NUKE_CLEVELAND

Judy just got grudgef***ed by the D-Backs. Thats it for me. I just shut off the game.

Hey folks, the chat is jumpin so far tonight so stop in and say hi.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 05:06 PM) Hinchey Rohrabacher amendment goes down again, much at the hands of Republican control who seem to wrap themselves in the states' rights mantra when it suits them. The amendment would simply bar federal agents from criminalizing medicinal marijuana in states where it had already been legalized in state referendums. And Rep. Mark Souder (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican who worked to defeat the marijuana initiative, accused supporters of "hiding behind a few sick people to try to in effect legalize ... marijuana in this country." "The rhetoric about marijuana as a treatment for medical purposes was probably dreamed up at some college dorm," he said. What an insensitive, ignorant dick. Let's throw sick people in jail! I guess that the DEA's own judge Francis L. Young stated: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance." Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22] (September 6, 1988), p. 57. The Supreme Court already shot down laws ok-ing medical marijuana passed by several states so its still a crime to possess or use or distribute this stuff regardless.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 05:17 PM) "The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity." Hence the need for a constitutional amendment to prohibit such activity.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) Shingo was phenomal last year............not so much this year. Cotts has been phenomenal lately. It good to see SOMEONE stepping up in the pen other than Politte and Hermey this season.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) what can we conclude for this? She was savagely killed by several gunshot wounds to the head and then chopped to pieces all right under the noses of half the worlds media and thousands of protestors.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) Not to this liberal, I for one think that accountability is very important. Especially if you are making certain the program is actually accomplishing it's goal. Without some checking, these programs take on a life of their own, self replicate, and lose sight of what the goal was. The ultimate goal of these programs should be to get people off them. When we see second and third generations on public aid it tells me there are serious problems in accountability. Now I could be my usual smart ass and point out that social programs are curse words to the right. I totally agree which is why forcing people off welfare after a certain time limit has expired is such a good idea. Additionally it's for the very reason you mentioned that "social programs" are curse words to me.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:21 PM) At the moment, I have to believe the account we're given is correct. I'm suggesting if someone said, "Bush administration knew an attack was beginning to pilot commercial airliners into skyscrapers, yet didn't intervene because they knew it would be the most effective way of convincing Congress and the American public invading Middle Eastern countries was worthwhile..," I'd be more willing to admit it makes SOME sense. Doesn't mean I'll believe it, probably won't; but it sure as hell beats this controlled demoliton theory. Anti-American sentiment had been boiling over for years prior to September 11. Original WTC attack, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole all proved Al-Qeada's intention to strike us. PNAC's assertion of a large scale attack leading to Middle Eastern policy change was not very prophetic, IMO. It was only a matter of time before a large scale attack occured on US soil. And if Bush was hell-bent on removing Saddam, which many believe is true, then that too would have happened eventually--9/11 or not. Try not to flame for this anyone but I think we're rather fortunate what happened on 9-11 was what happened rather than someone sneaking a nuclear device into NYC or LA and setting it off. All these stories I read about those suitcase size nuclear devices the Soviets used to have that have gone missing scare me more than anything.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:10 PM) As would I, and I agree this Ph.D. with the demolition theory is off his nut. Out of curiosity, HOW willing are you to believe believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks? They didn't do it purposefully. They allowed this to happen because of bumbling incompetence, a refusal to listen to agents who had strong leads on what the hijackers were up to and a stubborn pre-9/11 fixation against sharing information between agencies.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:54 AM) Why are you so all-or-nothing? TRash what system? I was responding to an article that said kids are malnurished. I pointed out that in many cases, it is because of laziness or bad consumer choices, using 'poor' as an excuse. Yes, there are cases where poor IS an excuse, which is why I didn't say ALWAYS. Balta early on here raised the best point, that there was no definition in the story to define going hungry. I also pointed out that you CAN buy fruit cheaply if you look, and then took a slight jab at Bush bashers by saying that it was Bush's fault. And now you have devolved this post into me being against government program helping the poor? Get real. If anything, I could stand for more programs, but only if there is accountability. If you can AFFORD to spend $2 or $3 a day buying Doritos, you can pay for your own lunch instead. If you can afford the big screen TV, don't ask the schools for free food. Choices and accountability are the key. Accountability is a curse word to the left when it comes to social programs.

