Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Conan O Brien is taking over The Tonight Show
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
Conan O Brien is taking over The Tonight Show
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:35:08 PM
Well the numbers are in and Oops! Conan sucks just as predicted. See below

Conan’s Ratings Off 47% from Leno’s ‘Tonight Show’
by James Sims
Oct 29th, 2009 | 10:57 AM55 55

Halloween is still a few days away but there’s already a ghost haunting Conan O’Brien and it goes by the name of Jay Leno.

When O’Brien made the move to Los Angeles he walked into a seemingly glamorous position as host of ‘The Tonight Show,’ replacing Leno on the storied program. Then NBC decided to give Leno a prime-time gig and that’s when the nightmare started.

‘The Tonight Show’ — once the leader of late night — is now falling behind David Letterman’s show, but more interesting is how low the ratings have dropped compared to last year, according to the New York Times.

O’Brien’s ‘Tonight Show’ has averaged 2.53 million viewers, compared to Leno’s 4.75 million during the same time last year — representing a decline of 47%. While a sex scandal might have boosted Letterman’s ratings, he’s still averaging 4.59 million viewers.

Wonder how long they let Conan stay floundering before the bring Leno back to the Tonight Show? I hope it is soon!
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
Are unions at work good anymore?
Posted: 10/2/2009 7:10:38 PM
I don't get why Unions, especially in the trades, think they have the right to any work that is done.

Why do they think they have the right or need to protest a construction project just because the contractor made the wise economic decision and went with nonunion trades workers? why do they think that they have some special privilege that grants them all of the work in a specific trade?

I laugh when i see them picketing projects. They are so lazy they can't even be bothered to get out of their vehicle to protest. They put out their signs, and sit in their lawn chairs or in their vehicles. How damned lazy! I love to mess with them. I honk as they go by, they get excited because they think I am their union brother supporting them........and then I flip them off as I pass..........

Unions are way past their usefulness. They have lost their sense of purpose and have become self serving and they have forgotten their mission to protect the worker. They have driven up wages to the point that our economy cannot tolerate them any longer.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
Posted: 9/9/2009 12:46:21 PM

This has made me not want to order from there ever again.

Wow. Think you might be over reacting just a little?

Seriously, someone in a warehouse made a picking error and they sent you the wrong product. The quickly agreed to correct the error and did so.

The true mark of a good company is how it reacts to a problem. I would say reacted quickly, responsibly and honorably. Based upon this scenario, I would say that is a good business to deal with.

Why are you focusing on the negative?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 50 (view)
Shaved Legs (Ladies need input)
Posted: 9/6/2009 1:59:28 PM

one of the pains I dealt with while working out was leg hair constantly pulling on my clothes.

Maybe you should quit wearing sequins........
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
Goverment trust
Posted: 9/4/2009 4:53:48 PM

The sheeple simply aren't outraged enough yet. Close, but not quite.

The upcoming midterm elections will be a very telling measure of the "sheeples" degree of outrage. Watch the Democrats lose some of their precious majority and then watch the reaction.

People on both sides of the spectrum are getting fed up with our "Me First" politicians. Maybe now voters will recognize that the best way to be heard is through their votes. If members of the Senate and Congress start getting voted out for not representing the needs of those they were elected to represent the others will soon learn a valuable lesson.

Politicians answer to the voters. it is time for the voters to hold them responsible for their actions and for their voting records.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
Goverment trust
Posted: 9/4/2009 2:16:43 PM
I feel that the Government is full of liars and people that are looking out for their own self interests above those of the Country as a whole.

However, I do not see a natural correlation between that belief and supporting the decision to go to war when it was not a needed move. Again, my innate belief that the Government is full of liars that will say anything to garner the support of the American people led me to view the "need" for war as false. Nor do I support all that is being done in the name of fighting terrorism.

I think you are painting with a rather broad brush here.

The rightwing has no ideas, no solutions, and no moral center. The only principle they adhere to is short-term self-interest.

Really? How many times are you going to drag out that tired old line? That is your standard, polarizing response to every damned thread. There is nothing innately rightwing in that statement. You could just as easily substitute Leftwing or Democrat and the statement would have the same meaning. You can do better than that if you want to contribute. Unless, of course, you are just wanting to stir sh*t without contributing anything positive to the discussion.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 455 (view)
IS it me or should HIP HOP be DEAD YET?
Posted: 8/27/2009 1:17:53 PM
The true test of any music is longevity. Quality music will stay around while lesser pieces and genres will fade away into oblivion.

Notice now that the music that backs television advertising right now is primarily 70's and 80's. Music that has been around for 20 to 30 years is driving advertising. Classic music with familiar beats and rhythms.

I highly doubt that 20 to 30 years from now it will be Soulja Boy and peers providing the impetus for advertising.

Most current Hip Hop and Rap songs have a life span of a few weeks and then they fade away. If they do not have any longevity when they are new and fresh, what will make them memorable years from now?

A serious musician wouldnt make a post with such ignorance.

Yes, a serious would make such a post and it would be accurate. Where is the musical talent in most of today's hip hop music? The beat and most sound is computer generated. No musicians needed. All you need is someone with some moderate computer skills and some samples and you have the foundation for most "songs". Then apply some third grade rhyming words and repeat ad nauseum and you have what passes for today's music. I won't even comment on the socially irresponsible lyrical content of this so called music.

Alternately, look at real music that has layers of real instruments and vocals blended together. Songs that have vocal harmonies that blend with the instruments like another piece of the band.

I'm sorry, but I like my music created and played by people with real musical skills and abilities and not some computer jockey that is stealing beats and riffs from classic rock songs.

Time for Hip Hop to die......
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
Overlooked because of my size
Posted: 8/24/2009 1:01:33 PM
You smoke, you're overweight and your interests do not include any type of physical activity.

