matcat1116
-
Posts
509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by matcat1116
-
-
YES i was wondering if anybody else saw this
it's on any team's page as well
-
If I watched seasons 1-4 but did not watch season5... you think I'm too far behind to watch 6?
-
Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat up for election on Tuesday, is filing a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party over a flier claiming he
-
It sucks being in Jerusalem because I'm 7 hours ahead (it's midnight right now) so I go to sleep before the games start..
I will say that they do sell Devils yarmulkes here which is pretty awesome
Got mine on Ben Yehuda Street -
Anybody have pictures of what the arena looked like during the delay?
-
I read somewhere NBC wants to do a weekly outdoor game next year starting in February.
It looks like the NHL is at least entertaining the idea:
I saw that, but there's no way they could be serious about that. The costs to build a rink in so many venues would be outrageous, and people would begin to get sick of the outdoor games real fast. Think about the 38,112 people that packed into Fenway on NYD. You know how many of them actually had a good view of the ice? I'd say about 5000. The others went only for the experience. Once this happens every week, people aren't going to pack into a cold stadium and pay money for a crappy seat when the experience is old and the game is televised for free.
-
If they do have it in Minnesota next year like Doc and Chico mentioned, I think a Minnesota-Dallas matchup would be fun. Former Minnesota team vs. new Minnesota team.
Thoughts?
-
Devils/Islanduuhs at RedBull Arena
It's SO on
-
Why not? The Devils never said "we'll be wearing these for one night only and one night only forever infinity x 1000". If the fan feedback to the 3/17 game and the merchandising is overwhelming (which it looks to be), you'll see it again. Bank on it.
Besides a game where the Rangers wear the "NEW YORK" diagonal jerseys vs the Devils red/green will bring back memories for us older fans.
Check icethetics.info for an interesting Rangers winter classic design
also check out the Isles one below it
-
As long as you are of the mindset that you want to plug up the mouse holes rather then figure out where the next mouse hole is coming from or figure out why the mouse want sot burrow in your house to begin with, you will not be safer. Granted none of those three are mutually exclusive, just the last two are a lot more effective then the former.
And there's no reason we can't do all three. I already tried to explain one of them. One of them can be solved by my proposal. The last could be solved by effective intelligence.
-
Definitely Yankee Stadium, but if they hitch their wagon to the baseball theme too often, it's gonna become "that hockey game that's played on a baseball field". They could presumably go for the attendance record at the new Giants stadium.
You gotta think that the NHL would go with Yankee Stadium to avoid any potential scheduling conflict with a week 17/playoff game involving the Giants or Jets at the Meadowlands.
-
I don't agree with that. It seemed like you were blaming the religion, but I'll give you the chance to clear the air. If you are not blaming Islam and for the most part think it is a peaceful and caring religion, at least as much as Christianity, then feel free to remove all doubt and say so here.
For the most part, Islam is practiced as a peaceful and caring religion. However, unlike Christianity, there are millions of people that use it as justification to kill. There are NO Christian extremist groups that even compare to the size, strength, and intent of groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. Are there extremist terrorist groups made up of Christians? Sure, take the Basque movement in Spain. But do any of them use their religion and cite their holy book as justification to kill members of another religion? Please show me some that do.
Stick with the concept if it helps. People who favor gun control argue it kills people so lets restrict access to them and that will stop people from shooting each other. The other side of the argument is that it's not the gun, it's the people pulling the trigger, I.E. people are responsible for their own actions, not the tools they use. Bring that back to the terrorism debate, it's not Islam that's the problem. It's the people who misrepresent what the religion says that commit acts of violence. The reason someone is a terrorist is not because they are a Muslim and when people like Jimmy say things like "we are at war with Muslim extremists" it makes me cringe. We are at war with extremists, regardless of what religious they are, and if all of them at the moment happen to be Islamic fundamentalists then so be it, but I refuse to assign blame to the other 99.99% of innocent people who read their scripture right.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. These people are no doubt responsible for their actions, as is anybody that preaches acts of terror or hatred. We are at war with Muslim extremists, not Muslims, but Muslim extremists, because the clear majority of threats to America come from extremists that are Muslim. The other side of the argument about guns is that a) murder rates have gone down in areas without gun control and up in areas with gun control and b) the right to own a gun is protected in the Constitution. I've never used the argument that people are responsible for their actions for a reason to allow guns.
