NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:32 PM) What we seem to want to do is become a third world country and give so much power to the government. I am amazed how people want to allow the government total access to their lives. They trust the legal system totally. (Thank God they got the OJ verdict right). Somehow it has become the more conservative people who demand more government intervention. More government powers. About opposite of the small government, less laws, less government interference, ideals of my father's brand of conservatism. There is a balance in handling prisoners and it varies by the crime and the prisoner. A times, prisoners have had it too easy, now a pendulum is swinging too far the other side. In the grand scheme of things, no big deal. It will always come back to center. Where have you been for the last, I dunno, forever?

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:22 PM) I agree 100 pct that you usually keep pitchers in to get confidence. However, with what's been happening to Vazquez lately, it creates a very unique situation. Maybe Ozzie would have been better off pulling him after he got the first out on Conine that inning, and let Cotts come in to face Patterson (not like Cotts would have got him out ). I'm just shocked that Ozzie gave him the chance to get the loss. I don't think its a bad idea to leave Vaz in there in the 6th inning ( on the off chance that he actually makes it through unscathed ) but one baserunner and he needs to be yanked.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:21 PM) Let's not confuse marijuana with narcotics. Saying mary jane and heroine have anything like the same effect on society is being blind to the facts. Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco - and in fact, probably less so. And I'll also say that keeping prisoners in 138 degree heat is probably a bit too far. But that and his clearly unconstitutional patrol practices aside, I do still like the way he runs his prisons. Oh, and, thanks everyone for keeping it RELATIVELY civil. Let's keep it there. No baiting, please. Nuke, everything I have read on any actual statistics refutes this. Plenty of people would be willing to see marijuana decriminalized. It hasn't happened yet because its a divisive issue that will cost money in the short run (though save a TON in the long run), and which makes any lawmaker supporting it look weak on crime. Ive seen polls where allowing medical marijuana garnered some fairly decent support but de-criminalizing all narcotics like LCR was talking about will never fly in this country.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:58 PM) It isn't frivilous. Why would they settle for nearly $9 million with Scott Norberg's family if they were innocent (and there's little proof that a trial would cost that much) In 1996, the state auditor found that Arpaio had misused more than $122,000 of taxpayers' money from the jail-enhancement fund. Arpaio used the money to pay for a private attorney in a constitutionalist lawsuit against the county and for videotapes of his own television appearances, among other things. Since 1996, more than 2,600 lawsuits have been filed against Arpaio, including more than 850 by inmates. Payouts have totaled in excess of $16 million, while more than $35 million in wrongful-termination suits are pending. The death of Scott Norberg, who was choked to death by detention officers, cost the county $1 million in private-attorney fees, plus $8.25 million in settlement costs. In June, an appeals court upheld the payment of $1.5 million to Timothy Griffin, who suffered a ruptured ulcer after being refused treatment by jail medical staff. Also, he's given himself numerous pay raises. In 1996, a Department of Justice investigation found that Maricopa County inmates regularly were subjected to excessive force and received negligent medical care. Arpaio bragged later that he had changed nothing in the jails after the federal probe. Inmates at the Madison Street Jail are often locked up for two or three months before they receive medical screenings. In doing so, the department has been violating a court order from a 1983 lawsuit, which requires that inmates receive a medical screening within 14 days of their arrival at the jail. Deputies and detention officers say that such lax medical screening puts them, as well as other inmates, in danger of contracting diseases, and provides even more fodder for lawsuits. He relies on cheap, tawdry publicity stunts that make for effective TV news sound bites and talking heads blathering material rather than effective crime prevention. As for "real crime" and the respect of laws, numerous times in history people have stood up in opposition of certain laws (the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution and Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the 1950s) that were legal. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then these people should have respected the laws on the books and not gone on marches, freedom rides, sit-ins, etc. I'm not saying you're racist or anything of the such -- I'm simply taking the "We must respect all laws as laws" argument to its extension and application. Quick history of cannabis sativa criminalization: 1930s: Numerous Mexican immigrants are using the product. Xenophobic fears and feelings prompt anti-marijuana legislation in certain states with the very overt idea of attacking Mexicans Hearst newspapers join Harry Anslinger and other major corporations (such as Kimberly Clark, DuPont, etc.) in criminalizing cannabis through Hearst's completely insane, fake news stories. Clark and DuPont didn't like that cannabis sativa plants can create numerous industrial products (oils, paper products, clothing et al.) with easy replenishment -- and it is one of the strongest fabrics on the planet. These companies had timber holdings/plastic interests that would lose money on the free market if they had to face cannabis and hemp on a free market. 1937: Cannabis is criminalized by the US government with such compelling arguments on the floor of Congress such as "it causes people to fall under the influence of listening to jazz" and that "a black man may look at a white woman twice" among other bold faced lies and overtly racist propaganda (i.e. Anslinger believing that marijuana made "darkies" [his word"] feel almost equal to white people) During Nixon's administration, he commissioned a report on the drug war. When the government report said that marijuana prohibition was a low priority goal and not really worth the efforts, he refused to read it and let it sit on his desk. Due to racist propaganda, overly lying and sensationalistic xenophobic newspapers and companies that wanted to short circuit a free market, we have cannabis being prohibited. It's a really glossed over part of our history. I'm certain that if people knew the true facts rather the "This is your brain...This is your brain on drugs" commercials being crammed down their throats, they'd be more in favor of making cannabis and other drugs legal. You and I both know that most Congressmen are owned by special interests and corporate cash rather than facts, logic, reason and their constituency. Plus, the amount of people believing it should be legalized is growing from 15% in 1972 to 41% in 2003. So it isn't a small minority that will always stay that way. It's a growing movement. So tell me........what does his deputies killing a prisoner have to do with austere conditions in prison? Point 2. People who have been most successful at effecting changes in the laws did it by working within the system. Explain to me how going on marches, freedom-rides etc etc is breaking the law when its constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment? Seems to me that you are very bitter about your inability to get high legally. I find your reasoning, blaming racism, corporate interests etc.......etc....... almost as dubious as your assertion that 41% of Americans want to de-criminalize pot.