Besides complaining, what is it that you are doing to try and change your size?

Are you really even trying?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 106 (view)
Can White Americans REALLY judge what is racist and what is not?
Posted: 8/19/2009 12:45:58 PM

Which means that Whites will balance out at 46% of the total population.

Which still means that Whites will be the dominant Race in the country at 46% since the other 54% represents the collective total of the other races. Meaning Blacks will be approximately 17%, Hispanics 25% etc, etc. etc.

It is exactly this type of thinking that provides fertile soil for racism to flourish in this country. This type of thinking and these types of statements create a Whites versus every other race mentality.

I love how so many of you want to take the aggregate minority population and pit it as a whole against the White population. What is to be gained by that comparison other than further racial division?

So many people like to blame the racism in this country on the White population. However, the truth is that the vast majority of instances where race is brought up or racial scores are being kept it is by the minorities themselves.

I have a great idea. Why don't we all just try being Americans and get rid of all of the unnecessary labels?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 101 (view)
Can White Americans REALLY judge what is racist and what is not?
Posted: 8/18/2009 9:32:27 PM

By the mid-century mark, when the United States is projected to have a population of 439 million people, 54 percent of the population will consist of racial minorities.

My fondest hope is that some of you racist arseholes reap what you are sowing when you are in fact in the minority.

My fondest hope is that you will understand what you are posting.

Whites will not be the minority race by mid-century. What your statement says is that Whites will be outnumbered by all of the other minority races combined. That still leaves Whites as the majority race in the United States. Unless, of course, you have some numbers that say Whites will be outnumbered by any single minority race.

Nice try though..........
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
Don't love your food... Don't dream about double fudge ice cream...
Posted: 8/17/2009 8:02:25 PM

Just try to go one week without eating any product containing high fructose corn syrup and soy products.

This is an almost impossible task! I try and avoid HFCS at all costs and it is very difficult. HFCS is in things you would not imagine. It is even in your bread. Look at your Yoplait or Dannon Yogurt and you will find it there.

Even most of what they try and sell us as healthy foods is crap. Fat Free products are filled with HFCS to give them flavor. So what you are saving in fat calories is exceeded in sugar calories.

One of the best things I have found recently is Smuckers Natural Peanut Butter. It has two ingredients; peanuts and salt.

It is more difficult to eat properly. But what i have found is that when you go through the effort of creating a meal rather than cooking a meal, you tend to savor it and take your time.

The bottom line is that I respect my health and i work too hard in the gym to feed myself this corporate made pseudo food that they are pushing on us.

Read your food labels carefully!
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 137 (view)
Micheal Vick
Posted: 8/17/2009 12:29:44 PM

Should a laborer in the same position do more jail time?

No, and that wasn't my point at all.

What I said is that Vick did the time that the court ordered to atone for his crime. In addition to the court ordered time, Vick lost $135,000,000. My point was, that he paid far more for the crime than the average person would have.

Michael Vick has paid the court determined time for his crime and yet so many want to continue to punish him by denying his right to work in his profession.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 133 (view)
Micheal Vick
Posted: 8/17/2009 12:06:43 PM
FFS People....... The man did the time assessed to him for the crime he committed. generally in our country that is considered as paying his debt to society. Not only did he do the time, he paid far more for it than any other person ever committed of such a crime.

Vick's conviction cost him $135,000,000. I would say that between the money and the time he spent in prison he has paid his debt to society.

Let the man live his life now and show that he has learned the error of his ways.

It still amazes me that so many of you are jumping all over Michael Vick for abusing animals and say nothing about the other Athletes in professional sports that have abused their spouses/girlfriends, committed violent crimes against people or have even murdered people.

Some of you really need to get some perspective. I don't condone, in any way, what Vick did. But he paid the price for it and now it is time to move on.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 104 (view)
Can a White person be African American?
Posted: 8/12/2009 9:17:14 AM

I didn't say it's not relevant, period.

Yes, you did.

And get off of your high horse with the "who are you to say" crap. We all have opinions. Deal with it.

It was my question, I guess only I can then determine if something is relevant to what I asked.

Crying racism to back up a point is disappointing.

Pay attention, we are discussing using a term to define races. If we exclude certain people due to their ethnicity, racism is a part of it.

Quit looking for a fight when there isn't one. Although, I know this is your style, it just doesn't play well. You can express your opinions in a civil way.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 102 (view)
Can a White person be African American?
Posted: 8/12/2009 8:18:20 AM

Whether or not a white person "can" be referred to as African American doesn't seem to be relevant to the point of using the term.

It is absolutely relevant! Not only is it relevant, it is the original question. Who are you to say that the question is not relevant?

The crux of the original question is that not all Africans are Black. There are White Africans. Therefore, any white Africans that immigrate to the United States would thus be African Americans.

To use the label of African American solely to refer to Black people of African origin would appear to be a racist application of the term.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 93 (view)
Can a White person be African American?
Posted: 8/11/2009 7:59:39 PM

Before the 21st century passes White people in America will be in the minority.

And you have what facts to back this up?

Your statement may have some validity of you look at it in a simply White vs. all Minorities point of view. Then certainly Whites will be outnumbered. However, looking at all races independently Whites will probably still be the majority.

You have to believe that America will correct its current immigration problem long before the country is over run. This current immigrant growth cannot, and will not, go on unchecked.

The future generatiosn will then reap the benefits of Affirmative Action

Hmm following you assertion that Whites will not be in the majority any longer. Does that then mean that they would be eligible for all of the benefits of Affirmative Action? What a concept.

Yes, I think Veterans should have their benefits. They actually did something to get them. It's part of payment for their services. Being born black/yellow/whatever color that makes you a minority, should not come with a service payment.

Brilliant! That is what i have been saying all along.

Giving special preference/treatment to someone due to their race is just as racist as denying them something because of their race.

Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 42 (view)
What is the correct way of pronouncing 2009?
Posted: 8/11/2009 2:13:26 PM
We have officially run out of anything meaningful to discuss. Time to shut down the forums.

FFS, three pages on how to pronounce the year?????
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/9/2009 9:26:05 AM

the last time I used RoundUp a dead bird wound up on my deck.

I would suggest that this is just coincidence. It would be very difficult to ascribe cause and effect in this instance. Why not ascribe the birds death to one of the many other factors including disease or that the bird flew into a window and died as a result of its injuries. These are much more likely factors than pesticide poisoning.

We need moderation from both sides of the discussion. While I don't believe that all pesticides are completely safe. I also do not believe the "Chicken Little the sky is falling" crowd either.

I believe this is especially important in the case of RoundUp/Glyphosate. This is one of the most used herbicides in the world. If there were specific, scientifically proven health risks they would have surfaced by now. Much of the soy beans grown in this country are treated with RoundUp. With the prevalence of soy beans in our foods we would be seeing proven health issues by now.

I have previously stated some of the positives of RoundUp in terms of safety. The biggest factor as it relates to human health is that RoundUp/Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in the human body. Glyphosate moves through the human body essentially unmetabolized.

Take a look at this independent study before you dig your heels in.

I take pesticide safety very seriously having been involved in their use several times throughout my career. I have worked in Turf/Landscape Management, Industrial Weed Control (railroads, right-of-way, road side etc.) and Pest Control. As a result of this experience I view manufacturers claims of safety with suspicion. Some of the pesticides/fungicides/herbicides that I used at the start of my career 25+ years ago are now no longer used or are no longer considered safe. However, the level of scrutiny and scientific evaluation are far greater now.

We are living in an age with far greater pesticide safety than we ever have.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:23:29 AM

If you want to rejuvinate the soil you have check into having your lawn covered in crushed limestone............It will balance the PH level of your soil

This is good advice only if your your soil is acidic. Lime is only used to neutralize acidic soil. Thus, it will only balance the ph level of your soil if it is acidic. You will need to have the soil professionally tested to determine the ph level and if lime is appropriate for your lawn/soil.

By a kentucky bluegrass seed,

Kentucky Bluegrass is a good start. However, what you really want is a blend of seed types with the Bluegrass being the predominate seed type. You will want some Annual Rye grass for quick germination to protect bare soil from weed seed intrusion and to hold moisture. The Rye is quick germinating and will grow before the slow growing Bluegrass starts. The Bluegrass is stronger and once established it will push out the Rye. Plus, you planted Annual Rye so it will not come back the following season. Bluegrass grows aggressively and will fill in bare spots. You will also want some Creeping Red Fescue if you have any shade whatsoever. Bluegrass is notoriously weak in shaded areas. In shaded or marginally shaded areas the Creeping Red Fescue will become the dominant grass where the Bluegrass does not thrive.

Grass seed is one of the things in life that you get what you pay for. A grass seed label reads like a food label. Ingredients are listed from the most to the least. Look for a blend of seed types and for the lowest amount of weed seed and inert matter.

The cheaper the seed mixture the higher the percentage of Rye grass seed, inert matter and weed seed you will see.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/7/2009 9:23:42 PM

Roundup doesn't bind with soil and immediately become inert.

Ok, perhaps inert was the wrong choice of words. I should have said inactive. My mistake.

Glyphosate is inactivated through soil
adsorption; it has low leaching potential and very low volatility (Franz et al. 1997).

You are way overstating the half life of glyphosate.

Glyphosate readily and completely biodegrades in soil. Its average half-life in soil is about 60 days.


Soil studies have determined glyphosate half-lives ranging from 3
to 130 days (U.S. EPA, 1990; USDA, 1984). The soil field dissipation half-life averaged
44-60 days (Kollman and Segawa, 1995; WSSA, 1989).

and lastly from Monsanto

Which shows the half life as averaging 40 days.

You are also confusing the concept of half life with bioavailability and efficacy. While glyphosate may be detected in the soil, it is not bioavailable, nor does it have any efficacy.

Ghassemi et al. (1981) found that less
than one percent of the glyphosate in the soil is absorbed via the roots. The Accord®
label stated that, it is not available for plant uptake and will not harm off-site vegetation
where roots grow onto the treatment area or if the soil is transported off-site

So that is a very persistent chemical with has medium-term toxicity

As you see from the above, you are incorrect in the above statement. Not only is glyphosate not very persistent, it is also low toxicity. As I pointed out, it only carries a signal word of Caution which is the lowest signal word.

and I stand by my observation that NUTHIN' will grow on it.

And again you would be wrong. Roundup has little or no soil activity. This is a fact. I have worked with ot for years and i know how it works.

The primary reason crops
can be planted or seeded directly into treated areas following application is that
glyphosate exhibits essentially no preemergent activity even when applied at high rates
(Franz et al. 1997).
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/7/2009 3:35:29 PM

OC you weren't the poster I was referring to. Whine much?

My Apologies.......However, it was posted after my long post. So, I am sure you can see why I thought you were referring to my post.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/7/2009 12:35:30 PM
Why is there always someone who complains when people are just trying to help?

There are others that can offer advice just as valid as yours.

Whine much?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
All this pulling of weeds cannot be healthy for lawn
Posted: 8/7/2009 12:01:37 PM

I used the Roundup on weeds and wherever I used it, it left a large diameter yellow burnmark the size of my fist. This was surprising because I used it VERY conservatively and only in the center of the weed. So while I eliminated the weeds, I had about 50 yellow patches on my lawn, and it looked horrible.

First of all. DO NOT USE ROUNDUP IN YOUR LAWN. Roundup is not intended to be used as a turf weed control product. Roundup is intended to be used in bare ground situations as it is a total kill product. It is a nonselective herbicide that will kill most of what it comes in contact with. No matter how careful you are in application you run the risk of drift and you run the risk of volitilization which can also cause off target damage.

