Soxbadger

Its April, 18 games is less than 2 football games in an NFL season. The team does need to wake the f*** up.

G&T its a tough decision. Especially if there is a concern that a character reference will explicitly state it. I personally did not reveal information that I did not feel was traceable. I also did not use any references that could say any bad things about me. I had a few situations that I had to disclose, but most of them were when I was young so it was not a big deal. Im not sure I know anyone who has said yes to that question, Ill try and ask around, but my guess is that everyone denies all drug use.

Game of Thrones was good, and always nice to see Boromir.

I agree completely. The only reason the other NFL team may sell out is because its only 8 home games as compared to 81. The new NFL team wouldnt even have to draw 1mil over the season to sell out.

If the Bulls cant figure out how to beat a simple double team off the pick and roll they are in serious trouble.

Or push the pace and make Hibbert run up and down the court all night. But in a half court game, the advantage is definitely Hibbert over Noah atm.

I cant really see myself rooting for another team if they came to Chicago. I may take them as a "second" team especially if they were an AFC franchise. But I cant imagine watching every game for a second franchise or caring that much. Itd just be an excuse to watch football or basketball.

Even if it was Rose's foul, Noah has to be raising his hand and trying to get the call.

Im not sure how the Bulls cant catch the ball. These turnovers are nonsense.

2 years ago they switched to Bobak's sausage for italians and polish. Its no good. I had the cheese steak, I thought it was unremarkable, but good enough for stadium food.

China can shoot down satellites. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm

Gill just said that Hansborough didnt have a lot of skill coming out of college. News to me, I always thought the concern was he didnt have excellent athleticism and it was unclear how hed translate to the NBA. The guy kind of had ridiculous stats at UNC.

I would have been fine with intervention based solely on humanitarian needs if in 2003 we were presented with an immediate humanitarian crisis. For example, had Saddam been threatening to exterminate the Kurds, Id have been the first person saying Lets get that bastard. (It would be hypocritical to support the intervention in Libya but not in Iraq if these were the facts.) But you made the important distinction yourself : yet another reason Its not hypocritical if the situations are distinguishable. To make it simple: I like cheeseburgers, but I dont like onions. Enjoying a cheeseburger without onions, does not make my hypocritical because I dont enjoy cheeseburgers with onions. Just because part is comparable, does not mean that its not distinguishable. And im not even saying that if you look at Iraq, that the ends may not justify the means. Just that Iraq was an entirely different situation.

Show me one time where Obama said that Gaddafi had WMD or posed a significant threat to the US. Show me where the UN authorized the US invasion of Iraq. If you can find me 1 instance where he used the term WMD or called Libya a threat to the US, and where the UN authorized the US action in Iraq, and I will agree its hypocritical. Furthermore, Im not sure where Obama lied, care to point me to the statement? Its not similar to Iraq at all, but who wants to talk about facts.

You mean that I made assessments on the situation as they developed? Its not called coming around, its called looking at facts and not blindly ignoring them. At first this looked like it would go an entirely different route. It hasnt, when that happens you have to constantly reassess. It would be foolish to adamantly stand by a perspective as the facts change. I just think that at the time of the action, there were only 2 choices: A) Do something or B) Do nothing. I still think doing something was the right thing, and of course we have to follow through.

Thats the way its looking. Basically going to have to take it to the next step like in ivory Coast, actually putting troops on the ground.

Thats the way its looking. Basically going to have to take it to the next step like in ivory Coast, actually putting troops on the ground.

The problem is, that doesnt happen. The only way to fairly prosecute perjury, would be to set up a different office that prosecutes only perjury. That way there would be no conflict of interest between the Prosecutor and the Police Officer. Kind of hard to prosecute a guy for perjury when he is about to be the star witness in your most important criminal trial. I have no problem with prosecuting perjury, I just have a problem with the prosecution of perjury being in the same hands as the people who prosecute the crime.

There are no good answers, but any article that suggests the world should have taken Gaddafi at his word, kind of is messed up. This is the man who said that there was a ceasefire, while at the same time shelling positions. The best question would be: Has the UN involvement made the situation worse. I believe that it has not, but who can be sure. Right now the reports are Gaddafi is using cluster bombs, who knows if its true or not. At some point the scales are going to tip and the outside world is going to end it, but who knows how long that will take.

