NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) Well, first, most of their homes are not there now. Second, half the people in question were born somewhere other that Israel, so technically, they don't have a 'home' to return to either. http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html This definition, however, is unique to the Palastinians. Croation Serb refugees were given citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Children born of these parents were given the new citizenship of their parents, so there is no growing refugee population. The UN's own regugee difinition page makes no mention of descendents being considered refugees, and in other cases doesn't consider them as such. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm But in the Palastinian case, does. Maybe because if everyone who was originally misplaced is dead, or moved on, there would be no refugee problem for them to beat Israel with? PLus, these people lost their homes in a war. Why SHOULD they have a 'right of return'? Should the Mexicans have a 'right of return' to Texas? I know they are trying to anyway, but should we just hand over El Paso and Dallas? If there are Israelis in the territories that cannot return home, then by all means, let them. But as that does not appear to be the case, I see no reason why it is problematic that this is specific to the Palestinians. As for the Mexicans, that is a very interesting analogy. As in fact, after the wars in the west, many residents of NM, TX and AZ were told by the US that their land grants from Spain and Mexico would be recognized. Naturally, of course, they were not (for the most part), and those states are still feeling the negative effects of that lack of recognition.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) 10 and 1/2 months of writing, looking up stats, and being annoyingly liberal = 10,000 posts. 1 nice shiny looking trophy and one hell of a memorable year = priceless. Thanks guys. Being here last year made that run even more special than it would have been otherwise. Jeez. I thought I posted a lot. I'd have to triple my post rate to match that. Many thanks for all your thoughtful posts. We, who are about to die (self-impaled on the political kitana that is 'Buster), salute you!

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 11:55 PM) Don't forget trying to steal 3rd base while the pitcher is still in the stretch. I saw Gary Redus do something like that once (though i think it was 2nd), steal on the pitcher before he even delivers the pitch. Redus actually made it work.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) full story http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/13/moussaou...l.ap/index.html must be one of those liberal judges I'm glad I'm not that judge. Tough call to make. I generally tend to agree with judges that keep their courts in order, instead of allowing attornies to run rough-shod over legal protections for their convenience. So I can't blame her for being stern. I'll be curious to see how this turns out.

Can one of you ra-rah folks on this issue please tell me what is so evil about letting these refugees back to their homes?

Seriously, who are the supposed doubters on this board? I don't think I've seen anyone here post anything about Saddam not being guilty of these things.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 10:00 AM) It wasn't "backdoor" - it was announced months ago, but no one cared until someone touched the hot lightbulb and went, "oh s***, this is HOT!". It was back door in that they avoided the usual checks and processes for such deals. It was mentioned and cited earlier in this thread. And it seems clear to me that there were some under-the-table dealings on the side here, which we still don't know about.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 11:22 PM) 22. Out of college. Full-time job. Yep, I pay rent, utilities, taxes, living expenses, etc. I like watching baseball, long walks on the beach, and cuddling. Anything else? Nicely played. I don't happen to agree with you on this issue, but I certainly agree that no one on this board needs to be badgering others about their personal status (age, race, work, etc.).

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 10:37 PM) Question: Is this in Illinois? Beacuse it's fairly easy to get almost any first offense misdemeanor expunged in MN, I'm pretty sure. not IL, not MN.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) The Dems pursue this to their own disadvantage. The country is overwhelmingly in favor of what Bush is doing, despite the legality. I'm making a political, not a ethical, evaluation of the matter. I disgree. I have seen polls all over the board, and I don't think the public is overwhelmingly anything on this. And up to now, the Bush-bashing has worked quite well for the Dems. I do agree that can only go on so long, though. There has to be more there eventually.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 09:28 PM) If we were so concerned with our relations to begin with, maybe we shouldnt have tried to back door the deal. Absolutely.

