TheBigHurt35

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 12:50 PM) She was sent to jail for a questionable stock deal that made her 45,000 dollars. She was convicted on lesser charges related to a larger charge that didn't stick. It seems odd to me that someone could or should be convicted for charges directly related to charges that she has been cleared for. But you just said earlier that she was convicted of Obstruction and Lying to Government Officials. It really doesn't matter what she was lying about.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) I think they meant the last episode at all. He was supposed to anchor this new series and they had shot a couple of episodes already. I think tonight must be the last time Lenny appears in ANY L&O. Ahhh! I guess it didn't dawn on me that he'd already filmed a couple Trial By Jury episodes. Thanks... I'll check it out.

QUOTE(False Alarm @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) lenny's last episode is tonight. they said something about it in the teaser last night. This must be a rerun, because I could've sworn that they aired it back in January. (The one where he boxed up the items from his desk, said an unmemorable goodbye, and walked out at the end of the episode.)

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 10:51 AM) Not perjury either. Obstruction of Justice and Lying to government officials (That's a different crime than Perjury.) IIRC, she could've taken the 5th and refused to talk to the Feds instead of lying. She basically set herself up. That said, what she did wasn't much different than what many other wealthy Americans with connections to higher-ups in companies do. Very few of them are ever prosecuted.

Wow, that's really screwed up. I'm glad to hear that you're OK. I've had a gun pulled on me before (by a gang member, after I tried to stop his buddy from kicking the crap out of my friend), so I can definitely empathize.

I only watch the original. If it doesn't feature Lenny Briscoe or Jack McCoy, I'm not interested. Dennis Farina is decent, but nobody can really replace Jerry Orbach.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 08:30 AM) No love for LL... LL Cool J's "I need love" is a lyrical masterpiece... Bigger And Deffer is probably one of the best rap albums ever.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 08:47 AM) Also included in any sales tax proposal would be a rebate which would be given on a certain amount of purchases. That would work to undo any regressiveness of the tax and to lessen the bite taken out. As long as it doesn't reduce spending to the point where it damages the economy, I'd probably be for it. Since a complete overhaul of our current system is unlikely, I think that the most pragmatic thing to do would be an additional federal sales tax and a decrease in federal income tax.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 03:54 AM) I concerns me because the student body is buying into that crap for that very reason. College professors are intelligent, but intelligence doesn't make one an expert in everything. Professors are experts in their fields, but not necessarily anything outside of that.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 06:55 PM) In reading about the 2 brothers it became clear that Qusay was the favorite and Uday was viewed as too wild and headstrong for any real power. After the 1996 assassination attempt that left him with a limp noodle Uday was said to have REALLY gone off the deep end. And I'll bet that he was on painkillers most of the time, which probably had a lot to do with his psychological condition. Kind of like how Hitler went (even more) nuts after taking amphetamines for years. As bad as Saddam was, Uday was even worse. He was subhuman. According to a former bodyguard, Uday raped women "for sport." I'm glad that worthless piece of s*** is dead. And speaking of assholes getting theirs, what's Saddam still doing alive in a jail cell? Do we really need to waste time and money on a trial for this thug? Throw him out onto a busy street in Baghdad and let a crowd of pissed off Iraquis kill him with their bare hands.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 11:04 PM) = Tupac No way. I can name a number of rappers who trump Tupac: Big Boi, Eminem, Ice Cube, Chuck D, Rakim, Run, LL Cool J, etc.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) I'm not convinced a consumption tax would decrease spending that much. For example, do people in the city of Chicago buy less because of a higher tax rate than someone in rural Kankakee County? I believe you may see much more pressure on manufacturers to lower prices. Perhaps it would drive more manufacturing overseas where they can produce good for less. Which would lower the number of abailable jobs for American workers. Since jobless Americans can't afford to buy anything, the economy would suffer. The tax rates in Cook County only differ from those in Kankakee County by a few percent, so I don't think that's a relevant comparison. To have a consumption-only tax renenue system, sales tax would have to jump to about 25%. I do believe that spending would also decrease at least somewhat if the vast majority of the tax burden was shifted to sales tax. I don't know about you, but I'd be less apt to spend money on luxury items if they had a 25% tax added to them. That $2,000 HDTV that I could barely afford is now $2,500. That $40,000 SUV the guy down the street wanted to get is now $50,000. Maybe Greenspan is seeing something that I'm not, but I don't think that putting ALL of the tax burden on sales tax would be the best solution. I think that a better solution would be to shift SOME of the tax burden to sales tax and to simultaneously decrease income tax. That would give a financial break to lower-income people and would not stifle the spending of those who have the financial means to drive the economy.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 02:39 PM) I disagree with you on both points. A consumption tax, in place of income tax, would be better because it would have a net effect of zero on the indivisual taxpayer but would result in more revenues for the treasury due to a vast expansion of the tax base. That may be true, but you still need to consider the negative effect that a consumption-only tax will have on consumer spending. Taxing people ONLY when they spend money will give them incentive to spend much much less. People will spend less on their homes, vehicles, entertainment items, etc. That might be good for the poor, but the economic impact might be disasterous. As demand for consumer products decreases, millions of jobs will likely be lost. Then again, Greenspan and other economists argue otherwise, and they know a lot more about this than I do. I just don't see how only taxing money spent couldn't hurt the economy. Perhaps a modest rise in sales tax and a lowering of income tax would be the best solution? True, but that's their fault. They shouldn't be living above their means and it's not like Social Security is going to support them after retirement. Frankly, I'm sick of my hard-earned income going to support people who make idiotic decisions. Agreed, but then why not just not have a social security system in the first place? I don't see a big difference between these private accounts and IRAs. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert in economics, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) I think I prefer a consumption tax as opposed to a flat tax as its more fair ( more you spend more you pay ) and would also encourage people to save more money. Encouraging people to save would benefit the economy in the long run, but a consumption-based tax system would probably lead to an economic disaster. Our economy is heavily reliant on consumer spending. IMO, the best way to encourage people to save money would be to do away with Social Security. That would literally force people to act responsibly with their income and would also fix a broken system that's dommed to failure because it wasn't intended to support people for 15-20 years after retirement.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) Does every industry have a bias? Could we call some industries liberal or conservative? Obviously Hollywood tends to be liberal, which ones are conservative? The banking/investment industries, the pharmaceutical/biotech industries, and professional sports, to name a few.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 08:45 AM) I think if this somehow did end up happening (i don't think it will) you'd see 6 or so teams contracted immediately. That would be great, as there are WAY too many as is. Who the hell watches hockey in Nashville?

