Balta1701

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) Nah. This is a Congressional move, and the president is along for the ride. It's STUPID, but that's neither here nor there. This is a congressional move only in the sense that there are congressional elections this year. But the folks coordinating the national Repub. election campaign are most certainly Administration folk.

QUOTE(AWhiteSoxinNJ @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) If he were to come here, then Thome will have a few more homers since he won't be bringing them back against us. I think he would be a good, younger option if the Sox are looking to upgrade in centerfield and maybe give BA more time in AAA to improve his offense. In Rochester, NY.

Think they'd want Politte? Seriously...the problem here is that Cinci is in the middle of a pennant race right now, in 2nd place in the NL Central. Their starting pitching, our best asset, is not the best in the NL, but it's hovering in the block near the top. Their offense is currently #4 in the NL. The thing that they could use? Relief pitching. Which is the one thing we don't have to give them. In other words, we'd be asking them to sacrifice this season, where they're off to a competitive start, with new ownership IIRC, in exchange for prospects, because that's all we'd have that would help them out. Oh, and Griffey still should be DHing somewhere.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) And then you all wonder why I say ya'll are biased against the President. The ADMINISTRATION is not tackling this, Congress is. But they're all molded from the same tattered cloth, I will agree that much. So giving speeches on the issue that get broadcast on CNN because it's the president, and using the bully pulpit on this issue, is not considered an effort at tackling it?

QUOTE(WinningUgly85 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) yeah but if miguel keeps b****ing about not wanting to play in baltimore they might get rid of him. Has he been much of a malcontent since this offseason where he rescinded his trade demand? I hadn't heard anything else since, and I do usually check the wire stories.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) He craps his pants when a .150 hitter with no power comes to the plate. Brian Anderson?

(Checking Calendar)... Hmmm...2006. 2006 is an election year. Well I'll be darned. You know the interesting thing? This morning, I was just thinking that hmm, it's 2006, we're due for a couple terror alerts aren't we.

Right now, if KW thinks it'll make this team better, and it doesn't create a gigantic hole the next year, I could care less who KW trades if he gets someone he likes.

You don't get bigger games in June than this. You hear me Freddy? Eh? You know who's help we need today? Detective Scrotes. PLAY WITH SOME BALLS, WHITE SOX!

QUOTE(UC76 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) I don't recall Zambrano having problems with teammates. It's usually aimed at himself or the umps. Plus, he's young. He can mature. Everyone is crazy at 21 or 22. He's just a little moreso. He's 25.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 08:26 PM) This country has bigger fish to fry than an amendment that has no chance in the Senate. This is really f***ing stupid if you ask me. It's the perfect metaphor for the current leadership in the executive and legislative branches. Stupid, pointless photo ops to distract the voters, instead of anything with substance.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 07:59 PM) Zambrano would insist on hitting in the AL, he believes himself to be a great hitter and is in fact a switch hitter. This will leave the AL team with an option of who to use the DH on. The DH option can only be used on the pitcher. It's in the rule book. Unless Z wants to eat it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) That's right, of course, but losing by three million votes and then boasting that with a mild shift in Ohio you'd have been President really annoys me, and that, specifically, was what I was commenting on. I do agree with yours too, though. So...in other words, you'd be in favor of abolishing the Electoral college too. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 06:13 PM) i think my main problem is that democrats will set up a system in their area and when it doesn't work they want to blame Republicans (aka, butterfly ballots in 2000). How many Democrats actually blamed "Republicans" for the butterfly ballot mess? The commissioner who designed the ballot was a Democrat, the people who didn't pay attention weren't being fooled by some Republican scheme. I can understand blaming Republicans for the riots that shut down the recounts, or for the 5-4 Republican/Democrat Supreme Court decision, but the butterfly ballot? I can't place blame for that on anyone other than the person who designed the ballot and the people who didn't bother to pay attention to it.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) It doesn't matter what system is in place you're always going to have a degree of fraud and irregularities in every election. BTW. Regarding election fraud, I am willing to bet that Democrats in the Cleveland area and Cuhyogha ( sp ) county were responsible for every bit as much fraud as their Republican counterparts elsewhere in the state. See, I don't think that's really the case. Lots of countries around the world are able to get by with far fewer questions about voting machines, missed votes, people unjustly turned away, and outright fraud than we've become adapted to, but we've sort of either just become accustomed to it or thrown money at whatever company gives the best campaign contributions, and so we've really failed to build a system here with a low margin of error.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) oh yea, they totally stole it dudes The one problem I have with that statement, and in fact Kennedy's entire piece, is that there were genuine electoral problems in Ohio, including the disenfranchisement of thousands, probably tens of thousands. If the election in that state had come down to a thousand votes, like Florida in 00, then it really wouldn't be possible to say who actually won. But IMO, the margin of defeat in that state was just too high for it to really be another disputed election. The big problem though is that the genuine problems that Ohio had in its election wind up glossed over in messes like this. You have 1 side saying "Oh it was stolen!", the other side posting tin foil hat pictures, and then the end result is that the state, and in fact the nation, is simply never able to come together and actually create procedures that would allow for accurate and fair elections every time, despite the fact that I would say most people would think that's a pretty important goal.

