NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 09:43 PM) If they're found guilty, I'll cheer. In the initial post-9/11 roundups, using the PATRIOT Act, they rounded up 5,000 people and convicted 1 (which was later overturned on appeal) So the number of terrorists caught with the PATRIOT Act remains at zero. With the specter of preventative detentions of people without charges and the 0 fer put up with the PATRIOT Act, I'm skeptical until there's a conviction reached and have healthy reason to be. Not only that but it's the good old American tradition of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. Here you go again cherry picking and zeroing in on one detail and even then you leave out most of the facts. Most, if not all of those people, were detained as "material witnesses" which means they were not criminals per se but had knowlege of criminal activity and were taken in for questioning and later released. Truth is that nobody, especially you, knows how many potential terrorist acts were thwarted using the Patriot Act, nor will we ever. The law is a useful tool for law enforcement to keep tabs on and track terrorist activity. This, for the slow among us, is to prevent attacks from ever getting out of the planning stage. Once again, you think that nobody's guilty until they light the fuse and even then they are just oppressed Muslims expressing rage at evil, racist, oppressing America. :rolly

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Terrorists like Rush Limbaugh? The ACLU fights to protect the rights of Americans. You may think your rights are worthless, but plenty of us in this country disagree. People's rights are not worthless. People who abuse the legal system to try to free criminals, embolden child molestors, keep law enforcement away from terrorists and take away people's right to free expression of religon ARE.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) I find it sad that people like you feel no sense of justice or optimism when terror suspects are caught red-handed by the FBI pledging allegiance to al Qaeda, declaring jihad on America, and requesting weapons and money to carry out attacks on major commerical and government centers in our country. :headshake Last time I checked, conspiracy to levy war against the United States is a pretty serious crime. :rolly Oh that's nothing. They're just oppressed Muslims looking to vent their anger at the evil, unjust, immoral, racist United States government. Now conducting wiretaps on terrorists? THATS A CRIME!!!! STOP EVIL BUSH!!!!! :rolly

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 05:42 PM) What happened to the 'they're all criminals so let's make sure they get sodomized before we put them in the chair with a high voltage electric switch attached to their penis' Nuke that we all know and love? Damn, that's harsh! LOL! High voltage electricity is so 1930's anyway. Caning someone with a bamboo pole while they are forced to listen to Enya? Now THATS my style!

