farmteam

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) The FBI's ability to lure desperate loners into extremist plots is a different issue. This guy very explicitly did not fall for one of the FBI's fake bomb plots. The only thing he did was post videos and translate stuff to English on the internet. Tarek Mehanna was never involved in any actual plots to harm anyone or anything. He advocated extreme views on the internet, and this now amounts to material non-violent support of a terrorist organization. I agree that that is dumb and bad, but like Jenks said, it's something that should be distinguished on the facts (and, like I said, in my opinion this wouldn't pass muster). EDIT: Based on what I've seen in this thread. Didn't read the opinion yet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) You don't actually have to drive to be charged with it. Intending to drive while drunk is enough to get you charged. Oh, I see what you mean. Are you referring to you can be charged with a DUI even if all you're doing is sleeping in a car with the keys? While it's a gray area, I still think it's different -- by sleeping in the car with the keys, you ARE doing an overt act that's been criminalized. Thinking about something, or talking about something, isn't quite the same.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) Prostitution and drunk driving are the same way. Not as sure about prostitution, but what do you mean about drunk driving? I mean, the name of the crime is the overt act (ie, driving while drunk). EDIT: For prostitution, do you mean it's illegal to hire a prostitute, even if you don't use their services? That's still different, since hiring a prostitute is the criminalized overt act. It would only be analogous if agreeing with someone you were going to go buy hookers were the criminalized part (not as sure about telling a prostitute, "I'm going to purchase your services in one week." That would probably still be considered hiring the prostitute, even if it were for a future date.). QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) In some scenarios this makes sense - you want to be able to stop a guy from bombing a building before he goes through with it. But at the same time I agree that this is opening the door (at least hypothetically) to some thoughtcrime type stuff. I think this case can be distinguished though given the amount of facts that sort of build the picture of who this guy is/what he was doing. I agree completely with this. I didn't mean to imply that this sounds like a 100% awesome opinion, I was just pointing out another situation where no overt act is required to be convicted for the crime. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) I don't think conspiracy to distribute narcotics by agreeing to do so really is analogous to the political speech criminalized in this case. I don't think so either, which is partly why I agreed with what Jenks said -- it can be distinguished on the facts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) The SCOTUS had an important free speech ruling: Thoughtcrime now appears to be a reality. I don't mean this in some over-the-top hyperbolic way, but this ruling does mean that you can be convicted of a crime through speech alone. edit: this is in the Democrat thread as a default catch-all. The Obama administration/Eric Holder advocated for criminalizing this sort of speech and deserve to be criticized for it. Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years? But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 20, 2012 -> 05:38 PM) +1. SB what kind of law do you practice again? I'm a civil litigator. Dealing with other attorneys is the worst (especially old attorneys that play games). I think he mentioned in that "Soxtalk Lawyers" thread he practices landlord/tenant, but that might be wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 07:11 AM) George Will with a good column on mandatory minimum sentencing and sentencing juveniles to life-without-parole. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/juv...FYWT_story.html This is a pretty interesting topic. This is my crim law professor's main area of interest, so I hear a lot about it. During orientation, he debated Jeanne Bishop, a Cook County prosecutor, on whether juveniles should be able to be sentenced to life without parole. Bishop's sister and brother-in-law (her sister was also pregnant) was killed about 20 years ago by David Borre (I think that's his name), who was a 16 or 17 year old student at New Trier. Pretty fascinating stuff.

I'm always surprised by the positions the Bears take in every round after the first, so I've given up trying to figure it out in advance.

So, Vancouver will be burning down tonight.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) That was awesome. Whoever came up with that should be promoted.

I do think Soxtalk needs a political subforum; the other options are to either altogether ban political talk of any kind (which seems likely unwise and certainly difficult) or to let it be part of SlaM...and then those threads would essentially be like the Buster anyway. One improvement I would like to see if a Political Catch-All thread. Maybe having Republican/Democrat catch-all threads doesn't necessarily lead to more snarkiness/partisanship, but at least for me, I often find it difficult to post new material in those threads because I don't want it to be perceived as having a slant when I'm all really trying to do is say "Oh hey, here's this article some people [democrats, republicans, communists, whoever] might like."