As promised, the rest of the story... *insert People's Court entrance music* The purchasers of the fake IDs were all asked for statements detailing their interactions with the ID-maker. In exchange, they were not charged criminally, but their statements were handed over to authorities on the University campus for internal discipline. The main suspect settled before the case reached a court, on the initial offer. The 10 or so felony charges were reduced to 1 count serious misdemeanor of providing false identification for purpose of fraud (or whatever the exact statute states). No jail time. Sentence was for a few hundred hours of community service plus the time served in police custody. But the serious misdemeanor will remain on his record permanently (expungement of non-traffic charges is unusual for adults), and that is probably the biggest part of the punishment. Every time he fills out a job application now, he has one more "Yes" box to check. In case you were curious, the handful of cops that discussed this case at the time were about evenly split between something like what he got, and running him up the flag pole on the felony. But the prosecutor, and the lead detective, both felt leniency was warranted. *insert People's Court exit music* Thanks for your opinions!

I still think putting this deal down was the right thing to do, even if we didn't handle it very well. The company is UAE-government controlled, and UAE has shown a piss poor record on security. Our ports are already porous. The deal obviously avoided the necessary checks and balances as well. And the articles I read did indeed say that the UAE company would handle screening of cargo, and would handle security personnel issues. I think we had to say no to this, even though it will indeed end up hurting our relationship with the UAE. I also do not believe our relationship with UAE will be thrown completely overboard by this deal. But I do think Bush, Congress and this country will have an uphill battle to try to soften the blow.

It makes me sad to see him give up his medals. I think he should still hold those with the same pride - which should not be changed by any given administration. But I do commend him on a well-written letter, stating an obviously heart-felt belief. Where did the letter come from?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) The second worst thing to ever happen to Interior (second only to Stephen Griles) is stepping down at the end of the month. link to her resignation letter (pdf): http://www.doi.gov/secretary/resignation.pdf Excellent. Finally some good news today. Unfortunately though, I suspect the next one in there might be just as bad, considering Bush's stance on the environment (what's an environment?).

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) Where is the insult? The part where you repeatedly tell someone else they don't know what they are talking about. Do what you want man, but I don't like seeing people cross that line (where the posts become insulting to other posters), so I pointed it out.

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) Brian Anderson watches 4 pitches for a walk. Up comes Valido with runners on first and second and two outs. Good to see him be patient at the plate.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) When the deal was made...the Labor Department's inspector General complained of "Serious Breakdowns" as the U.S. government had made major concessions to Wal-Mart without getting anything serious back in return. So IMO, it sure looks like that was just a complete cave-in. Could be. I certainly don't know anything about the deal's specifics.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:20 PM) punk-pop jumbo shrimp.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) If that sort of deal was made...it wasn't written in the settlement as far as I know. I'm sure it wouldn't have been. The federal government does not ever want to put on paper that it is giving up any sort of control of law enforcement or security. But it is becoming a reality anyway.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) If you are well aware of it then you wouldn't make such comments that "family can only do so much" or disagree with it. That is why I don't think you know what you are talking about. You haven't said you don't agree with something, you just ignore it and state somethign else. The things you have stated make it seem like you don't know what you are talking about. Are the insults really necessary?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) Considering how many times in the past few years wal-mart has been caught employing illegals...i doubt they think that at all. Or if they do...they're not even intelligent enough to manage an Arabian Horse Trading association. I think they just want to make sure that the company's campaign contributions keep flowing. I bet there was a deal made about that. Internal security at Walmart would make a promise to handle it, Feds would lay back a bit. Again, not saying it will work, but federal agencies are real big lately on compromises that allow private security work to do some things for them. All those agencies (FBI, SEC/CFTC, ATF, etc.) are way short-handed.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) Just looked it up...it was the settlement in Wal-Mart's child labor case last November. Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters are given a 15 day warning before any inspection. The Feds would agree to such a thing because wal-mart has a lot of money. And because they think that it is more efficient for the government if a huge company like Walmart polices itself. I am not necessarily saying that will work, but that is the thought process I am sure.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) cool im at adams and wacker, crazy. kewl.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 04:25 PM) It is still to their benefit. That is why they come over here. I agree that getting them into the system or kicking them out is the way to go. I am in complete agreeance with that. I am not against the law/bill at all. Absolutely.