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) Im not a law student, please dont disrespect me again. And states do have limitations on their power. I do not think a state could make a law that would deprive a fundemental right, or do something that would be at a strict scrutiny level at the federal level. I do think that states should have great leniance in laws that would only need rational basis on the federal level. Also if they were not prosecuting marijuana they would have more people to prosecute the harder drugs. Not to mention, the most effective tool against drugs is education. When people saw the effects of crack, many of them no longer wanted to do it. It was no longer glamorious. People make good decisions, they dont need the govt to hold their hand. No disrespect intended. I agree with your last paragraph as long as it's in the context of levying harsh fines against those who guilty of posessing small amounts of marijuana.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) Your right, one day I will get my states rights battle on marijuana. Daley already wants to make it no more than a fine. When the day comes, which side will you be on, states rights or federal rights? And I dont get what your point is. So what that it is illegal right now, that does not mean people should just stop talking about the reasons why it should be legal. That seems to be the whole point of the message board, to get your viewpoint across. If you want to have the viewpoint that marijuana should be illegal just because the govt says so, that is your opinion. But for most people that is not enough, they want reasons. I actually agree with Daley that those caught posessing a small amount of Marijuana should recieve a fine ( a really high one to be sure ) but jail time should be reserved for those with 3+ arrests. Those caught dealing the stuff should be the ones receiving automatic jail time. I never said that Marijuana should be illegal "just because" either. My argument against legalizing marijuana is that it initiates a slippery slope. You and other legalization proponents have decided that it's not worth prosecuting because we can never stop it all. Once again......you could apply the same logic to other illicit narcotics and with a precedent in place those who favor legalizing other drugs would have an actual leg to stand on. I think the state's rights argument is funny also because the last time "states rights" was a buzzword was in the 1960's when Southern states argued against civil rights legislation. ( Which side were you on with regards to that issue?? ). It's very dangerous when states decide what laws they are going to obey and what laws they are not. You of all people, as a law student, should be aware of this.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Nuke, There is no slippery slope. The drugs you compared it to: Meth, heroin, and cocaine, are all much different than marijuana. First, every drug that you mentioned on that list can kill a person on their first try. This is a very important part of drug legislation, as the entire purpose is that the govt is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves. When a drug can kill you because of an overdose, that drug is much more dangerous. You can simply not overdose on marijuana, it is physical impossible. That right off the bat makes marijuana far different from the substnaces you listed. Second, addictive qualities. Unlike the drugs you listed, marijuana is not known to have any physically addictive qualities. Even compared to nicotine, the stopping marijuana has almost no impact on the person. There is pyschological addiction, even if it can not be proved well. But at the same time I have been pyschologically addicted to video games, and they are readily available. Three, drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana are given out by doctors every day. Morphiine, yes. Oxycoton, yes. But marijuana, some times the only thing that will make these people feel better can not be given, because the US govt says so. There is just no policy rationale, and this relates back to the argument of why marijuana should be legalized in general. Fourth, this is not going to happen over night. I do not really give much credit to the slippery slope, because tobacco and alcohol are already legal. No one is seriosly considering making crack, meth, herion, or coke legal, society can draw the line on what is to harmful and what is not. Those senators and representatives are no better or worse than you or I, but I have seen with my own eyes what alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana can do. And I can say with absolute certainty that marijuana is at worst, just as bad as the other two. The govt should not get to make rules just because, there should be reasons, otherwise people should have the freedom to do it. Bottom line is that marijuana use is against the law and nobody, not even certain states with a radical hair up their ass, get to decide what laws they can and can't obey. If you are unhappy with the laws that are on the books then use the system to change them. Vote for people who agree with your viewpoint and maybe changes will get made that suit you. The way the electorate has been voting recently that does not appear likely.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) Nuke, I'm just a fan of the American presumption of innocence before guilt being proven. Plus, when the government is 0 for 5,000 in actually convicting anybody -- I'm gonna hedge my bets here. Richard Reid? There goes your o-fer And thats without any research at all.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) Like I said, we can only really compare teams to the others within their own league and since the NL East is about equal to if not better than the other divisions in the National League, it's not fair to say the Mets are feasting off a weak division. Both of us are now splitting hairs about how weak the NL East is. Like I said in an earlier post the whole NL is weak this season and thats because the talent level is nowhere near that of the AL. The real crux of my argument all this time is that the Mets, while they have a good record and are on top of their division, simply can't hang with the big dogs in the AL and as such dont belong, IMHO, anywhere in the top 5 of any MLB wide power rankings.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) We're going to have trouble beating Oswalt. Last time I heard that was in October of last year. We made out alright. RIP EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ESPN does annoy me sometimes but they aren't quite as terrible as people ( including myself sometimes ) make them out to be. That being said I think the coverage of the return of Clemens is a bit overdone.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) Actually that's what makes it an inaccurate one. You specifically called out the NL East saying; "the Mets play in a weak division where their nearest competitor is barely at .500" at this currently point in the season we can only compare teams and divisions to their competition within thier own league, the NL East is no weaker than the NL Central or West. Just because the other divisions are also weak doesn't make the NL East any less weak now does it?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) I think we might all be a little more enlightened if you told us what exactly you were talking about. Was there a specific article that rankled you in some way? A specific action? He's no doubt talking about the classified wiretapping program. If that's the case I agree. The conduct of this newspaper is nothing short of treason.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) There shouldn't even be a slippery slope in this discussion. It is put there through artifice. Legalization of recreational marijuana (or any other drug) is a matter unto itself. If a medical profession sees marajuana as the appropriate indicated treatment for a given condition, he should be allowed to prescribe that as a controlled therapeutent just like he would prescribe any other chemotherapeutic. The fact that recreational pot use exists has no more bearing on whether it is effective when taken as indicated for medicinal use than the fact that people recreationally abuse pain pills and other prescription drugs. Jim. You're taking me a bit out of context there. My slippery slope argument was in response to SoxBadgers "legalize and tax" strategy. That also went for LCR's thing about making pot use legal because having it against the law "violates peoples privacy".

