NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) I dont see how that's possible with the constant drone of the media both traditional and non-traditional telling us how we're becomming a police state. Media coverage of the issues that effect civil liberties (i.e. warrantless searches and wiretaps, etc.) has been minimal. What people see more of, I think, is things like increased security at airports and events. That is what they are interpereting as resrictions. And in those cases I agree, they really aren't restricting or effecting my liberties.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) The rest of North America? I kid, I kid. Thank you. I'm glad someone walked through the door. I was afraid my arm would get tired holding it.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 09:32 PM) Anti-Harold Ford Ad Irks Canadians... not me particularly. full story http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home So if the State of Tennessee and Canada went to war... who would win?

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) And I do think Fox shoulders the blame on this. He choose not to take his meds to show the severity of the disease. That's the key point right there. Fox chooses, at times, to not take his meds, to get his point across. You can like or dislike that, and there is certainly some issue-specific motivation on his part. But this isn't "The Democrats" doing something. Heck, the Stem Cell issue splits both parties anyway.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) Same could be said about a lot of issues. Just sayin'.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html Guess people aren't all that upset about the Patriot Act or wiretapping or much of anything else that has been done to fight terrorism. No surprise to me. As with most political issues that aren't in the public's face every day and really, really simple to understand... the American public remains blissfully ignorant.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:39 AM) Lets deconstruct that quote: Socialist: Check Anti-Family: Check Leave their Husbands: Check Kill their Children: Their support of Abortion as a means of contraception = Check Practice Witchcraft: That's too looney even for feminazis. NoGo on this one. Destroy Capitalism: Check Become Lesbians: Check Robertson was 6/7 on that one. To say your views are on the far right on this issue would be like saying its been a while since the Cubs won a world series.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) His signature was needed at the 11th hour was it not? It's been a long time so I may very well be off on the details. Like all legilation, yes, it needed his siggy. But he wasn't really one of the primary deal-makers. No matter, though.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 06:17 PM) And he kept the Sox here. I'd contend that the whole ISA deal that kept the Sox here was as much or more the state Congress than the governor (who had to be somewhat coaxed). And the mayor also came in at the end to help out a bit.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:08 PM) The problem with Illinois schools is the funding system. They use the taxes from the school districts to fund that school which create large descrepancies from school to school. Rich areas get better school funding poor areas get low funding. There was a survey that found Illinois was 47 or 48 in state money for schools. And we wonder why the educational system is screwed up in this state. Savage Inequalities by Kozol. Recommended.

if you take government out of marriage and personal relationships entirely, this whole issue becomes really simple. You want to pass on your assets on your death? Fine. Write it in a will. You want to associate with who you choose, in the way you choose? Go right ahead. You want to declare someone your confidant/spouse/best friend or whatever in some legal way? Fine. Its basically a living will. Hospitals, for example, would honor it. I just fail to see any benefit in gov't involvement in marriage. My marriage is no more or less healthy because we're legally recognized as being such.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) I can't respond with anything that wouldn't get me banned, so here's a funny picture: I laughed so hard at this post and picture that someone passing by asked if I was alright.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Really? They can't vote? They can't own property? They can't speak in public? Just because it might be more difficult to get a job, for instance, doesn't mean they don't have the same rights. They're given the same opportunities as everyone else. I think his point is that people have a bias against lots of people for lots of different reasons. So what makes this any different? I don't buy the argument that they've been historically discrimanted against...again, lots of people have... They can't marry. Therefore, they have different rights to social relationships than others do. This is why I don't believe the government belongs in the marriage business. Its none of their concern.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) No, it happens. Why should I or anyone else care about an endangered species? The bill was poorly written takes away logging jobs and areas that can be turned into homes or businesses. I am sure you could find a few isolated cases. But it is very, very rare for people to lose any property whatsoever to it. As I said, its almost always a usage thing. I did a legal review on the ESA and the Takings Clause in Con Law 2. When it does effect anyone, it usually just effects businesses, and they get compensated. Its material effect on people is tiny. A LOT more people lose their property to zoning changes (by orders of magnitude) than any sort of environmental laws. The concept of why its important to protect specific species is highly complex, and its not an area I know enough to explain it well.

QUOTE(bmags @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) Opposes Endangered Species Act? How about they just reform it so that if they are taking a homeowners acreage, they have to pay him double what he'd normally get. But to oppose that bill is a horrible idea. People almost never lose their property due to the Endangered Species Act. Its usually just a matter of certain activities (building of certain types, mining or logging, fishing or hunting) being restricted. And the takings clause of the 5th Amendment already allows for compensation due to degradation of value of the property, which is usually handled in a hearing by the agency involved (USFS, BLM, etc.).