QUOTE(sayitanitso @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 07:52 AM) I got two words for this story.....That sucks. I got one more word for this story............... Idiot.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 08:17 PM) There are hundreds of people who were in Guantanamo Bay who had no connection to Al-Qaeda whatsoever. That were picked up in random sweeps and found to have no useful intelligence to offer and were still kept for months and given that "soft ass" treatment after they were determined to be no threat at all. Again, saying "it isn't murder" isn't adequate to me to justify the treatment of foreign prisoners. And, what you might have noticed, is that I don't know if this "torture" that Time magazine describes is torture or even unacceptable. I do know that other confirmed methods at Guantanamo Bay and other prison camps were unacceptable. I do find the "same rules don't apply" attitude of our administration unacceptable. People who we've deemed no threat or to have no value were released. That continues to be the policy. Again. We treat their people FAR better than they treat ours and they are most fortunate to be in our custody. They whine about being tortured in Guantanamo? Let em get busted in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Jordan. HEH. Then they can have some REAL torture to deal with. We go way out of our way to accomodate their religon, we go way out of our way to provide food, shelter, sanitation etc....etc... for them. Would anyone else do that much for us? Of course not.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 07:36 PM) If captured Americans were treated the way we treat enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, would you be happy with that situation? THEY SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!!! Instead of providing them religously correct meals, religous materials, good shelter and sanitation and even pointing the direction of Mecca out so they can pray properly all they do when they get a hold of one of our people is beat em within an inch of their life then chop off their heads and post the video on the internet and show it on Al Jazerra. If we were interested in reciprocating the way terrorists treat our people we would really torture these scumbags, no sleep deprivation or dripping water or any of that other soft ass crap Amnesty is whining about now, I'm talking serious f***ing pain and suffering. Then we can hang them by the dozen and show video of it on CNN and Fox News. That sort of treatment is what these terrorist scum truly deserve. BUT. As you said we are better than that and we treat the people in our custody remarkably well. Far better than they deserve considering their activities before imprisonment included car bombings, setting roadside bombs, blowing up civillians by the bucketful, assassinations of government officials, plotting to kill American civillians in terrorist attacks etc...etc... Save your tears for those who deserve them like the innocent civillans these people have murdered or conspired to murder. :rolly

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:15 AM) It's a good coincidence that he hasn't written since there was all that controversy and the Sun-Times had to correct all those mistakes in his column. I wouldn't be surprised if they at least suspended him for a little bit. That's gotta be the case. I think it would be so sweet if they printed that he was suspended becaue of what he did but they wont. Oh well.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 05:09 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Ar...risoners_of_war Here is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, the exception is included in there. The important part is: ***Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: *** And no, the prisoners being held at GITMO have not had a trial like the Nazi's in your case. If the GITMO prisoners had a trial and were convicted that would be a completely different argument. The Bush administration is arguing that they can hold and detain them indefinitely with out charges. SB The Bush Administration wants to try these people in front of military tribunals, as was done with the Nazi infiltrators. Unfortunately the left keps on throwing up legal challenges to the process so it is THEY who are denying these people their day in court. In the meantime those who are determined to be of no value or determined to be innocent have been released back to their home countries. Additionally. These people try NOT to distinguish themselves from the civillian populace. They do their very best to blend in and their weapons consist of suicide car bombs, roadside bombs and ambush style shootings. Again Article 4 states that to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention they have to meet the criterion laid out which, as I've said several times already, they do not. Like I said. They have no rights any way you want to cut it and they are very fortunate that it is the US which is holding these people as other nations would not be so lenient with them.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 10:53 PM) Nuke, Also there is an exception under the Geneva convention for not having to always be uniformed. If you look under the specific articles of the Geneva convention it should be there. And this is the real argument, how they should be classified. The internment of Japanese American's really has nothing to do with this. And it has been ruled unconstutional as well. Winodj, Because the people who believe in GITMO do not believe that they are changing their standards. They believe that this is the way it should be, just as many believed that slavery was correct, or seperate but equal. In each case people had opinions that reflected their standards. I will not be so quick to try and judge some one for their standpoint, as perhaps my position will eventually become the one that was historically incorrect. I can only try and defend the position I believe true, to the best of my abilities, and hope that what I believe is right. SB Article 4 of the Geneva Convention lays out what is required for a prisoner to be entitled to its protections. Terrorists do not meet the criterion as it is laid out. I have the entirety of Article 4 posted on page 3 of this thread so you can go back and verify for yourself but the rest of it deals with those who are part of an organized Army or merchant marine. Back to the Nazi's for a moment the Supreme Court heard all the evidence in the case and ruled them to be enemy belligerents just the same as the Bush Administration has classified the foregin terrorists we have today.