So no doubt that the reason someone is a terrorist is not because they are a Muslim. As you said, that's justified by the billions that are peaceful. However, the reason they are a terrorist IS because they interpreted their holy books to preach violence, and whether or not that's actually what the holy book meant (to be fair, Muhammad didn't achieve his conquests through peace, so I'm not going to say one way or another what WAS meant in the quran in terms of violence), that's how they interpreted it. Therefore we need to stop them.
You're missing the point. You want to piss away 2 billion dollars to stop a once in a decade attack when you could spend that money on actually saving lives in the interm. And more over, terrorists are crafty sob's, they hijacked planes with box cutters. I bet you dollars to donuts I could sneak a box cutter on a plane still. If they can't get PETN on a plane anymore, they will figure out another way to blow it up, or some other venue or some other act. I'll defer to what JerryDevil said, you and I have a much different definition of what "safe" really means.
The problem is that as long as we DON'T have full body scans, terrorists will continue to use that method to sneak materials on board. They might be crafty enough to find an alternate way, but at least spending that 2 billion will prevent any other attacks that involve that method and instead force the terrorists to go back to the drawing board. If you see a hole in the wall where mice come in to your house, you'll plug it up regardless of the cost. The mice might eventually find another way in, but at least you've put up SOME effort to keep them out and forced them to find a different way. Otherwise they'll just keep going through that hole.
Puddy: It's our brilliant House of Rep. that banned the full body scans as primary security. I'm arguing that this is just as bad as not having them.
I've never mentioned the census, so I take it that your post isn't directed at me.
-
I can't beleive you cite the 4th amendment here; the right that gaurds against "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to a guy looking at you through a window, but it doesn't apply to an airport where they search for things on your person? And I am not saying the 4th amendment means we should get a free pass an airport, I am saying how can you overlook such hypocrisy after asking above about "WHERE IS IT WRITTEN".
How can you compare unreasonable search of home to a search boarding an airplane? To start off, you're voluntarily boarding that airplane. You can choose to travel by train, by care, by bus, or not go at all. Therefore there is no government forcing you to undergo a search. If you don't like it, take advantage of a variety of other means of travel. Next, even if air travel was the only means of getting around, it's not like a shower, where you're solitary in your house. It involves the lives of hundreds of people sitting around you. It involves the thousands of people that would be harmed if the plane went down. That's hardly an unreasonable search. So yes, the 4th amendment prevents the government from keeping surveillance of my shower, yet also allows the government to search people that board a plane.
No doubt that it's a small fraction, but you asked the reason that the small fraction wants to kill. I told you. You rebutted by stating I'm wrong because it's only a small minority.No, no, no and very few of them. I think that's a major problem and maybe the reason people think full body scanners are better solutions then accepting that it is a very small minute fraction of a religion interprets the text wrong and promotes violence.
If you read the quran you would find it's about as vengeful as the bible or the torah. That shouldn't surprise anyone as they share a lot of the same elements. How is it that conservatives say things like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but then blame Islam for the perversions of a few? Just a little consistency from either side of the political spectrum would be nice.
That's the strangest analogy I've ever heard. Yes, people kill people, because a madman who wants to murder will use a knife or a gruesome power tool to achieve it. Yes, the extremist muslims kill because they're brainwashed to believe it's their religious duty. I think the proper analogy you're looking for would be "hijacked airliners don't kill people, terrorists do". The analogy refers to the weapon used to carry out the murder, rather than the mechanism that caused the madman to attempt murder.
Well at least you used the word "some". I think you last example is backwards, extremists want women wearing burqa's but point made.
Yes, my bad, I corrected it in an edit.
Back to the scanners:
Those scanners cost about $150k each. I know places like Atlanta of JFK need a lot more then smaller airports only but lets say an average 3-4 for each airport. The CIA says their are 15k airports in the US. Lets say only 75% of them only service small prop planes. so 25% of 15k is 3,750 air ports that need the scanners. Thats 11,250 to 15,000 scanners. At 150k a pop thats 1.68 - 2.25 billion just for the scanners in the US alone.