Eh I dont really go to far back in time (pre British) when it comes to legal jurisprudence because back when "oaths" were created, not everyone could even testify. Merely because it came from an antiquated time, does not mean that it is necessary. I dont think I ever said Govt officials, I said Police Officers, and inherently meant people who investigate crimes. Burge was only prosecuted years later, and his case is completely distinguishable. Burge was torturing people, they could not try and convict him because the SOL ran out, thus they had to go for perjury because they couldnt get him on the real crimes. Furhman is also a rare example, but once again that was an extremely high profile case where the Defendant had lawyers who could actually combat the govt. The reality is that perjury barely ever gets prosecuted. I think there are definitely times where perjury should be prosecuted (case of Burge), I just dont think this is a case where it is worth the time or effort of the govt. I personally think perjury and obstruction of justice are generally tools used by the govt to coerce witnesses to work with them. Sure there are examples of police being convicted for perjury, but those are generally the worst offenses where there was actual damage done because of the lie. In this case what was the real damage? That the govt didnt have 1 more witness against BALCO? Its just a different situation, Burge lied in a civil trial, when he could have said nothing. Its my personal opinion, Ive seen some really bad things, and Im almost always against the govt.

Eh results dont mean that it was a good case, I can name plenty of results (convictions or acquittals) where the end result was most likely wrong. Murderers have been convicted and exonerated. There are plenty of cases where the govt has substantially more evidence about perjury (the article I linked shows where the govt had a tape of the person saying one thing, and then saying something else under oath), and they dont prosecute. The evidence in this case was murky at best, no matter how much they found at BALCO, they never found a smoking gun. They never had an email from Bonds that said "Im going to do steroids tomorrow", they never had any real evidence about what did Bonds "know" and that is the key to perjury. You have to knowingly lie. The reason Bonds was convicted is because most people believe Bonds knew. Most people believe it without seeing a shred of evidence. That doesnt mean the govt had a good case, if anything it shows how bad it was. The govt couldnt get a conviction on something most people believe. Ill split my response. Oath before god, many people dont believe in god and even if they do, there is nothing different about a regular lie and a lie under oath. Moist people are willing to lie, I dont believe for a second that swearing on a bible makes them second guess it. The reason we have laws against perjury (imo) is so that the govt can try and convict more people. If a person lies under oath, I dont really care, it doesnt change my day. In fact I generally hope that they lie, because it destroys their credibility. Most cases are based on physical evidence, only very few cases ever turn on a statement, and even then you generally have a he said/she said situation. I have a very jaded perspective, because I have seen Police Officers perjure pretty badly and never suffer any consequences. The reason they dont suffer is that the Prosecutor and the Police Officer are aligned, and therefore in some cases the Prosecutor kind of encourages perjury...

The Hotel was Hilton Chicago (I believe).

I took a different route to work today and there was a Hotel on Michigan Ave that had Blackhawks pictures in the window. Its across the street from the Merle Reskin Theater, not sure the hotel.

No the entire point of a trial is that everyone is going to lie and its up to the judge or jury to determine who is telling the truth. Im not sure how the legal system falls apart if people are lying under oath. The legal system presumes that everyone is lying, and therefore it is up to the attorney to show why the other person is lying and why his client is telling the truth. One of the first things you are taught in trial advocacy is how to catch someone in a lie to discredit their testimony. Im not cool with people lying under oath, I think that it should be fair for everyone. If the govt is going to lie under oath, then the person they are trying to convict, should also be able to lie under oath. But right now we have a system where the govt can lie under oath, without penalty, where as if a Defendant lies under oath, the govt will try and prosecute. Thats unjust. As for Bonds, you have a right to not self incriminate. A grand jury is part of a criminal proceeding. While he was not the focus of the proceeding (he was given immunity which is why he couldnt use the 5th), it was still a criminal procedure. And Im not sure how this is arguing that because everyone is doing it. Its arguing that, if the govt is allowed to perjure to convict people, than defendants should be allowed to perjure to try and beat the govt, its called fairness. Or if you are going to convict defendants for perjury, convict every officer who perjures.

Im not a Defense lawyer or a Prosecutor. I do Civil Litigation so im 50% Plaintiff/ 50% Defendant, if not 75%+ plus Plaintiff.