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) i know this is a very pro-israeli news site, but check out the article in regards to this bombing. if anything, it may spark some discussion: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283816,00.html#n There's a lot of speculation involved there but not a lot of evidence. Sounds more to me like Isreal is trying to cover their ass on this one.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) Sweeping KC is a must. ^^^^^^^^^^^ We have to take advantage of the lesser teams just as Detroit and Minny has. If we cant then we may as well start making golf reservations for October.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) Actually Arpaio blows through tons of taxpayer money (lawsuits, having to settle for millions multiple times out of court etc.) so his idea that he is cutting costs is pretty laughable. Not to mention also but the costs (financial, manpower, et al.) are monumental to pay to go after some guy with a bloody nose and some south of the border limpness because he chose to do some blow while watching SNL in the privacy of his own home. Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch? Why should it matter to anybody else if a person decides to use a drug and use it in a responsible fashion without harming anyone else? I'll again forward you the idea of reading "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed" by Judge James Gray (a conservative former Republican who joined the Libertarian party) And taken from the noted socialist, commie loving liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. "Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could." It's not Arpaio who is driving up costs in Maricopa county but leftists like you who disagree with his methods and file frivolus lawsuit after frivolus lawsuit to try to effect change. I want to pay special attention now to this statement of yours. Who are you to decide what "real crime" is and what it is not anyway? The people who decide that are the legislators when they criminalize and de-criminalize behavior as they see fit. You can wrangle about how it should be punished all you want ( I do somewhat agree that a first offense for posession of a small amount of ganja can be handled with a heavy fine ) but you are falling into the typical leftist trap of some laws being more important than others. Respect for the law is what holds our society together. When we as people try to make decisions about which laws are worth following and which aren't then none of them mean anything and anarchy results. If the public wanted Marijuana legalized it would have been done by now. You who favor legalization of narcotics are a tiny minority and always will be.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) Well, that's great to know. And I'm sure you also know that the estate tax doesn't touch any estates valued at under $2 million. I think it's 1.5 million but I could be wrong. Anyway, Im fundamentally opposed to any estate tax of any kind. The people who built their estate did so by working hard and paying taxes on their earnings all through their lives. Why should the government get a second, and much larger, crack at that money just because it's being left to the heirs at the time of death?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) I can live with this bill. I'm just more pissed about the hybridity of so many of these bills out there. It's just disgusting that they put riders in the bill that aren't on topic. It's such a perfect political ploy tool though that I see neither side getting rid of it (i.e. a bill that says "More funding for the troops but we're cutting funding/benefits for civil services" which got through a few years ago -- then when a person votes against the funding cut for civil servants, the other side can say "Well, see they don't support the troops!") I agree with you on this one. How hard is it for Congress to vote on one issue and one issue alone. These riders are how tons and tons of pork get stuffed into everything that makes it through.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) There were a few other administrations with stringent law and order policies making prisons harsh. I saw it on the newsreels during the 1940s/1950s. Unfortunately, I couldn't understand it because the narration was in Russian. The public (people in general) have endorsed numerous asinine things in the past -- so public support is not necessarily a justification that Arpaio's cause is morally correct. To quote the late, great Frank Zappa " The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right." While it is the dream of very "tough on crime" fan, the simple fact remains that not every person in jail is a thug. I'll simply point to the thousands of non-violent drug war "criminals" in jail for simple posession due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Judge James P. Gray wrote a fantastic book called "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" discussing the massive problem of jail overcrowding due to mandatory minimum sentences and over-criminalization of simple posession. Of course, all research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimun sentences. Yet, the true thugs like Arpaio get away with such juvenile, neo-fascist and asinine humiliating tactics. Humiliation is not going to stop recitivism. Rehabilitation efforts can help to stop recitivism. I lost what little respect Arpaio had when I saw him on Penn and Teller's show "bullspiff". During their discussion on the War on Drugs, he had a major league hard-on for wanting to violate the personal freedoms and choices of any person if he didn't like what they were doing. His authority complex is his hammer to which every issue becomes a nail -- at the detriment of sanity, logic, reason, personal freedom, fundamental human dignity and the values that make America great. From Doug Stanhope's 2008 Presidential platform (and who I'm supporting for Prez): You say that just because Arpaio is popular doesn't make him morally right. Well, in the leftist world everything is relative, especially whats morally right, and its a tasty morsel of irony that I get to apply it here to you. Prison should be austere, it should be hard, it should inflict punishment on someone not coddle them under the false pretense of rehabilitation. Measures like making them live outside, eat bologna sandwiches and watch the weather channel accomplish all of that and cut down on costs as well. His methods should serve as a model for all sheriffs to follow in how prisoners are treated. I also had a good chuckle from your last paragraph where you try to equate use of illegal drugs with "personal freedoms". Those are the words of an anarchist and its hardly surprising to hear them coming from you. Just because someone is engaged in illegal activity in the privacy of their own home does not make it any less illegal.

