NorthSideSox72

If the gov't would just get its claws out of marriage entirely, that would be ideal. It would fix this problem, and remove an intrusion into out lives that is just not necessary. Our personal relationships should not be regulated.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 06:09 PM) Can somebody explain to me why somebody would want to be gay? In my experiences, it seems to be people craving attention. Any attention is good attention to somebody who is craving it. Do most of you agree with Rock that it is a choice, or do you believe that it is an innate behavior? The only logical thing that I have heard is "God's way of stopping over population", but don't all boys in middle school have raging hormones for the females? Even the gay guys that I know from my high school were straight in middle school and "liked" girls. You think most people are gay because they are craving attention? That is one of the more ignorant things I've seen posted on this board. Seriously. You should be embarrassed. It isn't a choice. It is a trait - a base, profound personality dimension. It can be suppressed to some extent, but not removed by simply making a choice.

I had a feeling this one was headed here from the get-go.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) I'm glad that you feel I'm as important as our President - but frankly, I just don't do that much vacationing. Wow. I heard that one from the street.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) Thats not gay, thats hot. Oh I agree with that. I don't mind that avatar one bit. Nice comeback.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Yes, choice. I do not agree with the notion of being born gay, I believe thats its an active choice. Im not trying to say im against being gay, if someone chooses to do it, thats fine with me. I just dont agree with it. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Sort of a funny comment coming from a person whose avatar shows two women tounguing each other.

I just new this thread would end up down a bad road. I can honestly say I could give less of a damn if there was a gay guy around me in the lockerroom. Want to know why? For one thing, I go to the gym, and I'm guessing not every guy in there is straight. And for another thing, its not like every gay person is out to touch every other guy - what a ludicrous idea. I'm more concerned about some guy's athlete's foot in the lockerroom than I would be worrying about which guy was gay. Athlete's foot would actually cause me a problem.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) It also serves the purpose of being able to say "I told you so" when it finally does happen. And there is the biggest reason right there - CYA. And not just for partisan politicians either. The people who are in charge of our security want to make sure they are covered as well. Any political motivation, from an elections perspective, is probably there too, but secondarily. Bush certainly did capitalize on fear in winning his 2004 re-election, saying "9/11" as many times as humanly possible.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) Score early, score often. Pitch well. And play some D.

This is the biggest series of the year thus far (key: thus far). A sweep of the pussycats would be ideal, but 2 of 3 is good. Winning game 1 is key. Garcia rocks DET. Let's kick some Dee-troit ass!

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 09:14 AM) The main difference between them is that Z has no respect for anyone but himself. That's a pretty big difference when your job is playing a team sport. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) That makes sense. I won't argue the fact that these people should be treated 'humanely', whatever that means. At the same time, the detention and treatment of these people are far better then what they probably had for a living in Afghanistan, but yet, we have to politicize this and say that they deserve "CONSTITUTIONAL" rights, and I do not think they deserve that at all. Who said anything about Constitutional rights being granted? You keep harping on that, but no one here has suggested that.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 09:08 AM) Having (or having access to) the data doesn't mean anything. All it is is a huge unintelligible pile of data. Searching the data so that it becomes useful is being done only when foreign hostiles are identified through one measure or another. Another interesting point is that, although I am not a telecom expert, I think much of this traffic, certainly all of the cell calls, are made using radio waves of some type. The FCC may have some legal right to this information since it is public domain. I disagree. I think it matters plenty. I'm sorry but I don't trust the government or those agencies enough to say "Oh, it's OK obtain any data you want, so long as you promise not to look at it." As I've said many times, those agencies are supposed to be bulldogs, getting all the information they can. I don't blame them. But a check against that must be in place as well for the adversarial legal system to work - that check is a warrant. And it that check was not in place here. And the FCC regulates and investigates. That is different than an intelligence of law enforcement agency requesting private call data and getting it without a warrant or even any sort of cause.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) Just when you think you've read it all. Zambrano is not a head case, that's just making excuses for him. He's a childish, sore losing, unprofessional piece of garbage who deserves to spend the rest of his career right where he is, on a lousy ball club. I would agree. I was trying to be a little forgiving in my post. Not sure why, since I'd agree he is a jerk. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) Zambrano would be the best pitcher on the White Sox, IMO. I would take him in a heartbeat. The Cubs are dumb, but not dumb enough to ever let him go. He's probably nuts and a guy you hate as an opponent. Sort of like AJ. Nothing like AJ. Not even close. AJ doesn't threaten people, break things, throw things, blame teammates for problems, get in verbal sparring with teammates (AJ hasn't with Sox anyway), tell people he is going to bean them, etc., etc. They are just not even in the same world.

