kapkomet

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:53 PM) Actually, I am not 100% sure that the support would be there. Americans are spooked - partly due to reality, and partly due to the fear tactics the current Presidential administration used during their reelection bid. And there is a chance (and not a small one) that if the Dems tried to make it that big an issue, it would backfire, with them looking like they are giving in to terrorism. Right now, the Dems see themselves getting Congress back (or narrowing the gap quite a bit anyway) in the November elections. Momentum seems in their favor. They have decided to wait this out until then, for two reasons. One, why mess with the current situation, when they are looking likely to gain seats? Two, if they have more seats, this sort of thing will have more traction. You see, they are dumb... but they are not so dumb. Running around accusing the president of "breaking the law" and then not doing anything about it, terror or not, will make them LOSE in the long run. They're fooling themselves if they think they can "win back" votes by being blowhards. It's not worked for 12 years.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:43 PM) They won't. They fear losing (as the minority in Congress), and worse, as I said, they fear looking soft on terror. It's a shame for them, because I think it would make them look strong, not weak. But they are not willing to make that leap right now. Again, if the President committed an 'impeachable offense' the Democrats would garner support from the American people. I really believe that. And they need to stop politicizing it and bring it to the front burner in a way besides a bunch of verbal diarreah, I mean, rhetoric.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:32 PM) They could introduce articles of impeachment. Oh wait, they've tried before and they weren't honored. They could try to hold hearings, but the rules prevent them from being entered into the Congressional record. They could ask the administration to answer questions but they have and the administration has refused. They could demand investigations from the full Congress, but those get rejected too. They could command a secret session of the Senate to get information from the NSA on this program... but that's an extraordinary step taken only when every recourse is taken because it essentially shuts the government down for a day. So short of that, I don't know what they can do. Then if they think that the law was broken that bad, they damn well better grow a pair and do it. Otherwise, STFU. And guess what? If the law was broken that bad, and they get that information to bring to be American people, something will get done.

I had a 1996 Baretta - transmission went with 80K miles on it in 2001, bought an Alero. The same damn signs on the transmission started with 67K miles on it... so I got rid of it 4 months ago and decided to go with Toyota. I REALLY didn't want to do that, but based on every consumer report out there, the new Camry designs were the way to go... the car rides WAAAAAAAY better then either of the two GM's I had, but yea, I know, different style of car.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Great Lakes Credit Union (or something like that). We got a rate on my wife's loans that is around 2.75%, and will go down to 1.75% after two years of on-time payments. Plus they do auto-debit monthly if you want it. I can't seem to find their web address - I'll update this post tonight with it. I know it's a private lender and all, but you won't have interest rates that cheap for very long. They will become fixed.

Wow. It's been 20 years since the Challenger tragedy. Time flies. Remembering the crew of the Challenger.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) I like what you've done with the whole Filibuster idea but sadly to say I have no time to devote to this. :cry: Are you open to suggestions? I so wanted to respond to the arts debate but that was a closed debate. Could we create open offshoots from those threads? I wanted to challenge FlaSoxxJim with recent developments of private funding, sponsorship, & investment in the traditional arts (opera, dance, orchestra's, parade bands, etc.) as well as the more controversial & alternative arts. I likewise wanted to challenge the need to support an art student who feels a need to produce controversial & offensive art pcs backed by federal dollars when there are aspiring art students in need of those dollars for using their talent in a productive & non-offensive way. And finally I wanted to challenge FSJ with the simple fact that CGI as changed the way the world views visual art altogether. It's no longer a hobby. When you measure it's impact on Hollywood & the gaming industry it's an industry that approaches nearly 100 Billion a year in sales revenue. With so much of the private sector behind the visual arts sector these days there does seem much reason to throw federal support behind fringe elements that show no promise of adding to the GDP with their talents. There is a debate offshoot thread.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:03 PM) DIVERSIFY DIVERSIFY DIVERSIFY!!!! Thats the only free lunch thats out there. If you park all your savings in one company like all those Enron people did then you're really asking for it. I have my cash split up between 4 mutual funds ranging from a mixed equity/income to Large, Mid and Small cap funds. Nuke, that's today. You're smart enough to know that today. The people from 20 years ago didn't have those options.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats. We've slid off into the partisan BS again. And it's YOUR OPINION that it's illegal. WE DO NOT KNOW all of the facts. I'm not blaming the Democrats, but if it *IS* illegal, then they can do some things that they are not doing besides standing up in SCOTUS hearings screaming bloody murder. This schtick "The Dems are powerless"... isn't exactly true.

