NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) I would almost have to say that you get people with an agenda first, then they say "How can I interpret this religious text so that it fits with my agenda?" Probably true a lot of the time.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) I think there may be a misunderstanding. My reading of the NR piece gave me the impression that only the three judges comprosed the actual court of review, while the others in attendence were arguing a (rather one-sided) case. If that is the case, then indeed the COR would likely be a binding judicial body, and that would pretty much mean that Bush's requests via FISA were perfectly legal. This is, I think, what YASNY and Balta agreed on as well. So if that is the case, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I still have other reservations about the surveillance happening outside FISA, from a Constitutional and plain old legal standpoint. Those actions appear to be in question still.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) i was about to say the same thing. these responses seem to fit the study well. QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) do you still beat your wife? QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) :puke oh please, grow a pair will ya.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) give me a break. My posting of this study wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. Just given the right a hard time and serving as a conversation piece. So quick to attack the messenger. Don't take things so seriously. No one did take it seriously, and no one reacted strongly... until you egged them on.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) What they did in the Crusades under the flag of Christianity was wrong back then, and what they are doing today is wrong now. The religion is not the problem, its the people and their interpretation of what they believe God wants. The true clergy of any religion is going to push non-violence, and being good to one another. You get some other people who decide to push their agenda of what they interpret their religious text to be. Religion should never equal Violence. In Christianity Jesus gave his own life, without a fight, and even told his apostles not to resist with violence. A few hundred years later a few power hungry morons decide that they need to reclaim the holy land from the evil muslims. So they twist the words to incite the weak minded to kill a bunch of people for Jesus, the peacemaker. Now we have some weak minded people who think that their religion is telling them to eraticate all those who are the infidels. People should use that brain of theirs a bit more, and ask Does Allah, the merciful, really want the death of the entire world that isnt muslim? This is very true and very well put. And it stands in direct opposition to your previous post, labeling all of Islam as violent.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) But the judges were the ones that actually ruled. Where is it stated that FBI and NSA had any say so in the decision? As I understand it, reading York article and excerpts from the legal decision on Truong, the COS includes: 3 federal judges (judicial) US solicitor general (executive) Deputy AG (executive) A "justice official" (not sure) An FBI official (executive) VP Cheney's personal attorney (executive and just plain weird if you ask me) Now, perhaps this is my misinterperetation, but this COS made a legal decision that had the binding force of a court decision. And those officials were involved. To me, that's wrong. Am I misunderstanding something? Truly, tell me if I am.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) It's made up of three federal judges, is it not? Come on YAS, we went over this ground earlier. Yes it has judges on it. Yes it also has various other officials from the executive branch, and the legislative branch. It is therefore a joint body. You cannot have the FBI and NSA in on a "court" where their own warrants are being decided. Its the wolf in the hen house.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 09:08 AM) The COR is a judicial body. No, its a joint branch body. I realize I may be the only one here who sees the important distinction between the two, but I stand by it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 04:54 AM) The fact that someone saw fit to post this crap is what happens to be ridiculous. The responses to it are justified. It's garbage. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 04:44 AM) Considering that FISA tried to circumvent the Patriot Act by adhereing to the old Janet Reno standards, and this was challanged before the COR by the administration. The COR ruled in agreement with the administration. So, what exactly has Bush done that is illegal? He has extended his supposed war power authority for surveillance beyond what any judicial body has said is allowed. The COR itself is part of the problem. Bush and the administration are certainly not the only ones to blame here - but they are part of the whole mess.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 10:00 PM) North Korea = next to and a friend of China. Korean War was effectively USA fighting China. Connect the dots. More true then, less true now. Still an issue of course. That was what I meant when i referred to the overall strategic importance thing.

I like Hermy. He's gutsty, and he is a great guy to have around the 'pen. And when healthy, he'd be an ideal middle reliever for us. So... I hope his optimism turns out to be warranted. But I have my doubts.