He is dangerously mentally unstable. No thanks.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 07:42 AM) You're kidding, right? There's been study after study done on that, and there is a correlation. Show me. Seriously. I want to see any scientific study that shows any demonstrable, consistent leaning of the major networks to one side or the other. Because I haven't seen it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course - which is why I really would like to see it - but for now, I just don't believe it. The MSM (in this case I mean the major networks, major papers) is possibly not right at dead center. But I'd say they are pretty darn close, in the net, with their news stories and story selection. And I am not talking about opinion columnists here, I mean the reported NEWS. I just don't see a material bias there.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 12:00 AM) The Bush has stated time and time again that the program does not include internal domestic communications. The POTUS has long held the athourity to conduct warrantless searches, despite FISA. Some former Presidents took it even further. If it doesn't include those, then what about the calls DB that the phone companies turned over? The one with ALL the calls placed? That was what I was referring to in this case. I think maybe you were talking more about the warrantless tapping, which I also happen to disagree with.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 08:13 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). Kind of like the GOP blaming the "MSM" when their numbers go down.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 08:59 PM) No. You're not a kook, you're quite right. The only reason we have all this clamor to replace the electoral college system is because the left is still sore about losing the 2000 election. I hope you don't actually think that is why some of us want to get rid of the electoral college. I want to get rid of it because it effectively disenfranchises the majority of the country.

The idea that either Bush or Kerry, winning the 2004 election by a slim margin, would have a mandate is laughable. A "clear mandate", as Bush claimed to have, does not come from winning an election 51-49.

QUOTE(valponick @ Jun 4, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) While I think these previews are nice and a good addition to this site, the people who write them need to be more objective. This is a primarily Sox site, not a baseball site generally. And its actually more objective than any of the other Sox boards, IMHO.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 03:21 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. No, I don't Capiche, and I think you are incorrect (or I misunderstand you again). Perhaps we are not talking about the same database. The discrimination I mentioned was the legal delineation - citizens versus non-citizens. And the database I am referring to is the one the government collected from the phone companies as a pool of data. In any case, it is pretty clearly in need of a warrant to me. If a court looked at this, in my opinion, the action would be stuck down as illegal. Your example of the traffic camera is PLAIN SIGHT criminal law enforcement, which is specifically allowed by court rulings. Knowing who calls who, citizen to citizen, in the U.S., is not plain sight.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) If a known foreign terror suspect places to or receives a call from inside the US, citizen or not, the person on the other end becomes subject to suspicion and further investigation. The vehicle to find out these names is the phone data base. It is, in and of itself, not unconstitutional. Certain uses can be but the data base is just a collection of data. If it is used to investigate domestic criminal activity without a warrant that use is illegal. Tracking the movements and communications of hostile foreign forces is not only lawful but compulsory activity our government should be doing. If it leads to a domestic connection, it is collateral discovery. You claim that the data base is illegal. I contend that it is not. If the database contained just those people's calls (those who are non-citizens, and/or overseas calls involving non-citizens), then I am perfectly fine with it.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) "And that has what to do this topic?" This is what it has to do with this topic. If the Canadian terrorists made call into the US, those numbers can be searched in the data base. Those who received or made calls to these number are subject to investigation/suspicion. Since the US Citizen is not the basis of the search criteria, more collateral discovery, their rights have not been violated but they can still be investigated and ultimatley prosecuted and convicted based on an investigation that began on a non-US citizen. Pretty basic really. I still don't see what you are getting at. Did calls between these Canadians and some US counterparts take place? Were people in the US known terrorists or something? I don't see the connection. I agree with your point, I just don't see what it has to do with this.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) The Center for Public Integrity takes a look at privately funded travel by folks in Congress, and finds that private individuals, companies, and groups have funded over $50 million in travel for Congress since 2000. The worst offenders, in both number of trips and money? (in alphabetical order) Interesting, since, wasn't Boehner nominated by the GOP as majority leader with an emphasis on his impeccable ethics? Not that this behavior is, per se, unethical. But it does raise a few flags of concern. Especially since his funded travel is greater than DeLay that he replaced, and that travel was part of what got the hammer in trouble in the first place.