After you've gone a burned a whole patch of healthy grass, NUTHIN' will grow on that spot for the rest of the year! You'll have to dig it up and re-seed. Roundup is like some kind of Chernobyl by-product, it's that toxic!

RoundUp (which is seriously overused and misused) also only kills the top portion of the plant, leaving a thick root behind to regenerate.

This is some pretty spectacular misinformation regarding Roundup (glyphosate)

First, Roundup has absolutely NO soil activity Therefore, it will not produce bare ground for the rest of the year. Once Roundup enters the soil it binds with soil molecules and becomes inert. There is no need to remove the soil if you want to reseed in those areas. Just rake the soil to break up the top 1/2 inch and seed as per usual. The grass will grow, I promise.

Roundup is not at some type of Chernobyl level toxicity. Actually, it is rated at the lowest toxicity ratings on a pesticide label. Roundup carries a "Caution" on its label which is the lowest of the three signal words.

Contrary to the above statement, Roundup does kill the entire plant. Roundup/Glyphosate is absorbed through plant foliage and translocated to the root system. Once it reaches the root system the plant will die. Roundup can and will kill trees so surely it is capable of killing most varieties of annual/biannual/perennial weeds.

It's always best to know your facts before posting.

Purry_Bastet, while I found your post to be quite educational for the average homeowner I have to disagree with you regarding Dethatching versus Aeration.

THATCH is dead grass root system which came the the surface looking for water (serious thatch means that the lawn had been improperly watered). MAT is debris that was left to decompose on the surface of the soil (usually a result of improper raking). Mat will prevent water from penetrating the soil.

The longer you leave thatch & mat, the more you increase your chance of getting disease and insect problems (they prevent the lawn from getting light, and the roots from getting water). If you have a serious thatch & mat problem, you may need to over-seed (after de-thatching). Dethatching also helps new roots to grow (thus encouraging healthy growth in your lawn).

You should only thatch once a year (if required). The time to do it is in Spring. NOTE: Always dethatch before leveling & reseeding.

This is necessary when grass is compacted (not growing very well). Because of the compaction, the soil is not getting any oxygen and thus inhibiting the growth of the roots. Aerate ONLY if the ground is compact (in other words, make sure it's not a thatch/mat problem). The time to aerate is in Spring, though you can also do it in the Fall if your lwan has been compacted (lots of traffic) over the summer. Also note that you will either aerate *OR* dethatch (not both).

In all but the most extreme conditions I would stay away from Dethatching. The turf damage done by this process generally is greater than the benefit. Any process that rips out healthy grass along with the thatch and leaves the soil open to weed seeds is detrimental.

The same benefit can be achieved with a good aeration. The goal of dethatching is to remove the thatch to allow water, air and fertilizer/nutrients unimpeded access to the soil. A good aeration will accomplish the same thing. By using a omnidirectional pattern or aeration enough holes will be placed in the thatch layer to mitigate the thatch problem.

Dethatching will achieve the stated goal but it will also thin the turf significantly and leave the lawn open for weed seeds to get established.

In all but the most desperate situations stay away from Dethatching is stick with Aeration. Aerate your lawn in spring and fall and you will have a thick and healthy lawn.


Always mow high! I raise my mower to the highest height it will go. The higher your grass is allowed to grow, the deeper the roots will grow. Deeper roots equals greater drought tolerance once the heat of the summer hits.

Mulching is best as it puts nutrients back in the soil. However, if you are ever taking off much more than 1/2 inch you should pick up the clippings.

Your best defense against weeds is a thick, healthy, lawn. Proper watering, fertilizing and aeration will eliminate the need for herbicides on your lawn.

Good luck!
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
Calm presentation of data proving that deer hunting is destroying our forests.
Posted: 8/7/2009 11:23:13 AM
Darn.... The OP gave up on his own thread when we challenged his premise and his weak "statistics". So much for a calm discussion.

I will, however, applaud the OP for seeing that he is wrong and not stubbornly continuing to fight when he cannot support his assertions.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
Quitting smoking
Posted: 8/7/2009 6:01:54 AM
I find this quite amusing and sad at the same time. Read the first two lines of the OP.

Okay, I'm done with this...I really am.

But the fears are there...****iness, gaining weight, etc.

You are afraid to stop smoking for fear of weight gain and ****iness. But you are not afraid to keep smoking for fear of serious illness and death.

I think the above is something you, and all smokers, need to look at and use as part of your motivation to quit.

Good luck on your quest to be smoke free.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 67 (view)
Another rightwing terrorist arrested. Fan of Glen Becks
Posted: 8/3/2009 4:17:22 PM

It isn't as simple as '...the lesser of two evils...' when you look at the results of the re-election. Bush won by a narrow margin--which means that many American voters weren't convinced that he was, in fact, the 'lesser' of the two evils.

No matter the margin.... he was the lesser of two evils.

Had the Democrats ponied up someone better than Gore and Kerry they would have won. Especially the second term. Damn you Democrats for not having a better candidate.

I think only the hardcore straight party line voting Republicans voted [for] Bush. The rest of the votes were against Gore and Kerry.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 60 (view)
Another rightwing terrorist arrested. Fan of Glen Becks
Posted: 8/3/2009 2:57:33 PM

If Bush is a poor definition of Republican values...who voted him into office?
If the voters hadn't identified with his values--how did he get elected and REelected?

That is an easy question to answer.......

Twice Bush appeared to be the lesser of two evils........
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
What do you think should be thought in schools (earlier years, high school)?
Posted: 8/1/2009 7:31:20 PM

By example I would like to see these taught: conflict resolution, professionalism, compassion, tolerance, accountability, fair play, flexibility, responsibility and discipline.