Black Jack McDowell.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) I like how reactionary and knee-jerk you two are. One position on one issue makes me a bleeding-heart liberal. Ok. Try actually formulating arguments based on an issue instead of just labelling people and then going on a ad hominem circle-jerk. I like how self-righteous and full of yourself you are. So typical of those left of center.

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) What I don't understand is why these ACLU people care so much on which way these thugs die. Does it really matter how they die? As far as I am concerned we could still use beheadings. It should be crystal clear to you why they think that way. According to American Criminal Liberties Union, victims of crimes are the perps and the perps are the victims. They will make any excuse, cite any little nonsense from their past or magnify any little small technicality to ensure that vicious criminals are let go to continue their violent activity. QUOTE(minors @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) What really gets me about this argument is the fact when the constitution was written public beheadings was a common practice and hangings were also common, yet none of these founding fathers or any of the early courts had any problem with it. So I guess we understand the constitution better than the people who wrote it No dude........bleeding heart leftists just think they do.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) That pesky constitution keeps getting in the way! If only we could trash that out-dated piece of garbage! Thats kinda funny because when the constitution was written methods of execution included hanging, burning, be-heading and pressing ( usually carried out in public ) ( I guess that wasn't cruel or unusual to the men who wrote that sentence in there was it? ). Unfortunately, leftists like you since then keep on redefining what cruel or unusual is so that now if the handcuffs are on too tight you scream OMG TORTURE!!1!1!!!! and start filing tons of frivolus lawsuits.

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) If that's the worst case that's fine considering they listen to their victims beg for their lives and continue to torcher and kill them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who really gives a damn if someone suffers while they're being executed.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 19, 2006 -> 10:12 PM) Here's my situation; I have great credit No bills (credit wise) No tution payments I mostly use my debit card linked to my checking account when ordering stuff online or making larger purchase I only use my credit card when I know I have the money at the time to make the purchase. I don't care about APR because I always pay on time I don't want an annual fee. I don't want buyer's protection I don't care about the limit because I plan on using it only for gas unless the benefits are much better. I signed up for one that offer 1% back, but when I was authorizing it, the b**** over the phone signed me up for the buy protection, which is 89 cents for every $100 you spend. That completely makes my 1% bonus worthless. I haven't used the card once, and I am ready to cancel it once I get a new one. I picked up a form a my local BP and they are offering:(for the first 60 days) 10% at all BP 4% on eligible travel and dining, 2% on all other eliglbe purchases. After the two months, all those %'s are cut in half. I also get a $40 BP gift card for making a purchas within 3 omnths, and up to another $35 in gift certificates if I spend $1,000 in 3 months. No annual fees too. Does anyone know of any better offers for me? Whatever you do, dont cancel the card. If you cancel a credit card almost as soon as you get it it damages your credit score. Your best bet is to call the company and drop the protection so you can fully take advantage of the rewards program.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 22, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) I didn't even know they used the electric chair still. According to the article there are still 10 states that have it as a method of execution.