That doesn't include the cost other countries would have to absorb for their airports that fly to the US, that doesn't include the cost to train operators etc. And thats assuming that only 25% of the airports need 3 or 4 each. Those are really conservatives (forgive the pun) estimates. All that so you have feel a little bit safer while you fly until those same people who want to blow up the plane figure out a different way to do it? Hell for 2 billion we could put it towards car mandates and save literally tens of thousands of lives. But I guess when you spend money to save lives that aren't threatened by outside forces it's socialism.
Car mandates that save lives? Most car mandates put out by Washington force cars to be lighter, causing far more deaths than necessary. But okay...
After spending hundreds of billions of dollars on earmarks and waste, I think we can afford 2 billion to improve the security of our airports. This technology guards against any type of object a terrorist could bring on board, unlike the metal detectors at present airports. I have a feeling that if this attack had been successful and killed a few hundred people would be screaming at the government to spend that mere 2 billion dollars.
-
Well, the Nigerian terrorist didn't board the Northwest jet in the U.S., did he?
We just have a difference in opinion of what "safe" is. Terrorist activity gets a lot of media attention. It stokes fear in people, especially in this country. But your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are miniscule. Is it worth the expense of full body scanners in every major U.S. airport? Was it worth the massive expense of the creation of the TSA, a bureaucracy that, in my opinion, feeds on fear and is more cosmetic than effective?
I say focus on shoring up the holes in our intelligence. It's inexcusable that other countries had this guy on a no-fly list and the U.S. didn't. Heads should roll there. But, please, no more money for the TSA for anything. That money goes down a black hole.
Well the plane was heading for an American city and intended to blow up there.
What you say definitely makes sense, especially about the intelligence. I just feel that in a case like this, intelligence failed us, which means we need to have a second line of defense when the terrorists makes it to the airport without being discovered by the FBI.
-
Are you of the opinion that a government official should be allowed to watch you shower? Because no where is it written in our Constitution that they can't do that.
4th amendment?
The difference is that since flying involves such high risk situation with the lives of hundreds at risk, AND there are very viable alternatives to flying, there need to be measures of search to enter an airplane. A shower, however, is your own property, and cannot be searched without a warrant.
Not sure what the point of that was, you seem to dislike it when other people make smart ass comments but you have no problem writing them in yourself.
Patronizing peoples fears of flying isn't the best way to handle the situation. If you really want to stop people blowing up airplanes then you need to figure out why they are doing it, not make them work a little harder to do it. But that's a whole different discussion altogether, and you get called a terrorist sympathizer for suggesting stuff like that so I'd rather not open the can of worms.
They do it because they think their religion, holy book, god, prophet, and religious leaders tell them.
Some of them do it because they can't stand a country where people aren't subject to Sharia Law.
Some of them do it because they can't stand a culture where women walk around without burqas.
-
There is more to our way of life then the constitution. I hate to break it to you but the constitution isn't the end all be all document. When they wrote it black people were property and women couldn't vote. If you want to return to that time and follow it letter for letter be my guest, the rest of the country will move along without you. The constitution is a restriction on government control, and even at that they designed it to be malleable so that we could adjust it as needed. It's a great peace to work and and build a society from, not worship it religiously as if if our founding fathers somehow had the intuition to account for every single issue to ever come up over the rest of our existence as a nation.
The rest of the country isn't moving anywhere without me, because the idea of a Constitution is it's supposed to be bound to each generation. To answer your questions about black people being property, many of the founding fathers realized the need to liberate slaves, but think about what would've happened had they put in the Constitution that slavery was over, blacks are free, and women can vote. Most of the states wouldn't have ratified it. The only to pass it was to write it without those clauses and amend them in at a later time.
But we can discuss that at another point.
I know you are just being a smartass here but to be frank, if they put things in that could see me naked I probably won't fly. Actually I don't care about myself, but I think of the embarrasment of subjecting my grandmother or wife or kids to such a procedure all in the name to make you think you are safer. And don't mix and match my quotes; I asked Devlish34 a question about how much privacy vs security he was willing to sacrifice, not to actually suggest it as reasonable alternative.
Nobody's seeing you naked, relax. It creates an outline of your body so that they can see anything attached. There's no embarrassment, no humiliation, just a man/woman behind a counter checking for anything strange looking and then moving on. I really don't see the outrage behind this. Nobody's disseminating the images, nobody's getting a laugh out of them, it's passing by the eyes of one TSA agent and then moving on.
-
How'd they stop the liquid bomb plot? It wasn't via full body scanner. Good intelligence and police work, that's how. Good ending, right?
