kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) What part of the Cairo speech? Where he admitted that the US overthrew their government? That wasn't a secret. Of course not. I'm trying to do too much crap at once. Upgrade talkbears/bulls, get the new server, read StrangeSox Roberts debacle, and this. Did I say something?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) Alaska doesn't have any prisoner access laws, that's what the issue is here. They can simply say "Sorry, we're not letting you have access to the evidence in order to retest. Enjoy your life sentence." And now the SCOTUS has said the same. Gotcha. Now I can re-read this stuff with that point of view and see if I can make any sense of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) From what I understand, since the trial, a new DNA test has been developed. The guy convicted of the crime wants to do this test and his defense will pay for it, but the state is refusing to give him access to the DNA evidence he needs. Essentially, he will get no review--he will not be allowed to test the evidence via a new method to possibly exonerate himself even if its at his own expense. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:13 PM) Aside from the actual constitutional issue, it appears that Roberts' opinion is just pretty illogical anyway. So, even if he made the right decision, it was for the wrong reasons. I'm really confused by this. They have a program down here in Dallas County where there's been about 30 guys get out of jail after DNA tests. I don't understand why they refuse the tests. I do think that it's hard to overturn an original conviction based on evidence and what not - but at the same time - I do agree that if a test can be asked for and the additional evidence is there, they should get it. I guess I don't understand what I'm missing here.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) He hasn't put his foot in his mouth any more than he meant to. His strategy is pretty calculated and deliberate. And he's already basically said the part you said you'd have no problem with. What these people are advocating basically amounts to taking sides which would be a disaster. He set the stage of this with the Cairo speech. That's where he put his foot in his mouth. He can't say much now because of that speech.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) I haven't read other than what StrangeSox posted, but it sounds like he's talking about in cases where DNA evidence is available. If that is the case, then it makes no sense to allow the review. If the conviction was correct, it will theoretically be upheld by DNA evidence... right? So where's the problem, what's Roberts talking about here? That's where I'm hung up at too. I heard about this but I don't know the details. That's why I'm asking.

The problem is Obama's already put his foot in his mouth, which has forced this to become what it is. I know, I know, there's no way in hell that his supporters will see it that way. I see absoluting nothing wrong with a statement that supports the "voters", no more, no less (definitely no more - I get that side of it but saying nothing is speaking very loudly, IMO). But whatever, I guess that doesn't matter after 30 years of telling them we'd be there for them if they ever got their voice heard. New day, new policy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit: In the very first sentence of his holding he admits that DNA testing can conclusively prove guilt or innocence in many cases. That will be important to remember a little later. But how about the blatantly dishonest statement of the legal issues at stake? No one is suggesting that "every criminal conviction is suddenly in doubt" or that providing due process in cases where DNA evidence is available requires "overthrowing the established criminal justice system." He is plainly erecting a straw man to knock down, something routine in chatroom debates but far beneath a Supreme Court justice. And it only gets worse: So they admit that he has a liberty interest in accessing the evidence - obviously, for crying out loud, since his very liberty is at stake. But somehow that stake is diminished in Roberts' mind once the trial takes place, even after admitting earlier that the DNA evidence could prove him innocent. This is an absolutely bizarre bit of thinking. The majority of the court seems to think that due process is somehow entirely separate from questions of guilt or innocence. But that is not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. We guarantee due process not only as a matter of principle but also for the purely pragmatic reason that it helps lead to the truth. If the point of the criminal justice system is not to distinguish guilt or innocence as accurately as humanly possible, then it's time to scrap the entire system. A rather ironic statement in a case where the plaintiff is being denied access to evidence for DNA testing, don't you think? "The system works perfectly, it allows access to DNA evidence. And the fact that it denied access to this man has no bearing on the validity of that previous statement." This is absolutely ludicrous reasoning. But perhaps worst of all: Of course there's no long history of a right to access DNA evidence for testing. You know why? Because we've only had DNA testing for a couple of decades. Most Supreme Court rulings have at least minimally plausible arguments on both sides. The cases that reach the court have vexed the lower courts and are typically close calls. This one is not. This one is nothing short of vile and disgusting. Innocent people will die as a result of it. And none of the five justices who signed on to the majority opinion could possibly care any less. Shame on them. The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) And that half was devoted for a time to protecting Mark Foley's right to "Talk to" the White House pages. So now we're down to 1/2 of the 1/2 of the 1/2. Yet, that's still better then Pelosi. I'm sorry. She's just a dumb, pathetic (aww hell I have to censor myself). ETA: And I didn't like him, either.