While I agreed with the rest of your post I think you are putting the responsibility for learning the above in the wrong place. With the exception of Conflict resolution all of thos concepts should be taught at home and not school.

In my opinion school is where you learn things, where you gain hard knowledge and learn to think. Home is where you develop who you are. Where you learn compassion, responsibility, discipline etc. These are values instilled by your parents through both teaching and leading by example.

The problem is that too many parents are leaving it to the schools to do all of the teaching for them. They are not taking an active role in their children's education.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 862 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:29:11 PM
Thanks for the English lesson but I did not need that, or your condescending attitude.

You are inferring a cause and effect relationship between black and spite that does not exist. Spite is not dependent upon Black in the sentence.

Stating that anybody black can be treated that way does not make spite solely belong to black. Had he added the qualifying idea of "because we are black" that would have made spite solely belonging to black.

The statement would need to be modified as follows to say what you are stating:

But really it’s not about me—it’s that anybody black can be treated this way just because we are black, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite.

That gives Gates statement the meaning you are inferring. Without the modifier, the statement says that Gates was arrested out of spite, and that he happens to be black and that anybody black can be treated that way. Nowhere does gates statement ifer the spite was the result of blackness.

Twist it how you want, but in Gates own words he was arrested out of spite. He makes no inference of racism. He clearly says that he was arrested out of spite because he was going to file a report about Crowley's behavior.

And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior

That sentence stands on its own.

It amazes me how many people are still crying racism when Gates himself is not.

This thread needs to go away. When we are down to diagramming sentences to try and prove points we sure have discussed everything there is to discuss.

It is clear here that no one on either side of the discussion is going to change their position. What is the point of trying anymore.

A few people are resorting to personal attacks, condescension and name calling to promote their points. That is not conducive to productive debate.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 859 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:59:13 PM

He clearly states that spiteful arrests of this sort can happen to any black person, because the spite is directed at their being black.

You are inferring too much from that statement and putting things in there that do not exist.

Read the quote again:

it’s that anybody black can be treated this way, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite. And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior

Gates says that "anybody black can be treated this way". What he did not say is that "anybody black can be treated this way because they are black". Two vastly different statements with vastly different meanings. The use of the word black in that statement stands alone and is not tied to spite. There is no connection between black and spite in the quote. Had he used "because we are black" or some similar statement to tie black to spite you might have a valid point. But he didn't, so you don't.

What Gates is very clear about is this: And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior

He did not say in that quote that the spite is being directed at them being black. You wrongly inferred that.

In Gates own words he was arrested out of spite, not out of racism.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 466 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:45:55 PM

First off, the hunters were responsible for killing off all the natural predators. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. It was primarily the german and italian immigrants who did this heinous act, at least here in Pa.

Your first point is incorrect. As I pointed out in my previous post, it was not sportsman hunters that killed off the predators. If you limit yourself solely to the restricted view of PA for your frame of reference this may have a small amount of truth to it. However, the fact of the matter is it was Livestock Farmers and the Agricultural industry that killed off the predators. The hunted or employed hunters to kill off the predators.

Secondly, the game commissions at the time went about changing the forests in ways which would help the deer populations, by creating many "Edge Forests" all over the state.

Edge forests are also the natural result of logging practices and agricultural development and not the sole result of game management practices.. I would venture to say that more edge forest ares have been created by logging and agricultural practices than by game commissions doing so for sportsman purposes.

Now there's TEN TIMES too many deer in America.

Where did you get that number from? I would be interested in seeing a reference to that. Well regulated sport hunting and natural attrition results in normalized game populations at or below the carrying capacity of regulated areas. Quotas are set and adjusted for each year based upon population sampling as well as the impact of the previous winter upon the population.

Another important factor is the game commission's avoidance of hunting does

This was the old school thought of game management in many parts of the country. However, this is far from the norm now. However, since you are using three generations ago as your frame of reference, you have to look at another factor that you have neglected. Three generations ago there was a lot of what is called sustenance hunting. Many people in those times hunted year round for food. These very same people were interested in putting meat on the table and were far more apt to take an easily found and much more tender does over a buck.

They allow hunters to take as many bucks as they want, while leaving the does alone

This statement shows your general lack of knowledge of current deer management practices and regulations. First, you cannot take as many Bucks as you want. The only state that has this liberal of a bag limit is in specific area of Alabama where a hunter can take a buck a day for the length of the season. Most states you are limited to one, possibly two bucks a year.

I recently saw where one state, Wisconsin I believe, requires any hunter wanting to take a buck to first take a doe.

As you can see modern game management is far more aware and involved than you allude to in your post. Most states are very proactive in maintaining deer populations at or below the carrying capacity of the environment.

Where we are having great difficulty is in the urban and suburban areas where hunting is not allowed. All of the forested areas in and around the Chicago and suburbs are overpopulated with deer to the extent that serious ecological damage is happening. There are areas around here that I am hesitant to drive at dawn or dusk for fear of the very real possibility of hitting deer with my car.

there is much proof that the forest of Pa are totally doomed. Many scientists, and I can certainly come up with sources for ANY of this stuff, state that the woodlands of Pa will soon become a vast savannah.

I would love to see some credible, scientific proof of this statement.

Currently, most states have doe only seasons to further manage the size of the deer herd. Usually does season is after buck season and the number of does that can be taken is set dependent upon the number of bucks taken.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 856 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:17:16 PM

If "that one" didn't make stuff up, it wouldn't have anything to say. I suggest ignoring it , as I do

I am sorry that the facts that I present, the use of your own logic, and my attempts to blunt your bullying are inconvenient for you.

I guess you are still mad because I called you out on your plagiarism in the thread that you started. Shame on you for taking others words and presenting them as your own.