QUOTE(mrzo2733 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 09:56 PM) The guy who brings a smile to my face everytime is Matt Karchner- for obvious reasons. Also: Norton, Steve Lyons, Scott Fletcher Steve Lyons takes the cake. How memorable a moment was it when he just dropped trou right at 1st base after getting on. More priceless than the act itself was the explanation afterward. "I forgot where I was. I thought I was in the locker room."

Is it just me or does every time a Flubbs fan open up his yap he has to close it right back up again and sulk away in defeat?

QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) Although this debate on the constitutionality of the GITMO camp is very interesting, I'd love to see someone answer this question: its more philosophy than anything else. If you are fighting someone to preserve your way of life and liberty and standards, why would you change your way of life and liberty and standards to preserve them? The GITMO camp and the goings on down there pale in comparison to previous acts taken on behalf of national security. -The suspension of Habeus Corpus, free speech and other rights by Lincoln during the Civil War -The wholesale internment of persons of Japanese descent during WWII without any due process or even lifting a finger to see if there was any reason to believe they were a threat There is actually a legal basis for what is happening down there and the Bush Administration, as I have demonstrated, has 2 solid legs to stand on. I say it is the left which is actually denying these people a fair hearing by holding up the process of military tribunals with legal challenges. Additionally those who have been found to be of no further intelligence value have been released to their home countries so the "indefinite detention" argument is also a false one. BTW I am making far too many spelling errors to correct. I'm not used to the keyboard on my new laptop yet.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:55 PM) And your argument is in direct opposition to your statement that they are illegal enemy combatants. The people here are tried in the law of war. The United States is explicitly taking the position that the prisoners of GITMO are not soldiers, or part of a war. Because if they were to be tried by the law of war, they would fall under the Geneva Convention. Therefore if you want Quirin to be precedent, you have to argue that they would now fall under Geneva Convention protections. SB Were the Nazi sabetours uniformed members of th armed forces? No. They were dressed in civillian attire, much like our friends detained in Cuba now. It's perfectly consistent. Remember this in reference to our Nazi friends? The Supreme Court defined the Nazi Saboteurs as "enemy belligerents", not as soldiers.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:52 PM) Thank you, That case does not state what your saying it does; Now lets look at the more significant part of the holding. What was the year, 1942. When did I tell you the Geneva Convention happened? After WWII, 1942 is before the end of the conflict. Therefore this case is not of any significant precedent because it occurred before the Geneva Convention. In which these soldiers would have been protected as POW. But since the GC did not exist, the US set out rules that are very close to due process. Lawfully constituted, held for trial. The difference in Gitmo? There are no charges or trials... Once again not distinguishable and not even holding because prior to Geneva Convention, which the US is a party to. SB Can we agree that terrorist activity violates the laws of war? That being the case the detainees being the free-lance terrorists that they are, are not entitled to the protections of the convention.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) Give me the cites. They will be NUMBER US NUMBER. If you can not even give me the decency of citing the case, why should I even be here? SB http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...law/quirin.html Enjoy. The most salient points.

QUOTH THE SUPREME COURT "[A]n enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, is familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed . . . to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." [7]

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:26 PM) That is not precedent! That is a website, I could write an equally articulated website that made lots of theories based on dicta and taking judges words out of context. But that is not what that case really means. The case they use to argue noncitizens have no rights is a case concerning alieans rights outside of the US. It would be very strange to believe that an Alien had US rights in Mexico. Honestly can you really not see that you are wrong? Read the case, I gave you the actual words of the judges. Not some website with an agenda. Read for yourself. And read your website's purpose statement: http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm Notice no part says, we are giving you precedent. SB THEY QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS!!! Jesus you have a thick skull. Quoted. You know, as in wrote down the words exactly as the Court did all those years ago.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:24 PM) Sigh Nuke, Enemy combatants such as Nazi's would now fall under the Geneva Convention. The reason the Geneva Convention was not holding during WWII was because it did not exist until after WWII. I will explain this simply. Enemy troops = Geneva convention. Criminals= US Constitution Illegal combatants= Outside of both. Atleast now when you argue with your friends you can use a correct term and maybe actually win the argument based on the fact that the illegal combatant argument is currently valid. SB What are terrorists? Are they enemy troops? No. They are not part of any Army Are they criminals? Would you call a free lance terrorist captured on foregin soil a criminal in the traditional sense. I wouldn't. Are they illegal combatants? Thats the most plausible way to define random violence directed against our soldiers such as act perpetrated by foregin terrorists.