YASNY

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) I understand what you're saying, but I think that the 2 parts of the DOJ response cited in that blog post argue against that idea. First...they actually argue that it's unnecessary because they didn't have any problems getting the FISA warrants that they needed as far as the guy writing that response knew. The only reason why you would logically need to get warrants without going to FISA courts is if they weren't willing to give the warrants. And secondly...the DOJ itself seems to have had problems with the constitutionality of the idea, yet it still was already happening. That just seems to contradict the idea that they thought it was either necessary or ok. You're giving me a blog post as a response? ummmm okay

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) What are the Dems thinking by delaying a vote of the full Senate until possibly next Tue. Do they really think this is good for them? Once again, Who is playing politics with the Judicial Branch? This will not work to their advantage because delaying the vote until the State of the Union Speech will only give Bush more incentive to have Alito sitting front and center next to the other Justice from the Supreme Court that will be in attendance for the speech. As of right now its 32 For 14 Against. in the full Senate. This s*** ... playing politics with this particular aspect of our government ... is going to bite the Dems in the ass.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Please illustrate an example in which it would be constitutional for the President to wiretap or participate in surveillance on US Citizens without a warrant, yet unconstitutional to follow the FISA laws. Cause I'm confused. FISA facilitates 4th amendment rights protection. By openly flouting FISA, you are in essence flouting the 4th amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the US Citizen, not the US Government. There's that word again. It's in the interpretation of reasonable, or in this case ' unreasonable'. As I said before, that explanation of the 4th amendment I post the link to had 'reasonable' or forms of the word sprinkled liberally throughout.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) Ok...now this seems very odd, but it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it...in 2002, a Republican Senator from Ohio introduced legislation which would have reduced the FISA standard for the acquisition of a warrant from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. The Bush Administration's justice department opposed the bill as unnecessary with the Patriot act (and at least 1 person writing the DOJ response had some questions about its constitutionality). Congress rejected the bill, probably in part due to DOJ opposition. This was many months after the administration had already started doing exactly that. Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right?

If you take the fact that it is the Cubs out of the equation, then signing Miller is for that amount is a good low risk, potential high reward gamble. Just because it's the Cubs does not make this a bad move.

The stance of the administration was that they were legally entitled to do exactly what they did. If, in their opinion, they were perfectly legal in bypassing the courts, why would they have to explain why they did so? The answer is obvious. There was no need explain anything.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) As pointed out, your articles were quotes from people whom Islam doesn't even acknowledge as part of their structure. It's obvious you've already decided that Islam is evil, and all the logic and evidence in the world otherwise won't change your mind about it. Have a nice day. I think you've hit the nail right on the head .... and Texsox, no Hammer comments allowed!

Take this for what it's worth. I heard it at one time, but have nothing to back it up. The thing in the hospital that is responsible for the transfer of most staph infections is the TV remote control.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) It took the morning radio to jump start my brain to add a seminal album to the top 10 most important rock albums. Carole King's Tapestry. Possibly the closest thing to a perfect pop album. A huge musical talent at the top of her game, given the freedom to make her masterpiece. So far Away still chokes me up every single time I hear it. I agree it's a great album, but I wouldn't call it classic 'rock'.

I agree. That's a damn good one.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) So, the Red Sox got a proven ML cf'er for an unproven player who may not pan out. So it sounds like the Red Sox did not get jobbed according to you as well. That remains to be seen. The Red Sox decided they need a CF more than they need a prospect. Who knows what the results of this trade will be?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) Not exactly what you are asking. The government takes money from everybody except the poorest. The last sentence of your post ... Taking the profit from the banks ... with the banks sending the excess back to the gov't. That's what I was talking about.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) I dont think they got jobbed. Marte hasnt proven anything at the major league level. He is a good enough prospect that he has already been traded 2 times this offseason. The Red Sox obviously decided he wasnt good enough for the starting role, and decided that it was better to trade him for crisp, than pick up someone like Reed for nothing. If he was this super prospect that everyone seems to think, then they wouldnt have let him go like that. The Red Sox obviously decide the need for a quality ML proven outfielder that can play CF greatly outweighed the need for an unproven, but intiguing 3B prospect or a suspect, again unproven, CF like Jeremy Reed.

*Big Sigh*

QUOTE(Drew @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 04:57 AM) and The pic that didn't post ... was it by any chance Bill Murray?

QUOTE(thomsonmi @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) And, if we are "talking s***" it's generally when things are not going real well for our World Champions. Or ... we are in the 'Filibuster' forum.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) I'm thinking that since Rex is the radio guy he probably has an idea how the ratings books work even if you and I don't. I agree, YAS, on face it seems like an apples/oranges comparison. But I think when radio ratings talk about a listenership, that takes more into account than the ratings for a single television broadcast. I don't have a clue as to what you are trying say here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them. Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth. I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence. On what, exactly, do you base the first sentence of this post? That was stated as fact, not opinion.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) I think this came up during the debates about Presidents being good debaters. I find that being a great debater not that important in choosing a POTUS. What I do want is someone who can listen to all sides and make the right choice between many options. Even more difficult, is many times, all the options are terrible choices. I can not picture (pitcher?) Bush and Bin Laden debating to solve any problems. I do see Bush deciding how to hunt Binny down and choosing between different plans. So I don't mind how poorly he answered that student's question. Likewise, if he was a brilliant debater, I wouldn't be too impressed. I worry that by taking the profit out of student loans that it will become harder to get these loans as banks may limit how many they will process. Wait. Doesn't this go along with the liberal agenda of taking money away from the rich and putting more in the government coffers? Legit question. Not trying to be a smart ass .... this time.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:13 AM) But if it's smart politics to draw someone out of the Senate and increase a majority for the Republicans, it's also smart politics to try to get that person out of the Senate and replaced with someone who wouldn't consider leaving the reservation, so to speak, and head off to a Presidential cabinet. I won't argue that point at all. That's up to voters of CT. Circle complete.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:17 AM) There's a specific law. And a specific process to get the warrant. It isn't necessarily a hard thing to procure, and the Bush administration has not been hampered by FISA court restrictions - seeing as in the entire 28 year history of FISA, fewer than 10 warrants have ever been rejected. The Bush administration has said that the law does not apply to us, even though we are doing things specifically regulated to FISA. Yes the fourth amendment may say things, but there's also the matter of this law - designed to protect fourth amendment rights for US Citizens while enabling the government to do its job. There hasn't been a case of a court gone wild, this is an Administration who has said - we aren't following the law, we aren't going to follow the law. And somehow this is seen as legal. A law designed to protect a constitutional amendment? okay

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:19 AM) Actually, that's not the way it works. That 15 million is not split up evenly, and I'd be willing to bet that the real number day to day is close to or equal to the amount of people who watch the news. It's just the way they estimate radio listenership, since the process of evaluating listenership is different. And the 15 million is a conservative estimate. Don't bet it. Back it up. You made that totally ridiculous comparison of a week's worth of Limbaugh vs. a single evening network newscast and I pointed out what a farce that comparison was. You asked who was more mainstream. I gave you my answer.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 06:40 AM) Why is there such a media bias? Why hasn't the GOP been able to change this? And isn't it better for Republicans when their supporters will not believe any bad news because of media bias?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 10:31 PM) That is about the most brutal thing I have ever read. I couldn't have said it better.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) BINGO! G-d is THE Judge. Yet, didn't God, according to the Bible, use man to enforce his will? If He wanted to punish Isreal for turning away from Him, they would invaded, defeated and enslaved. Can't it be assumed that radical Islamists are justifying their actions similarly?