LMAO. That's hilarious.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Although I can't say I didn't 100% expect it to happen, I hate how the Democrats in the House are basically doing whatever they think Obama wants them to do when they criticized Republicans for doing the same thing and they said they wouldn't be like that. Pelosi = Hastert. Pelosi's way worse. At least Hastert had 1/2 a brain and used 1/2 of the 1/2.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) The paypal account idea is great. I'd be willing to give the site some money, and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well. With the amount of members here, I'm sure you could get a good deal of money together pretty quickly. Also, can we make this outage happen over a weekend? If I'm going to have to be without the site for two full work days, it'll be the longest two days of my life. Actually, PRELIMINARILY... I'm trying for Monday because the Sox have an off day. But I haven't gotten a couple of things lined up yet that I need to for that to happen. I'm working on it... and I hope to not be down that long.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 08:28 AM) Couple things: - Ever think of a way to set up a paypal to accept donations to the site? - Don't know where else to put it but I know you guys know Future Sox doesn't work with Firefox, but it doesn't work with Chrome either. (Just pointing it out) I'm pretty sure it's the same issue and when we switch servers this issue should be taken care of.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 01:30 AM) The neighbor kid thought it'd be a good idea to give a chocolate chip cookie to a puppy. Needless to say, i'm takin care of a puking puppy. Which might not be a bad thing. Dogs can't digest chocolate...

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 11:27 PM) No, that is one group that truely doesn't look at the letter in front of the person before they open mouth and insert foot. I know. I was just poking fun at it. It's hilarious actually.

How long will it take for Torchetti to follow?

*yawn*

That's quite ridiculous. The "conservatives" must be running PETA now.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 06:15 PM) I'm looking forward to it, bring back the SEARCH! I hope this can be done - between the new database software, the forum upgrade, and more RAM, it might be possible. Keep your fingers crossed. The database software that we're currently on is the biggest hindrance, I think. I really hope that this works.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 06:59 PM) The witnesses would be subpoenaed, the witness would refuse to appear, the Congress would repeatedly send sternly worded letters to said witnesses, and that's as far as it would go. Seriously, this is the problem with the government we have now, regardless of party. Everyone's power tripping and playing games rather then actually looking out for all of us. I hate it. You are dead on with this post and it just makes me really sad, Republican or Democrat.

Thank goodness our rotation is at least solid. It's something you can build around - it's harder to retool that then a lineup... at least over time.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) The Sox are sellers. If we win and move onto the playoffs it will be because our young players play good. The team isn't going to win the world series and we'll be contenders as long as our starters pitch decently but that doesn't mean we should pretend and make short sighted moves. Kenny needs to be smart and now is the time to move some guys and get our youngsters some experience and who knows we'll still be able to compete and maybe make the playoffs and in that case, it'll be great experience for our youngsters. I think the staff knows that they're heading this direction, which is why you're seeing Beckham now. They're threading "we can win now" with "kids of the future" without saying "we're rebuilding". I will say this, though. Some of the mediocre players on this roster need to get s***canned so some kids can come up and learn. I think people are a lot more tolerable of kids making mistakes then a career .207 hitter playing CF, if you catch my drift.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) What is the current situation? 1 out runners on first and second....

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) There should absolutely be an investigation into this firing assuming that Obama did not properly follow protocol on the firing of the inspector general. That being said, Glenn Beck has no business giving anyone a sanity test. Like they are going to investigate anything. What a joke. Now if this were a Republican on the other hand...

We have fish, 2 cats, and one dog. We rescued our dog from the shelter - had him home for one day and discovered he had Parvo. So the shelter said they would take him back but they would put him down - we said no way. Had to spend a lot of money at the vets, but 4.5 years later he is the best dog... he's around toddlers and babies and he adores them - very gentle nature, but very active at the same time. He's a Heeler/Akita mix, beautiful dog. And a few assorted creepy crawlers who like to think they're pets in our house.