Looks like it was some good ol fashioned HUMINT that helped collar these guys. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/23/miami.raids/index.html

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) You made a completely ignorant statement and I corrected you, I'm not sure what the problem is. The problem is that they indeed DO play in a weak division. They play weak teams ........ they get wins. Im not saying that the Mets are not a good team but they are not nearly as good as ESPN and their cronies are making them out to be. You can call my statement ignorant if you want to but a look at the standings makes it an accurate one.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) You can say that for every division leader in the NL, if you combine the records of all non-first place teams in the NL who are currently above .500 you get a record 8 games over the break even mark, the division they're in has nothing to do with it. Lets expand that then. The whole NL is weak and they, for the time being, happen to be the tallest midget of the bunch. Does that work for ya?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) Hmmm. This kind of sounds to me that our people were right on top of things and nipped it in the bud before the plan had time to germinate. Someone's doing a damn good job. DING! Someone gets it. Of course you have leftists like LCR who assume that someone is harmless until he lights the fuse and the building comes crashing down. Even then he'd probably be looking over his notes and scanning his websites looking for some imaginative way of saying the terrorists are innocent. That and the attacks are really our own fault for oppressing Muslims ( He sounds a lot like Bin Laden and Zawahiri when he talks like that too ). QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 12:01 PM) By all means, it's a positive, but I believe my objection came in saying, "OUR WIRETAPPING AND PATRIOT ACT DID THIS!" when there are so many other likelier possibilities. I didn't say that our people weren't right on top of things, and I'm glad we stopped the plan in its baby stages, but I'd point out that, with the nature of al-Qaeda, stopping something in its baby stages doesn't mean you've accomplished much as they are the types who change plans often, especially in the baby stages. But, as I just said, I believe my objections in this post came to people calling out the PATACT and Wiretaps as the reason for such an arrest. I didn't give credit to wiretapping and the Patriot Act for this bust. All I did was to invite people to speculate about whether they were a factor or not.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) So, Nuke. If you're for the free market then you should support this. If you're against government intrusion into peoples' lives and in the medical profession, you should support this. So now it's racists and corporate tyrants who are to blame for your inability to toke up huh? Im against government intrusion into people's lives but not when that means allowing them to use illegal narcotics. By your twisted logic I could make the case that not allowing people to do coke, heroin, meth and crack is intruding on their lives also. Where does this nonsense end? Like I said before. There's plenty of legal prescription drugs available for people to use. There is no need for us to legalize banned substances just so some jackass can get high. QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) Lowercase, Thats basically the history as I know it as well. A few very rich and powerful people got together to make a plant illegal. Unlike cocaine, poppy, or other plants that require synthetic processes, marijuana can be grown and basically smoked as is. Santo, In part that is one of the reasons for the continued illegality, but it is some what poor economic reasoning. The basis of our economy is supply and demand. Right now the supply for marijuana is basically consistent, while the demand is always increasing. Unlike normal economic models, increasing supply does not work as well because marijuana is a black market substance. Therefore instead of increasing supply to meet demand, there is an increase in price. A marijuana plant which may cost less than $5 to grow, can reap thousands of dollars of marijuana. The govt could make money, because right now the black market price is so high that if it was legitimized, supply would increase drastically destroying the black market. There would be no need to go to a dealer, when you could just go down to the store and buy a pack of joints. The govt could put excessive taxes on it, and it would never reach the prices of the current drug scene. Also while marijuana is easy to grow, it is time consuming. The period from germination to blooming, is at minimum 2-3 months, and then there is the time required to let it dry, etc. So most people are not going to want to start growing their weed crop in May, only to get their first results in August. Not to mention once it becomes legal, the supply will flood the market place, making it not worth most people's time to grow their own. Most people do not grow their own produce for the very same reason, the amount of time and effort that it takes to grow the product is not worth the money it costs to buy it. And we are not even getting into the more complicated aspects of growing, weeding out the males to prevent seeds, only harvesting females the plant with the stronger potency, breeding methods to create even more potent strains, and the list goes on. You can buy a home beer brewer out of a magazine, but it does not make it worth while. If marijuana was ever legalized the govt would see a windfall profit. First, think of all the expenses that it will no longer have. It no longer will have to pay for marijuana felons in jail, wont have to pay extra police, dea to capture and track, less court time, etc. Then think of all the added revenue, the drug trade is a billion dollar a year industry, and right now the US govt sees $0. Should marijuana be legalized the revenue stream would be equal to or surpass that of tobacco and alcohol, and that is billions of tax dollars uncollected each year. If Reagan had not beaten Carter, it is likely that marijuana would have been legalized. Nothing against Reagan as he was one of my favorite presidents, but the man had been fighting hippies since the 60's in Cali. It was pretty predictable that he would be the President to bring "Just say No" and bring the war on drugs back into the public. Same logic applies to you. You could make this exact same argument, only substitute meth, heroin or cocaine in there. Where does this slippery slope you want to put us all on end?