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) How about this, how about that the US creates a law to move these servers to X domain tag. Then the porn operators give a one finger salute, and then migrate their website to Y country that doesnt care about our morality laws or doesnt have treaties that support the enforcement of our laws. How do you think that bittorrent trackers who get constantly sued over and over and threatened by the digital millenium act still are up and running. The piratebay operates in Sweden where this is not against the law. The operators of the site openly mock the legal shots to take down tracker content on their website. So again how is this going to work with porn sites. Remember the internet is a peer based network that doesnt have signal entity controls outside of ICANN. And trust me they dont want to start enforcing US based laws at the root of the internet or the internet will fracture and each country will start their own domain authorities and you can pretty much kiss it into mess mode. The chinese are trying to create their own domain roots based on chinese characters. Even if they move it overseas, then the are .ie or .kor or whatever, still a lot easier to filter than the current situation. There is obviously no perfect solution. But there are some (relatively) easy ones out there that would make a world of difference, that people don't seem interested in. EDIT: Another thing that is key here is trying to incentivize it for these sites. They don't want all the trouble with kids anyway - they just want to make money, which they will do with adults. Having a single domain suffix makes it easier to draw their crowd, and easier to keep kids out, both of which they ultimately want.

Steff.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) 3. It's cheaper to lobby 1 large umbrella organization to change the laws to benefit a business than it is to lobby 50 smaller organizations. Also true. And I forgot another... 4. Globalization. As we deal more and more with international business, in that particular forum, its easier to have a single government layer here than multiple.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) I blame liberal members of the Supreme Court over the years who have essentially given up on this amendment. They expand the words of the text or read into the text so much that a lot of the clauses are essentially at odds with the original meaning. I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts." I don't think that's been a factor in this case. IMHO, the two biggest reasons for the slide to federal power are: 1. Plain old hunger for power by the federal government (like all governments, its self-feeding in that sense) 2. Most people in this country want an easy answer, and a single scapegoat. Focusing their attention on the federal government makes that happen for them. Therefore, they always demand action from the Feds.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) That is the entire basis for the guys who refuse to pay their taxes on the basis that the IRS is unconstitutional in its very exsistance. Article I, sections 2 and 8 say "Hi".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) The next team will undoubtedly be getting cash from the Yankees (not Rangers). Do you think the language would be, Team 3 receives $29 million from the Yankees or Team 3 receives $3 million from the Yankees and the Ranger's check? I don't think the third team would give a crap about what the Yankee/Ranger deal is. They want the best deal they can negotiate from themselves. The third team may or may not like the terms that the Rangers/Yankees agreed on as far as deferments, etc. If the Yankees would like to mirror that, they of course are free to try. I believe the third team is free to request money faster, differed at a different interest rate, etc. If the Yankees are locked in to the next team taking exactly what the Rangers are paying and how, it will make it even harder to move ARod. I don't see why in negotiating the original trade that brought ARod to the Yankees, that the Rangers would care who they sent the money to and I don't see the Yankees wanting to be restricted in having to give up that exact amount if they traded him. ARod wouldn't care where the money is coming from to pay him his unworldly salary. So who would have insisted that the Rangers send the check to whomever Alex is playing for or that any future trades must involve that exact amount of compensation to the next team? You've made this waaaaaaaaaay more complicated than what I meant. I just mean that the trade contract between the Yankees and the team A-Rod is going to will, no doubt, specify how much cash will or will not move between those two teams.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) I would contend that orginally the states were supposed to contain the majority of the power, not the Congress, President, or Judiciary. The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This to me says quite clearly that the Constitution is an affirmative document in explicitly providing powers to the federal government. Meaning, EVERYTHING not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government, was meant to be reserved for the States, or the people (via lower levels of government in some cases). The 10th is by far the most abused and forgotten entry of the Bill of Rights.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) Interesting. Was there a follow up study to see if it changed the dropout rates at all? I don't recall. But the policy made it onto 60 Minutes or one of those similar news shows. This would have been around 1996 or 1997.

For this purpose, Lieberman should be considered a Democrat (as should Jeffords).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) I'm not going to fault Mack for being horribly missused by his manager. Rob is not a CF, he should never have been put in such a position. Even under better management, he still would have been out there - just less often. Anderson wasn't going to play 162 games, and as bad as Mack is in CF, there are no better options on the roster. If he'd played Mack out there every 10th or 15th game, I think this would not have been such an issue. Either way, I still think Mack did pretty darn well with the hand he was dealt.