Sounds like one of music's greatest voices is on his way out. Sad day.

Well sure, if Uthoff actually made all this up then he's an idiot and any school should be leery of taking him. I just have a hard time believing he made ALL of it up. I referenced above that because Ryan's never been in trouble before, that's why I was giving him the benefit of the doubt at first. But, if he did indeed ban the entire ACC, as the link I posted said, then everything I said still stands. EDIT: I will say, if the ACC thing is true, then I find it almost impossible that it didn't come from Ryan. And I only say "almost" because I'll give it about a 5% chance it came from Alvarez.

I loved Kane yelling "GET THE f*** UP"

YES.

I agree Uthoff probably should have handled this differently, but you're brushing it off as a "few schools." No, a few schools was when Iowa State and Marquette (and the Big Ten) were off limits. Those schools plus the ENTIRE ACC? That's a hell of a lot more than a few schools. And as for, "Well, we don't know which ACC team we'll be playing" that's absurd. First of all, based on sheer probability it's unlikely Wisconsin would play whatever school Uthoff transfers to, and even if they did, it wouldn't be for at least two years. If Ryan's legitimately scared about an opponent two years down the road having a single player that spent one year with his program, he's really not fit to be running a Big Ten program. And if that statement sounds absurd, it's no more absurd than Ryan preventing Uthoff from transferring to an entire f***ing conference.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 06:53 PM) To be fair, Bo Ryan does look like a first class douchebag, but he doesnt really have history of doing this to his players, in fact they REALLY REALLY like to stick around and are very loyal to him. Even Evan Turner is still close to Ryan and he didnt even go there. Agreed. That's partly why I didn't care when he restricted Marquette and Iowa St (in addition to the Big Ten). But now it's going way overboard.

I didn't have a problem with Ryan restricting the Big Ten (because the no-scholly rule; even if there wasn't, I'd be fine with a restriction to any school in you conference) or Marquette (since it's a major program in the same state). Iowa State seemed a bit odd since it's a different state and conference, but hey, cherry picking a school or two the kid can't transfer to? Fine. But banning the entire ACC, because Tony Bennett called Wisconsin and asked for permission to talk to Uthoff? Now I have a problem with Ryan going overboard with this. Restricting an ENTIRE conference, when you'll only play one or two teams from it the entire year? Asinine.

As one of my friends said, this is too awesome not to share.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 16, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) But did she say it was ferociously cute? Thought not. Heads 1, Wite 0 A girl has called your dick "ferociously cute?" I'm pretty sure that means the score is actually: Heads: -1000 Everyone Else: A Hell of a lot better than that

Now we just need the technology to have a Kate Upton hologram in my apartment....

I had a dream last night IU was a 3 seed playing 11 seed UMass for the right to go to the Sweet Sixteen. If I call this 11 months before it happens, I should get a movie deal.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Apr 14, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) Kentucky hasn't lost a home game since 08-09. It would be downright shocking for Indiana to win for that fact alone. If we're premising that Indiana is a top 5 team, then no. An upset? Sure. "downright shocking?" No way. And I mean that for any top 5 team, not just IU.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 14, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) Indiana surely has some talent to compete in conference, and possibly the tourney, but uk has a TON more and better coaching. I think IU fans are going to be surprised how different it is with the target back on your backs. It's a tough road through the Big Ten. I agree in the sense that I'm not used to it, so it's hard to prepare my expectations...but at the same time, I'm looking forward to seeing how the team does when there are such high expectations. Instead of "OMG YOU BEAT KENTUCKY" it will be (even if we're not favored) "Good win, but not surprising." As for the talent level though, I do think you're understating it a bit, at least if you take experience into account. IU returns every player from a Sweet Sixteen team that was what, 2-3 games back of first place in the B1G, AND adds in a lot more depth (in terms of talent) with this new recruiting class. Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and OSU do similar things, I just think IU has a bit more of it (which is NOT to say I necessarily think IU will indeed win the conference next year...like I said, I'm curious to see how they play when they have such expectations placed on them).

I find it mildly amusing that Phoenix has a white-out tonight, but the Hawks are the team wearing white.