If a course/test is going to be curved based on the highest score, then it's possible to miss a few questions and still wind up with the highest score possible

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) I can see that though. Can you imagine the cost of feeding Michael Moore during the shooting? They were lucky to make as much as they did. Griffin v. Moore.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) In this case they are fighting to make it alright for a bunch of sick individials to prey on children. That is wrong as could possibly be yet they persist. Are they really doing that here, or are they just arguing that people who have served their time should have at least some ability to live lives? Here's a thought. If these people can't be allowed to go within 1000 feet of a school, why exactly are they being let out of prison? Seriously, Prison is designed to incarcerate people who can't be trusted in the general public. At least that's one of its uses. Why are these people being released if they cannot be trusted to drive down a public highway?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 05:20 PM) How many times guys? How many times are you people going to apply rights to a bunch of terrorists who don’t deserve them? The Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists. Terrorists don’t win when we mistreat them. Terrorists win when people like you guys lose your will to deal with them.

Salon.com had a good reply to this RS piece that I linked to last time someone brought up that article.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) Ive been in favor of keeping the electoral system but awarding the electoral vote to whoever wins a particular congressional distict and then the 2 for the states senators goes to whoever gets the majority of votes in that state. That puts the whole nation up for grabs so Republicans can get some votes in Cali and Dems can even knock off a few in places like Texas and Kansas. IMO, if you're going to decide to change things, why go from a bad system to an average system when a good system would be just as easy to create?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) And that information when it is SPECIFIC TO A PERSON - is granted a warrant. Otherwise, it's a block of data that's simply sorted through. Only problem with maintaining the database of who's calling who? A phone number is in fact very specific to a person, and using information that is publically available, can be used to ID specific people quite easily.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) Give it time....they will need pitching. Not that we can offer it, but we could offer them the prospects to help get a starter in a 3 team deal. Wilkerson can lead off for them. But yes I realize it would be hard acquisition now, but I am saying get him in a month or two if Anderson fails (or at least try to get a guy like him). On a sidenote, I am a proponent of playing Anderson every single day. I think Ozzie has done a piss poor job handling McCarthy and Anderson this year. The Rangers actually right now have more pitching than you think. Eaton is throwing again, Koronko and Rheinecker look good, Millwood, Padilla, that's not a terrible staff when you have that offense.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Then the data base becomes discriminant and would be illegal. You would have to give service providers a target list of numbers to track. Since it now records all calls, it is legal. Kapeesh? Only the records of foreign hostiles are opened in a specific search criteria and those who they have had contact with become collateral discovery. To give you another example. A municipality can monitor an intersection with a camera as long as the monitoring is done indiscrminatley. They must monitor all traffic and activity at that corner, not just when a certain individual is present. Here's the funny little thing though...service providers keep a record of who you're calling anyway. You know that list of long distance calls you made during the previous month that shows up on your phone bill? Service providers have access to that same information. The difference is that Service Providers are usually very strictly bound by laws as to when they're allowed to give that information up. If a government entity wants access to information about who's been called by a specific person, they have the ability to get that from the service provider for anyone using a phone. The one thing required is that they need to go before a U.S. court if it is needed for law enforcement purposes, or the FISA court it it is needed for national security reasons.