:o This was a big debate when I went back home. Everyone in town is afraid that GM is going to declare bankruptcy to shed the pensions, etc. A lot of those people in Marion's stamping plant are very close to retirement age. If they all lose their pensions, WOW. They just worked 30+ years for NOTHING. With these kind of #'s, it's even more of a concern. Some people were of the opinion that the government wouldn't let GM declare bankruptcy because all the suppliers, etc that would get screwed over would cause a HUGE ripple effect in the economy. Being that most of the midwest is some sort of supplier to GM, etc. somehow, it would definitely send shockwaves into the economy.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Exactly. I also want to know if any of the Democrats that are accusing Bush of breaking the law have stepped up to podium and said "Let's get this stopped!" ... Don't try and tell me their hands are tied. They're not. There is no way in hell that if the president is in violation of the constitution that John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or whoever could not do something about it. Bring the ACTUAL CASE to the American people, let's not spew the rhetoric. So far, I've seen nothing that can rise to the level that he's "broke the law" other then a bunch of speculation as to what people THINK the program is doing.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) That may be true. The US also armed/funded Taliban fighters in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians. Same for arming Iraq when they were fightring Iran. Stuff happens, I guess. I don't bank on this, but I hope now that Hamas has 'real power' (whatever that means in Palestine) they will renounce the old and actually negotiate. Time will tell.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) YAS and Kap, I don't know that anybody is intentionally avoiding your questions as to what is going to happen to address it because I don't think anybody knows. Here's my understanding of it, and I welcome corrections, clarifications, and additions. The Dem informal hearings on Friday were useful because they got a number of constitutional scholars to voice their opinions and got congresspersons and citizens to be able to voice opinions as well. As has been pointed out, not of that is entered into the Congressional record so that certainly tempers its political value. February 6th is when the Senate hearings on the matter are supposed to begin. Although it has strong bipartisan support, the administration, the NSA, and Justice have indicated they do not plan on being particularly helpful. The NSA has gone so far as to threaten Russell Tice over testifying, saying the full Congress does not have security clearance enough to hear what he has to say about the NSA (not necessarily exlusively about the domestic spying issue which he did not work directly on). The big concern, of course, is that Specter is going to go through the motions, but will not really look to get to the bottom of any of it. As has been lamented here before, until the Dems have a majority somewhere so that they have sobpoena powers, they are dependent on the GOP majority to do the right thing and take the hearings seriously and then call for a full investigation if the findings of the hearing warrant it. For all my points about this program, it's a troubling issue. I just keep throwing out there that we don't know all the facts, and we should watch our conclusions. I will also say that I'm troubled by token gestures by Specter. If you're going to get an answer, GET AN ANSWER, let's not play games. I want to know the right answer here, not guess on a bunch of rhetoric and speculation.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Since it's become apparent that some of us think Bush is in violation of the law, and others diagree and those opinions are not going to change based on what we now right now, let me ask this question. Are any of the Democratic leaders do anything to stop this? If so, who's doing it and what are they doing? I've asked that three times or commented about it in this thread. No one wants to answer that. All I hear is this flame-throwing rhetoric, yet it's not being stopped, nor has it been asked to be stopped. Look, the president may very well be wrong in this case. Or, he may not be. As *ALL* the facts come out, that will become clearer. But many have formed opinions already based on what they THINK the laws are, etc.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 10:51 PM) It includes LEGAL intercepts, using the current system in place for such. This says they will support and fund the executive in the LEGAL use of all resources. That "LEGAL" part is implicit in all directives from the legislative branch by law and necessity. Seriously. The FISA provides a judge 24/7 for warrants, grants them 99.9% of the time, and if all that isn't good enough, they even allow for you to get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the fact. And you all keep using "legal" as the basis of the argument, when you don't know for sure what's "legal". It's faulty logic.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) There's the text of the law. Now the question that nobody seems capable of answering. Why is it necessary or appropriate to bypass a FISA court warrant when in the 28 year history of FISA, fewer than .1% of warrant requests have been rejected? When FISA really was a formality to the process (a step that really isn't needed in the first place). I think if the FISA court was taken to the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds, it would get dismantled. It's a nice thing to have, and it's a 'good thing' if you're trying to protect 'freedoms' (which again IMO is lost when you start talking to dirtbags anyway), but it's not necessary. The law passed by Congress is pretty clear, IMO. EXTREMELY CLEAR. I think that captures communications intercepts.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:23 PM) You guys are dead wrong. I fully understand its a business, but both parties screwed the pooch on this deal. First off Peja was informed via the media. Not classy or cool. I realize you have to get a deal done but when a player has demanded a trade typically they get say. Thats just the way it is. Personally I'd be all for suspending Artest without pay and all that, if he did something wrong this year. He didn't. The Pacers jumped the gun. You still have the right and obligations to communicate with an agent and give them some info (not when a name initially comes up) but its part of what makes a GM classy and well liked and another not. If you are honest with your players, you'll find out that you'll get more players interested in joining the organization. Why do you think no one wanted to come to the Bulls when Krause was here near the end. That and Jordan bad-mouthing us (freaking prick). Artest has a lot wrong with him, but just like the TO thing, the final straw was really weak. What TO said to finally get his ass kicked off the team was nothing, imo. You're wrong. As has been said, until he's a free agent, he has no say, period. For his f'in agent to pull the crap he did (leak it to the media to say Artest wanted to meet the Kings ownership first before he'd accept a trade) was CRAP.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:32 PM) IMO it holds water completely. We have to declare war in order for the President to receive war powers. Period. There is no if, and or but about it. By your explanation, you're arguing that LBJ had the inherent authority to wiretap to fight his war on poverty. Congress authorized him to use military action (in the war on terror). NSA is a part of the military.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:12 PM) And further to sit there and assume that terrorists would have no idea that they might be being wiretapped would be as silly as to assume that terrorism doesn't exist. They know. That's why they switch cell phones like we switch underwear. But if we intercept, good for us.