I will thank you not to refer to me as "that one" or "it" or any one of your other demeaning names. I don't think you want to enjoy another forum vacation for that again, do you?

I think you are smart enough to engage in debate without calling names and using bullying techniques.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 853 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:02:35 PM

This is a quote from the Roots article: Dr. Gates: "...But really it’s not about me—it’s that anybody black can be treated this way, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite. And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior

So there we have it, in gates own words, he was not arrested due to racism, he was arrested out of spite.

Case closed........ the defense rests.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 462 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 8/1/2009 11:59:53 AM

he simple truth is....todays modern sportsmen do more every year to conserve wildlife and wildlands that all the anti groups in the world

Bravo! Someone that gets it and understands the contributions of sportsman.

Thank you!
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 461 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 8/1/2009 11:57:46 AM

And if you guys really want to believe that hunters DID NOT cause the vast overpopulation of deer, then you are beyond my help.

Ok, I will bite. How did the past hunters cause today's population level? I am interested in your perception. On what information do you base your statement that deer are overpopulated now?

However, remember, that the eradication of predators was not due to sport hunting. Rather it was a function of livestock farming. The people that removed those predators were not doing so as sport hunting. It was a job that they did because they were paid by livestock ranchers.

If you have other ideas as to how hunters caused this mess i would be interested to read them. Don't forget to take into account the encroachment of man and the resulting habitat loss when you formulate your ideas.

But, trust me on this one, guys, I know what I am talking about

Sorry, I can't just "trust" you on this one without some documented proof of what you say and your qualifications to "know what you are talking about".

Have at it, this should be interesting.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
What do you think should be thought in schools (earlier years, high school)?
Posted: 8/1/2009 8:23:27 AM

I like the idea of teachng responsibility for their actions.
How about a nice course in sex ed from age 12-13 so they DO have a clue as to the dangers?
How about going back to a system where accelerated courses, average and "special ed" courses are taught, rather than "mainstreaming" everyone?
How about teaching them that there ARE "winners" and "losers" and that participation doesn't necessarily make them a winner.
Teach them that acedemic excellence IS rewarded with half decent pay jobs IF they can get it.
Teach them that "keeping up with the Jones'" is NOT a highly regarded value. They have to live within their means.
Teach the value of money and how saving will help them.

Very well said....... I especially like the idea of teaching them that there are winners and loser.

We have taken the competitive edge/drive out of our children with this namby pamby idea that there are no losers. We have instilled the idea that participation is enough to reap the benefits. This has set up some very unrealistic ideas for young people entering the job market.

When I grew up we were taught to fight hard to win. If you were on a baseball team and you weren't good, you didn't play as much as the kids that were good. You know what that did? It made you work hard and get better if you wanted to play. Or it made you realize that maybe baseball wasn't where you talents were so you tried another sport.

I am tired of this vilification of winning. Tired of the meaningless trophies simply because you signed up and played. Tired of us being so concerned with the alleged delicate psyche of our children and worried that losing will somehow damage them.

The winning and losing that I have experienced since childhood has molded me into who I am today. I learned from losing. I learned to work harder, to try harder, and to accept nothing less than my best. I learned from winning. i learned to be gracious in my success, to continue to get better so I could continue to win, and that winning breeds more winning.

We need to take off the gloves with our kids and place high expectation on them.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 840 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 8:13:03 AM

The bigots don't want to talk about how the racist cops arrested a black man who committed no crime.

And the apologists want to believe that every Police Officer is a racist and that every arrested Black person is innocent, and arrested solely on the basis of race.

Try a dose of reality.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
The Beer Summit
Posted: 7/31/2009 4:36:02 PM
So many choices.........

The previous poster that mentioned Yuengling Black and Tan gave me a craving that I cannot satisfy as they do not sell it Yuengling in Chicago. Damn you!

I would be hard pressed tonight to choose between Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Leinenkugel Red.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 449 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/31/2009 4:23:46 PM

I prefer to see them feed and nuzzle their young, to watch them sleep curled up together, watch a mother fight to save her babies. And then, when you witness that, you might realize you're killing living beings, though different than man, living, breathing right-to-exist on this planet creatures that unless they threaten...should be left alone to live out their natural lives.

You know what? I see all of that as well both when i hunt and when I spend time in the woods outside of hunting season. I have seen some amazing things.

I respect the animals, their place on Earth, and their place on the food chain too..... Every animals life ends in death in one form or another. Usually it is a quite violent or tragic end. Eaten by predators, starved to death in a rough winter, stricken by disease because of overpopulation in nonhunting areas or hit by a car as they try and cross the roads and highways. Even the animals that grow old rarely die of natural causes..... They end up as food for something.

This is not the movie Bambi. This is the real world, and we are the top predator. You are entitled to your opinions and your humanization of animals. But in my world, these animals are food. It doesn't mean that I love and care for them any less than you do. It just means that we see their purpose on this Earth in different ways.

And, oh, it's difficult? Is that supposed to make the feat of actually slaughtering one more admirable. The rush of adrenaline, the thrill of the hunt, watching a beautiful animal collapse to its death.

Actually, you brought up the concept of how easy hunting is. Not me. I was just pointing out how incorrect you were.

You clearly don't understand hunting. Hunting is not about the kill, it is not about death nor is it about causing death. The shot and the death are but milliseconds of a hunt. And those are always very poignant, sad and moving moments for me. Those moments when, as our Native ancestors did, that you thank the animal and your God. Those moments when you promise that nothing will go to waste. You make your peace with the Earth and your God and then you move on.

You have never been there, and I surely don't expect that you will ever understand, but it is not about the kill. Yes, there are some hunters out there that are all about the kill. But, for the vast majority it is about something much bigger than that.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 446 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/31/2009 4:04:24 PM

I see you all over the forums, and I wonder why you choose to waste your time making points that will largely go unnoticed.

