a single-issue politician and needs to demonstrate her views on a lot of other things to justify this much love. Her issue is important, but she can get a lot done for it by being in the Senate IMO.

lack of good alternatives. but I agree, she shouldn't run yet.

 

[mr roboto]

I don't follow politics much - what's Warren's one main issue?

 

[timschochet]

I don't get why so many liberals want Warren to run for president right now. She is still mainly a single-issue politician and needs to demonstrate her views on a lot of other things to justify this much love. Her issue is important, but she can get a lot done for it by being in the Senate IMO.

its really not "so many liberals" I think. Polls suggest that a strong majority of liberals will support Hillary this time out. Almost all of the talk I hear about Warren comes from conservatives who are eager to see a race. Dems seem pretty unified.

 

[timschochet]

Because the occupation of Jwrusalem is considered an affront to all Muslims, just as it would be to all religious Jews (or to Christians back in the day- see the Crusades).

You think it is Jerusalem, or the existence of Israel? Two different things.

its intertwined.

 

[timschochet]

I don't follow politics much - what's Warren's one main issue?

bank regulations.

 

[timschochet]

I actually had to drive somewhere during the 4th qtr of Green Bay-Dallas and I heard it on the radio. The commentator (think it was Kurt Warner) said "I don't think that's a catch" and agreed when they overturned it. Now I see the Internet is blowing up. What's the verdict?

 

[quickhands]

Ask Calvin johnson

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I initially thought catch. If he doesn't try to reach for the goal, it's a non issue. I.e. He defn caught the ball and was making a football move to reach for the TD, but that caused him to lose control. In the end, I don't really care. It's karma from last week. I fully expect the Packers to get hosed by a call next week to keep the string going.

 

[jon_mx]

There was never a question. The overturn was the right call.

 

[jon_mx]

Ask Calvin johnson

Yep. Calvin's was closer to a catch. Calvin lost the ball as he was getting up, Dez lost it going down.

 

[RCon]

Calvin's was a catch, and so was this, IMO.

 

[jon_mx]

Calvin's was a catch, and so was this, IMO.

They should be, but by the interpretation of the rule they are not. Calvin also being in the end zone with control of the ball had a touchdown by rule.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Calvin's was a catch, and so was this, IMO.

They should be, but by the interpretation of the rule they are not. Calvin also being in the end zone with control of the ball had a touchdown by rule.

I think the rules are in need of another revision.

 

[timschochet]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

So it should be 1st down and goal on the 1. At least that's how I saw it. But then I'm confused by the rules explanation that was given.

 

[HellToupee]

Sienna Miller was smoking hot earlier, you guys see her?

 

[joffer]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

yeah, that's not the rule

 

[timschochet]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

yeah, that's not the rule

So when the elbow hits the ground, the play isn't over?

 

[joffer]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

yeah, that's not the rule

So when the elbow hits the ground, the play isn't over?

its not a catch yet

 

[Mister CIA]

It's like trying to explain how "cough" sounds like "coff."

 

[timschochet]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

yeah, that's not the rule

So when the elbow hits the ground, the play isn't over?

its not a catch yet

OK.

Still doesn't make sense to me, but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

 

[timschochet]

It's like trying to explain how "cough" sounds like "coff."

Which one sounds like "cawf"?

 

[joffer]

I was finally able to see it on replay. So here's the part I don't understand: he's got the ball at the 1 yard line, and his elbow hits the ground while he's got control of the ball. When his elbow hits the ground, the play should be over and it shouldn't matter what he does after that. Therefore, all this stuff about losing the ball "going down" shouldn't matter, because the play ends when the elbow hits the ground.

yeah, that's not the rule

So when the elbow hits the ground, the play isn't over?

its not a catch yet

OK.Still doesn't make sense to me, but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

It's not a good rule. I kind of understand why they changed it, but it need tweeking.

 

[Da Guru]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

I hope not, is it too much to ask a receiver to actually "catch" a ball?

 

[jon_mx]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

I hope not, is it too much to ask a receiver to actually "catch" a ball?

Yeah, probably. The only thing about the Calvin call was he lost the ball getting up. Dez lost the ball going down. Calvin's was a catch, he just never came to a complete stop, but he did control the ball through the fall.

 

[Ilov80s]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

I hope not, is it too much to ask a receiver to actually "catch" a ball?

By the same token, we could ask if it is too much for a running back just to hold on to the ball. How come the ground can't cause a fumble or we don't have complicated rules on completing the process of being tackled? The whole thing is just crazy because before the rule, was there issues over the refs rulings of catches vs non catches? I don't remember it being a problem.

 

[jon_mx]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

I hope not, is it too much to ask a receiver to actually "catch" a ball?

By the same token, we could ask if it is too much for a running back just to hold on to the ball. How come the ground can't cause a fumble or we don't have complicated rules on completing the process of being tackled? The whole thing is just crazy because before the rule, was there issues over the refs rulings of catches vs non catches? I don't remember it being a problem.

It really was not a problem yesterday. It was an obvious overturn.

 

[Ilov80s]

Jerry Jones is on the rules committee and it was not changed after the Calvin Johnson catch/no catch. Will it be changed now?

I hope not, is it too much to ask a receiver to actually "catch" a ball?

By the same token, we could ask if it is too much for a running back just to hold on to the ball. How come the ground can't cause a fumble or we don't have complicated rules on completing the process of being tackled? The whole thing is just crazy because before the rule, was there issues over the refs rulings of catches vs non catches? I don't remember it being a problem.

It really was not a problem yesterday. It was an obvious overturn.

You have agreed (I think) that you don't like the rule. My question is, why was the rule made? Were there controversial "catches" before that that necessitated the creation of the rule? I just don't recall them.

 

[timschochet]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Even more mysterious to me is that Eric Holder was actually there, but just decided to do other things, such as a spot for Meet The Press.