Well, it was going to happen. Frank deserves one more shot.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) When did the President ask for the legal authority of war? Oh wait, he didn't. Saying you're in a war and formally declaring a war are two very different things. You keep going back to that... and IMO it doesn't hold water. How can you 'declare war' on fundalmentalism and not a sovereign (sp.) nation? 'By all use of military' on both the Afghanistan and Iraq laws passed by Congress gives the president authority to act on any information he deems credible gained by the NSA (a military institution).

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 07:53 PM) Now, if only we had some mechanism in place by which warrants could be obtained so that such intercepts could occur legally and with judicial oversight. . . No, wait, we had that already. And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war? Oh wait, they don't. FISA didn't matter. And that's the point.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 07:31 PM) Please re-read my post. There is a war in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. One could also argue there is a "war" on terror globally, though I don't think its a war at all. It has all the hallmarks of a global law enforcement effort, in reality - much less so than a war. But even if it is, there is no war in any legal sense on US soil. That's what I said - no war on US soil. I edited my post. If there are terror cells in communications with folks here in America, then they (US people) deserve to be intercepted.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) But, he said his team was just a good as the Sox. Yea, again, that's why he's in Japan. Idiot.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 07:20 PM) That is false. War or not, declared or not, all branches must follow all existing laws in their conduct. War does not except from this. And there is no "battlefield" in the US. The President would like to create that mentality in the public, it's just not reality. No force has invaded us. No foreign army is on our soil. 9/11 was a terrorist act. If the President can say anytime a foreigner kills a US resident that we are at war, on our soil, then we are in deep s**t. That would mean that at pretty much ANY given time, the executive branch could apply battlefield rules like martial law and the redaction of due legal process whenever it chooses. That's not a slippery slope - it's a cliff wall. And regarding your last pararaph, if you all remember, Kerry was burned at the stake by the GOP and even some Dems for voting against a funding package to make a point about the poorly-conducted war. There is a war, and it began on OUR soil, at least our response did. If you don't think so, then everything else doesn't matter.