One can hope that ones words will make a difference in someone another persons life or sway opinion. Maybe not now, maybe not in this thread, but maybe somewhere down the line.

And really, these threads are not about making points that get noticed. They are about expressing opinion, challenging thought processes and sharing idea with like minded, and not so like minded people.

It's not as if anyone who simply drops in to insult others is going to suddenly yield to conventional reasoning

There are those in these threads that come here solely to insult others and flout their self appointed intellectual prowess. Those are the people that are not worth discussing anything this. At times though, it is fun to poke the bear, they get wound up so easily.

However, there are many intelligent, curious, savvy, and decent people on here that are wonderful to converse with. Despite what some people on here think, it is entirely possible to be on diametrically opposed sides of a discussion and still be able to conduct civil discourse.

Lastly, for me, this is a form of intellectual exercise. A way to challenge my mind, to keep it nimble, and expose myself to differing opinions than my own. I have met some interesting people on these threads and corresponded with a few outside of the forums. It never hurts to enrich your circle of friends.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 444 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/31/2009 3:55:53 PM

It shouldn't be a debate about which method of slaughtering an innocent animal is "kinder"!

We are human, we are omnivores, it is ok that we eat other animals. It is natures way. Spend some time in nature, witness mother nature at her most raw. See a Bear snatching a salmon out of a river as it returns to spawn, watch an Eagle pluck an unsuspecting baby Rabbit from the ground and fly away, watch a pack of Wolves drag down an unsuspecting Deer and devour it while it is still struggling. Nature gave us all that we need to survive. animals are one of those things.

Really? You think a deer casually sauntering or sprinting across his habitat has a fighting chance

Yeah I do. Those deer you are so worried about have senses that are far superior to ours. senses that warn them away from our scent, from our slightest movement or from a sound that is out of place.

I would guess that you have never been deer hunting. Therefore, you probably have no idea what is involved or how difficult it actually is. Do me a favor, grab a camera, go out to a patch of woods with a deer population and take a picture. Then, as a bow hunter would, get within 40 yards of the deer and take another picture. Once you do that, come back and tell me how easy it is to hunt a deer.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 441 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/31/2009 2:38:26 PM

hunting is really for spineless peopoe

Well as soon as you quite eating meat or using any byproducts of farm raised animals come back and we can discuss who is spineless.

At least a hunter deals with an animal in it's own natural element. Where the animals instincts and innate survival skills put the odds in the animals favor.

How noble is it to consume a beast that was raised in fenced in areas, trucked to a processing plant, and then killed with a blow to the head?

I have no cause to be against either. Our ancestors worked too hard to get to the top of the food chain for me to be concerned about consuming other animals. However, I do insist that they be treated as humanely as possible in the process.

What happens to our corporate farm raised livestock is far more cruel than what hunters are involved in. You may want to think about that as you enjoy your next steak and argue about how cruel it is to hunt.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 438 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/31/2009 1:31:46 PM

To the second part of the question: I'm sure the deer poulation can withstand some expansion. For centuries upon centuries before our arrival to the Sierra Nevadas the deer population didn't grow out of control. There are other factors that keep the ecosystem regulated other than mankind. Humans aren't so important that Mother Nature couldn't do it without us.

You would be well served to go back and read this thread in its entirety as much of what you are saying has already been said and proven wrong.

Actually, the deer population in most of the United States cannot withstand any expansion. The current deer herd population is at its greats since the very early 1900's. Considering the amount of habitat destruction that has occured in the last 100+ years this is remarkable. Given that the bulk of deer habitat is at peak carrying capacity any further expansion would lead to habitat destruction and starvation of the deer.

There are other factors that keep the ecosystem regulated other than mankind.

You are correct. However, mankind is now the prime mover in regulating the ecosystem due to the changes that man has wrought in the environment. Right or wrong, that is where we find ourselves now.

Humans aren't so important that Mother Nature couldn't do it without us.

If man were to leave the planet for some reason nature would eventually]/i] right itself. It would be a long process but it would happen. Many creatures would suffer and die, much habitat would be damaged and have to recover, but eventually Mother Nature would prevail.

However, as man is here to stay for the foreseeable future it is our responsibility to be a Shepard to the Earth and correct some of the imbalances we have created. Hunting is one of the many tools that we use to maintain animal populations. There really are no other viable, environmentally friendly alternative methods.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 797 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 7/31/2009 6:24:30 AM

Now you begin to see just how many lives Crowley as affected because he couldn't be professional enough or smart enough to just leave after he had Gates ID.

If you want to go back to the root cause you need to rewrite that sentence to read:

Now you begin to see just how many lives Gates has affected because he couldn't be civil, respectful, intelligent or smart enough to conduct himself properly.

Ummm... no

Ummmm yeah....... Just because you disagree does not make it so. Since when did you become the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Gates behavior was the root cause of this incident. No matter how many times you state the contrary position Gates behavior is the root cause of the incident.

Gates was exercising his constitutional right to free speech in a manner that is protected by Mass. law.

Exercising free speech and behaving properly and with respect are vastly different things.

With the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech, I can stand up in a crowded movie theater in the middle of a movie and yell " This movie F'n sucks, the Ex Wife is the killer and all of you that don't see that are stupid". I have the right to free speech that allows me to say that. However, I would then be thrown out of the theater for my behavior. Some times behaviors that are conceptually legal/allowable are inappropriate for a specific situation. Gates behavior, while legal, was inappropriate for the situation.

This is exactly what Gates did. he stood up in a crowded theater and yelled "fire" when there was no fire.

The only person who was acting outside of established law that day was Crowley when he drew Gates outside and wrongfully arrested him in contravention of his Constitutional rights and the laws of Mass.

How Gates went outside is a point of contention. It is unclear if he followed Crowley or was asked outside.