That's some GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD stuff right there.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:07 AM) "this douche" = the WSJ??? Cool, now the WSJ is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. It gets better and better. Can we add it to the axis of evil too? I was able to find the article free here. It's listed as "today's free feature" -- hopefully they just mean, from "today's" paper, and continue to have it up. In writing this the author misleads the public. What is not mentioned is the fact that GDP growth was 5.6% in Q1 2006 and is expected to remain strong for the forseeable future. When you have strong economic growth you get greater tax revenues. The author also failed to cite declining unemployment and the few million jobs that have been created since this latest expansion started taking hold in 2002/2003. In spite of all those failings, I wasn't referring to the author as a douche but the class-warfare playing blogger who Balta cited.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 10:42 PM) Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal posted an article which unfortunately is only available to subscribers as far as I can tell, but Here's a summary of the math, albiet from a left-leaning web blog. Anyone who finds the actual article somewhere where it's freely available, I'd love to read it somewhere without subscribing to the Journal. So, the deficit is decreasing, beyond what was projected. How is this happening? Well, it could be happening from additional growth beyond the standard economic predictions, but according to the Journal piece, this is not what happened. What is actually happening is that more and more earnings are being concentrated in the folks who earn the highest wages already. While the median income has stagnated, the upper incomes have continued to soar. This has the odd result of actually producing more tax revenues for the government, because despite Bush's tax cuts, the tax code is still somewhat progressive, and higher wage earners do pay higher taxes. This has the effect of slightly lowering the deficit, despite the fact that the reduction is entirely due to increasing income inequality. Increased economic activity + steady job growth + falling unemployment + rich guys making a bigger killing = more tax dollars. Id leave it to a leftist blogger to play the class warfare card while trying to spin positive news into something negative. Rich guys making more money is part of it but not the entire reason like this douche says.

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) June 8-19, New York Yankees go 3-8 vs. Oakland, Boston, Cleveland, Washington and Philadelphia May 28-June 8, Detroit Tigers go 2-8 vs. Cleveland, NYY, Boston, and Chicago May 29-June 15, Boston Red Sox go 5-10 vs. Toronto, Detroit, NYY, Texas and Minnesota We just got off of a 2-7 stretch against the 3 of the top 5 teams in baseball. Thank god this stretch is over, because it was seriously a nightmare. Remember, we had a 1-8 stretch of similar baseball against the contenders in the middle of last august. Here are the facts: All four of the best AL teams have serious weaknesses, even in their pitching staffs. All four of the best AL teams have some holes in their lineups. All four of the best AL teams have 1 or 2 shaky bullpen arms. All four teams are really close, and over some stretches, some are going to look better than others. Now, the issues that need to be resolved: 1) Widger, DFA now. We all know this, obviously. Anyone would be better. 2) We apparently need a leadoff hitter who can play left field. Seriously, I think this cannot be stressed enough. Podsednik is going south in a hurry and he's adding very little to the team, and Ozuna's value has just about peaked out. 3) We need to run Vazquez out of town and start McCarthy. If we do those three things, I really think the rest of the problems will take care of themselves. Let all the negativity mongers jump off a building if they want to.......maybe then they'll shut the fish up. EDIT: Swear Filter?!

LOS with what is surely the post of the month right here.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 19, 2006 -> 08:40 AM) I guess I have a few hours to sweep the ledge before you guys get back on tonight. Thats pure gold right there!!!!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 19, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) I'll comment on two of those... 1. Never underestimate the ability of the Memphis Ford clan to win office. They are very powerful down there. Heck, some of them get elected to various offices despite a wide array of blatant, well-publicized scandals. And Harold Jr. is much more well-spoken and respected than most of that family. 2. I think the Dems have a CHANCE of winning the Senate, yes. But its close enough that I'd say we won't have a good idea until just before election time, because I have a strong feeling that things will happen in September and/or October that change the landscape. Either the GOP machine will create a few major issues, or some world event(s) will change American attitudes. Could go either way. But I will say that, more than likely, both houses will be very close to even-split when its all over. I think if the Dems have a chance to win anything this time around it's the house. Its REALLY hard to overcome a 10 seat deficit in the Senate in one sitting.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 11:32 PM) Look at all the f***ing supporters. Someone please bump the I hate Garland threads. No need to bump any threads for anyone to know I ripped Garland a new one all the time early on. Im just glad he seems to be getting his act together and returning to his 2005 self again.