Lets not forget that the Mets play in a weak division where their nearest competitor is barely at .500.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 11:25 PM) If we toppled governments for the sake of the people living in that country or this country, we'd have to topple half our allies. The problem is that we let North Korea go nuclear, and its now in our own self-interest to see any power transition happen in a stable environment. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton Administration pussyfooted around the issue of N. Korea and entered into a treaty with them in 1994 which they had absolutely no intention of honoring. If we do the same thing with Iran then they will get nukes and there goes the neighborhood. In other news......... http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/23/navy.ustest/index.html Does recent events on the Korean Peninsula change anyones mind about missile defense who disagree with the concept? It should.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 02:03 AM) I am sure you are dissapointed and that is all I will say. shameful handling??? we caught Saddam, killed Al-Zarqawi, have Osama rendered useless in hiding, brought Al-Qaeda to near complete distruction and stopped many attacks from happening here on the homeland. If Gore or Kerry would have been president we would have withdrawn on the war on terror, Al-Zarqawi still live and who know how many attacks on the homeland. I guess for people who expected a painless easy war we could have taken a couple nuke's over the terrorist countries and then we could have had the easy victory. I shudder to think at the damage a pussy like Al Gore or John Kerry would have allowed to be inflicted on this country. Pussies like that want to sing songs and "give peace a chance" while Islamo-fascist terrorists plot and execute attacks on our country.

That's just f***ing disgusting. Another example of this country bending over into every contorted position to accomodate a bunch of foreginers who cant/wont learn our language ( 50 bucks says most of those people are illegals ). :headshake

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 01:49 AM) I just wanted to take the posting today and compare: Nuke posted about the Sears Tower stopping a terrorist attack, which of course is good FBI brings down the Terrorist cell planning that attack And proof of WMD in Iraq Now to the liberal posts: Iraq in miserable state Minimum wage defeated And Republicans refuse to account for tax dollars I just wonder why the liberals always have to post the bad news, why are the always focusing on the bad if this country is in such bad shape why do 71% love this country. This is not meant to be cynical I would just like an honest answer. SHOCKING!!!

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) have no fear they will spin him to look like a golden god. f*** ESPN Of course they did. They spent like 12 of the first 15 minutes of SportsCenter blabbering and drooling over Clemens. :headshake