This unwavering support for the abuse of police power and the quoted statements clearly show a total lack of regard for the legal rights of others and a complete disdain for the Constitution. Crowley's abuse of authority is more suited to a police state than a democratic nation, but from many of the comments on that thread you would think that some Americans actually want that.

Oh for FFS, get off of your high horse. This incident is not about constitutional rights, abuse of authority or any other high browed concept you can conjure up. What it is about is an arrogant, self righteous man that decided he was above the law and his reaction to the lawful orders of a Police Officer legally doing his job.

Gates was given every opportunity to be cooperative and comply with the requests of Officer Crowley but he chose to be confrontational and uncooperative. Gates behavior is the root cause of the entire incident. There can be no denial of that fact.

This thread is going off track again. We need to focus back on the racism, specifically the lack thereof, in the Gates incident. Everyone has become so side tracked with the legality of the arrest that the original premise of the thread has been lost.

To date no one has come up with and logical, factual or reasonable support for Gates original charge of racism.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 796 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 7/31/2009 6:21:14 AM
Double post, sorry
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 772 (view)
Racism........... Really.
Posted: 7/30/2009 8:21:33 PM

Why are we still arguing this?

Because just about everything you wrote is incorrect.

I'm just amazed at all the people who try to say Dr. Gates is at fault for what happened that day

I am more than amazed at the number of people that feel Gates has absolutely no culpability in the events that transpired.

Hates Gates not chosen to be an asshat the entire affair would not have happened. But no, the esteemed Professor Gates had to start falsely accusing the Police of racism when they were investigating a reported break in at his residence!

FFS, does Gates behavior make sense on any level????? All of us, long ago, learned that it was right and proper and in our best interest to cooperate with the Police in the event we had an interaction with them. Apparently gates felt that this did not apply to them

Here is how the events should have transpired:

Crowley: Cambridge PD, We are investigating a report of a break in.

Gates: I live here

Crowley: May I see some identification please.

Gates: No problem, here you go.

Crowley: Thank you, have you seen any signs of a break in? We received a report of two men trying to forcibly enter the premises.

Gates: That was probably my Driver and Me.

Crowley: Ok, if you are sure there was no break in, we are done here.

Gates: Thank you for your quick response.

Deal done and we would not be in this thread...........

Gates had to prove a point and accuse Crowley of racism.......... Why could he not just be cooperative? What was he hiding? What was he trying to prove?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 429 (view)
Why are some people against hunting?
Posted: 7/30/2009 8:11:10 PM

Yeah, I'd hate to see what happens when deer take over the world. You're so very noble to save us from the likes of Bambi. Sounds to me like they are just trying to regulate hunters so that they don't wipe out the population. I doubt that there are too many deers for the habitat to sustain. Disguising frivilous hunting behind population control is a way of making hunters feel like they are serving a purpose.

Abolish deer hunting and you will see what our world looks like with too many deer. You will see a lot of changes from what you are used to seeing now.

You will see all of the understory vegetation in the woods vanish as starving deer eat every available piece of vegetation. You will see deer so densely populated that starvation and disease become rampant throughout the burgeoning population. Sections of roads through forested area will become unnavigable as the deer crowd the roadsides looking for grass.

And that is just the effect on the deer. The smaller mammals will begin to decline as well. As the deer feed on every available piece of vegetation habitat for rabbits, mice and other smaller mammals will vanish. As hiding places vanish these animals become easier prey for predators and their numbers will dwindle rapidly.

As our ecosystems exist today man is the top predator and has the responsibility to manage the animal populations in order that they do not exceed the carrying capacity of the land.

If not by hunting, how then do you plan to keep Deer populations at a level that will not harm the environment and will maintain the population at current levels?
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 769 (view)
Racism........... Really?
Posted: 7/30/2009 8:02:09 PM

Now you begin to see just how many lives Crowley as affected because he couldn't be professional enough or smart enough to just leave after he had Gates ID.

If you want to go back to the root cause you need to rewrite that sentence to read:

Now you begin to see just how many lives Gates has affected because he couldn't be civil, respectful, intelligent or smart enough to conduct himself properly.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 729 (view)
Racism........... Really?
Posted: 7/30/2009 8:51:17 AM
The fall out for Obama continues......... and for Gates as well.

The poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 41 percent disapproved of Obama's handling of the Gates arrest, compared with 29 percent who approved.

The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday last week. Among those interviewed on Wednesday and Thursday, 53 percent of whites approved of Obama's job performance. This slipped to 46 percent among whites interviewed Friday through Sunday as the Gates story played out.

Obama's overall job approval in the poll was 54 percent, down from 61 percent in a mid-June Pew poll.

Pew re-contacted 480 of the poll respondents on Monday, July 27, to ask them more questions about the Gates matter. They found that people are divided as to who should be blamed for the Gates arrest: 27 percent blame Gates and 25 percent Crowley. Another 13 percent of respondents say both or neither are at fault.

A separate poll said almost a third blame both the scholar and the sergeant. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 27 percent think Gates was at fault, 11 percent blamed Crowley and 29 percent said each was equally at fault.

Interesting numbers.
Joined: 6/9/2006
Msg: 727 (view)
Racism........... Really?
Posted: 7/30/2009 8:42:42 AM

Crowley the racist cop is bringing an attorney and a police union rep. to the beer summit. I wonder what he's afraid of?

Well I guess when you are meeting with two friends, the angry man that called you a racist (Gates) and the POTUS that said you acted stupidly you need some allies with you. Otherwise, it would seem that it would be two against one.

And this does not imply fear, but of course you would imply that it does. What it shows is that Sgt. Crowley has the support of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. Obama not only defamed Officer Crowley with his damaging statements he also defamed the Cambridge PD. Therefore, a representative of that organization should be there to receive an apology from Obama for his ignorant statement.
Show ALL Forums