Perhaps that's why it's only a rumor. Nobody would give away a stud like Boldin for a candy ass like Bennett.

If they can come to terms with the player's union and get the NHL up and running again, I'm all for it.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 06:58 PM) Oh man, funny ass picture. And Kip, don't be shocked if you like O'Reilly. As far as I'm concerned he does a lot to just try and be unbiased so to speak. I enjoy the show but sometimes I think hes so freaking wrong. I only watch this stuff on ocassion though because if you watch everyday during a week you basically hear the same crap over and over. Agreed. I used to think that O'Reilly was an obnoxious blow-hard. But then I sat down and watched a week's worth of The Factor a couple years ago and changed my mind. I don't agree with everything he says and think that he can be a bit repetitive at times... but about 90% of what he says is worth listening to. And Kip's assertion that O'Reilly "spawns hate for Canada" is just plain stupid. All Bill did was call out the Candadian media for having a liberal bias (he's done the same for the BBC, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, etc.). I've never heard him fire off a personal attack on a Canadian. And I'll bet that Kip's never even watched The Factor and is just regurgitating the obnoxious crap that the CBC planted into his head.

Agreed about how the "entitlement mentality" is eroding the minds of high school kids everywhere (read my thread on the SICA redistricting debate in south suburban Chicago). My mother teaches at a public school in south suburban Chicago and I hear about this constantly. And the problems go beyond the "entitlement" students and their iodit parents: It's gotten to the point where NOBODY wants to teach at these schools and many of the people that they end up hiring are incompetent (so much so that my mother is considering quitting). Public schools in many places are a complete mess right now. It's a damn shame.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 02:08 PM) Easy on the insults please. You can disagree with the guy all you want, but we here on the site don't want to see the name calling. Thanks My bad. Agreed that there's no need to point out the obvious. And, hey, if foreigners like KWF keep up their blogging, it'll all but secure Jeb Bush's victory in '08 and Canada's increasing irrelevance!

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 02:03 PM) So let him say whatever he wants to, it's his right, and he can thank us for it. Hey, I've already said that he has to right to do it. Just as I have "the right" to walk into Harlem and yell the "N-word" at the top of my lungs. Similarly, I have the right to call KWF's posts "classless."

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 29, 2005 -> 07:19 PM) Let me get the straight. The CBC airs a left wing show blasting Fox News and O'Reilly responds to it. Who fired the first shot? The CBC is afraid Fox News is going to make them even more irrelevent than they already are. To quote that master wordsmith Nuke_Cleveland, "f*** them". Here, here I'll also add, "f*** KipWellsFan," who doesn't pay taxes to the US government or vote for its officials, yet spends hours bashing the Bush administration on a web site based in America. Of course, he has the right to do it, but it makes him look like a classless ass clown.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 12:40 PM) Allied being UK media. Its state run media so I doubt they can get away with the same thing that a privately owned media firm could. Why do we have to trust either of them? Given the track record -- they're both groups of craven power-hungry bastards. I hate all the bichromatic, black and white "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" sort of crap. Like with the Red Scare of the 1950s, one can be against the tactics used by the government while also not agreeing with communism/terrorism. Just as I dislike leftist conspiracy-theory freaks like Noam Chomsky. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one (although I agree that what they did to Padilla (or any other US citizen in his situation) was wrong). EDIT: State-run media certainly can get away with pursuing political agendas. The BBC has always maintained an anti-Bush sentiment. The CBC (also state-run) took that a step further by running a program called The Fifth Estate, which was essentially a vicious attack on the Fox News Channel.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 12:23 PM) Its dubious that the government can proclaim anybody a "preventative detention" detainee and off you go to the mystical land of no lawyers, no legal rights and secret military trials. The BBC even reported that most of the people being detained in Iraq were not "terrorists" but mostly people being held for minor offenses like not having the proper paperwork on them at a checkpoint, illegal parking, etc. etc. So yes, I do find it a bit dubious to label them all as terrorists when our own allied media is saying that they're not all terrorists. Since when has the BBC been "allied" with the Bush administration? Hell, even the New York Times has been caught fabricating polling data that consistently favors Democrats over Republicans. Both are leftist, anti-Bush media outlets and are about as credible as Clinton's grand jury testimony. So, you'll have to forgive me for not believing that crap about US soldiers using the time, engery, and jail space to imprison an Iraqi for a traffic ticket. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) A lot of people who have been determined to be of little or no intelligence value have been released from Guantanamo with a simple pledge to not to engage in attacks against US forces or the US itself. Of course they are going to run right back to the Taliban but its not like anyone who goes there is gone forever. Yeah, I'll bet they're going to keep those promises. :rolly What this boils down to is, who do you trust - our imperfect government or the terrorist lowlives who were captured after attacking US soldiers? I'll have to side with our imperfect government on this one.