Matcat, terrorists have already assaulted luxury hotels in the past few years (Indonesia and Mumbai come to mind.) I think it'd be foolish to believe that this couldn't happen at the MGM Grand or a Caribbean cruise port. Tourists were massacred by Islamic terrorists in Egypt in the late 1990s. It's horrible, but we can't put a shield around everyone.
You say that if you don't want to go through a body scanner, then don't fly. I say that if you allow the remote chance that you'll die at the hands of terrorists to overwhelm you with fear, then stay home and buy a Madden cruiser.
I'm talking threats to us, not Indonesian or Indian targets. And yes good police work stopped the liquid bomb plot, but what would've happened if it didn't? The point being that attacks targeted at America have come in the form of airplane attacks, so it's foolish to equate the need for cruise ship security to the need for airline security. It's not overwhelming me with fear, it's being safe. Hell, if all these security measures are just so people aren't overwhelmed with fear, why even have metal detectors? Maybe people who insist on metal detectors at airports are just being overwhelmed with fear.
Unless I'm missing something, nobody even mentioned the Constitution.
You know what happens if people who don't like a full body scan stop flying? Airline revenue goes down. When airline revenue goes down, they do things like, say, force experienced pilots into early retirement, or delay replacing aging aircraft. How does that help safety?
Then what did he mention? Right to privacy? Where is that ANYWHERE?
Something tells me that putting in full body scans won't scare people away and drive revenue down. I have a feeling that it'll increase business for the airlines if anything; people will feel more secure flying. And yes, you can use the statistic all you want that it's safer to fly than drive, but it's just built into people's mentality that they need to feel safe when they fly.
-
I think better, more effective intelligence is the best solution. We're going to put full-body scanners in airports all across the country? Who's paying for this?
I'm shocked at some of these so-called Republicans on this board. Chasing after security at any cost. It's a losing battle. You are letting fear corrupt common sense. When a cruise ship gets bombed, are we putting full-body scanners at the cruise ports? Major office buildings? The Mall of America?
After the amount of threats (both successful and unsuccessful [british liquid bomb plot is a big one]) against airliners in the past 8 years, you're seriously equating terrorist threats to airplanes to terrorist threats in malls or cruise ships?
-
Time out. First of all, where exactly does the Constitution contain a "right to privacy?"
Moreover, if you're so petrified that a full body scan will violate your privacy, don't fly. Simple as that. With airplanes being such a major target, it's necessary to put in severe prevention techniques (and this one happens to do little to wait times or inconveniences, not like an actual strip search). If you're so afraid of breaches of your privacy, don't fly. Simple as that. For those who do fly, it's the airlines' (and the TSA's) job to ensure that they are safe on their flights. This is very different from "doing strip searches as people leave their house".
-
http://www.ajc.com/business/better-airport-scanners-delayed-260289.html
The full-body scanner "could have been helpful in this case, absolutely," said Evert van Zwol, head of the Dutch Pilots Association.But the technology has raised significant concerns among privacy watchdogs because it can show the body's contours with embarrassing clarity. Those fears have slowed the introduction of the machines.
Jay Stanley, public education director for the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program, said the machines essentially perform "virtual strip searches that see through your clothing and reveal the size and shape of your body."
Last June, however, because of privacy concerns, the House voted 310-118 to prohibit the use of whole-body imaging for primary screening. The measure, still pending in the Senate, would limit the use of the devices to secondary screening.The nutjob ACLU-types are running our government. Won't be long before a second Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeeds in his attack.
-
I would like to see the King of Chicago finally stand up and call this a "WAR" while the LACKEY LEFT refuse to use the word "terrorist" or even WAR for that matter.
Next, tort reform to get rid of the stinking trial lawyers (who put this lackey in the White House) so we do not have to be "PC" and let the profiling begin! The fact we can't PROFILE is because lawsuits abound and most of the socialist scum left here in the US would rather blame the US for this incident than the actual terrorist! Meanwhile the trial lawyers who elected this lackey loon President and his city council gang are waiting to make sure this poor terrorist is getting three hots and a cot.
The lefty retort "The US deserves everything it gets" is BS and although this started on a flight overseas, Napalitano is as much to blame as the admin who did not detect the name in any database overseas while letting this punk sneak through from Africa to Amsterdam and then Detroit.
http://www.wisepolit...racts-1211.html
"Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Retracts
-
I'll be there for that game too. I'm looking forward to it.
It sucks that your game experience was tainted, but all-in-all it really doesn't sound all that bad to me. Obscenities are annoying, but it doesn't sound like anything was personally directed at you. Did you complain to any of the Garden staffers about the language?
The worst parts of your story are the homophobic language and the "accidental" beer spill. That type of stuff sucks and shouldn't be tolerated. Was it a full beer? Or a partial spill, like it was in his hand when he jumped up to cheer and some came out the top?
Still though, I've heard and experienced worse. I've been punched in the stomach just for wearing a Devils cap in Philly and Andrew has a horror story of his own from that city. If some bad words and a little bit of beer are all you got, then it sucks but isn't enough to start banning the sales of alcohol in sporting venues across the continent, IMO.
It was a partial spill, and I actually do doubt that he did it on purpose, more of that he just didn't care who he hit with it.
-
In a few years you'll understand.
No, I'm pretty sure I'll feel the same way.
I obviously understand the economic side to the argument for concession profits but IMO it's a terrible trade off. Drunk moronic fans for extra money.
-
Just got back from the game. What a game it was. I was getting very nervous during overtime but man was I happy when Okposo launched it in. Very fun to get two points at the garden.
Now, on to the point of my post.
I'm 16 years old, and although I do have Islander fan friends, I usually go with my dad to games at the garden (he's a general NY fan, no team in particular). Although we didn't discuss if afterward, I can speak for him as well as myself that we had our night absolutely ruined by two pieces of trash that you would call Ranger fans.
We had the luxury of sitting in amazing seats (section 206, center ice) courtesy of ticket exchange. Through past experience of sitting that low in the garden, I had met a few die-hards and loudmouths before, but nobody who really gave me a problem. I had NO idea of what I'd face tonight.
We arrive extra early for warmups, and return to our seats to wait for the game to start. A few minutes before the game, two Ranger fans in their mid-twenties arrive in the row above us. Quite frankly I'm just guessing when they arrived, because when they did arrive they weren't any trouble. However, as soon as the intros started at around 7:00, my god.
From that point on, the two could not go 2 minutes (real time, not game time) without screaming an obscenity/profanity. Be it "I ****IN HATE THE ISLANDERS", "NIELSEN HAS A ******", or "THE COLISEUM SUCKS ****" (the blanks should be fairly easy to fill in), you could not sit there for two minutes without hearing it. One minute, "CLEAR THE ****IN ZONE"; next minute, "BRUNO'S A -derogatory word for homosexuals-". Stuff that wouldn't be tolerated in a sports bar at 3 AM. One of them topped it off by spilling his beer on me when the Rangers scored (and it wasn't like I asked for it, I didn't even clap unless there was a goal, big save, PK clear, or big hit... didn't chant, didn't instigate at all). He claimed it to be an accident and apologized but didn't seem very sincere about it. After all, he "****in hates the Islanders".
Never in my short 16 year old life have I ever sat near people like this. How fitting that they were two idiot Ranger fans, both drunk. However, I don't doubt that this happens in all arenas from all fan-bases (although I have to admit, I expected this more from Rags than anybody else). That's why in my humble opinion, alcohol should be banned from all sporting arenas in North America. Not by law, but by league policy for all sports. Selling alcohol does not benefit the fans in any way. Alcohol causes fights, gets people ejected from games, leads to stupid and obscene behavior, and very easily can cause drunk driving and deaths when so many cars are leaving the same place. There is no reason that a substance chemically identified as a harmful drug and not medically-issued should be sold to thousands upon thousands of angry hockey, football, basketball, or baseball fans. All it does is ruin event experiences, not enhance them. If you cannot enjoy a game sober, then enjoy the game from your own house. That's particularly pointed at the two that ruined my night, and extends to any other fan of any other team in any other sports that does similar things.
I'll be back there in February to see Devils Rangers on the 6th. I hope to god I don't have a similar experience.
Got mine on Ben Yehuda Street
GDT: NJ Devils vs. LA Kings
in Hell
Posted
One and only visit to the Rock this year, make it count Devils!!!!!!!
I know it's selfish of me but Brodeur better play, last time I made the trek out there he was injured and I'm dying to see him. Haven't seen him live since 2004.