Whoever said this was being done to light a fire under Jenks' ample behind, I have to agree. Jenks needs to get in shape and get his head back in the right place. But I also think that if Jenks fails to do that, Cotts is a pretty darn good closer option. I'm so not worried about Thome. And Gooch will find a stride at some point. I am not sure about the 2/6 think in the order, I think thats a tough call.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 08:48 PM) well maybe if I showed you all a copy of them.... later on when I can use my scanner ill scan one and than maybe that will make it more clear. I know what you are referring to - they are printed up on ticket stock, so they look like tickets. But they say they are good for an LD Box seat for any game in April or May, other than the Cubs series, right? If so, see my earlier post. You can go in person, but I'd recommend not waiting until then.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) You're on buddy! LOL Excellent. Nice sig. I added my end of the bet to my sig, since we apparently get to be creative.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) I have 4 tickets for lower box seats good for any April/May game besides the Cubs series. Do I have to call and let them know what game I plan on attending first or just show up? I had the exact same things. I went in there almost a month ago to get tickets, and by that time, there were only a few games left with LD tickets remaining (4 together). You CAN walk up with them, but I'd advise you to go down to the box office at the park and get your tickets SOON, because there may be only very few games left with LD seats. We ended up with a Tuesday night KC game. There were more available if you could do a weekday day game. But most weeknights were UD only, and weekends were all UD only or sold out.

Bravo on the response! Pride is called for here, and I am glad you took that angle. The rumor was just that, and I think it was handled exactly as it should have been. I choose to visit this site regularly because I really enjoy the other posters here, the admins are fair, and most importantly - this is by far the most knowledgeable Sox site available. And further having seen some other teams' sites, I haven't seen a site for any other team in baseball as knowledge-laden as this one (though I have not seen all the other boards out there). And I'm a recent addition, really - not an admin or anyone getting anything personal from this declaration. So I say cheers to SoxTalk. Keep up the good posting.

QUOTE(juddling @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 04:25 PM) Never really thought she looked 'hot' on the X-files but not too bad lately. G. Anderson's new look What a change.... What a change indeed... :puke She looked a heck of a lot better in her X-Files days.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) A sig bet will work. I'll let you decide. OK, what the heck. My first sig bet. I'll add it in a minute.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:40 PM) Not really. In fact, it's usually more advantageous to have a strong lineup during the regular season, since you have 5 starters instead of 4 and your top guys don't always face each other. The Yankees have made the playoffs regularly without strong starting pitching. The Red Sox have done it largely with their lineup of late. The Indians' pitching was highly mediocre last year. The Cardinals have gotten by with several journeymen and slugged people to death. The same was true of the 2000 Sox and the Angels and Giants the year they met in the Series. Even the Marlins' staff wasn't very good during the regular season when they won it. The only teams that really had strong pitching that made the playoffs without at least a decent offense of late were the White Sox and the Dodgers 2 years ago. I guess the Astros and Angels count too, but the latter was producing a little better during the regular season. Even the Twins were decent at putting runs on the board in past years. They had to be since their starting staff wasn't very good outside of Johna. Granted good starting pitching is a major benefit once you make the playoffs, but it isn't the be all and end all, and the best staff doesn't always win. This isn't really true. It was posted in an earlier thread - if you look at the team ERA numbers from last year, 4 of the top 5 teams MLB were playoff teams (plus CLE who almost made it), and in the AL, the playoff teams were 1(t), 3, 9 and 11. Looking at team OPS, on the other hand, there were four playoff teams in the top half of the league, and 4 in the bottom half. Runs scored? 5 in top half, only 2 in top 5. To say having a strong lineup is more advantageous than strong pitching just doesn't hold up.

And right here was something much more interesting than the main point of the article: What is buried in that statement (I think) is that the insecure, defensive folks are most likely to find some cause, ANY cause, and stick to it like glue. In other words, maybe its those who rigidly follow any one party (GOP, Dem or otherwise) at all that are the insecure ones.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060322/...-RIGHTS-DC.html i never thought it was this bad until i read this. and i believe it too. they ought to be next on our s*** list. Some of us believe they should have been higher on that list than Iraq. To bad they aren't as strategically interesting to our government.

Doubles all around for our bench players - nice to see.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) Where the f*** are mine? I haven't gotten mine yet either, and I live in the city. Then again, our post-person isn't the best I've seen (leaves locked mailboxes hanging open, rips and crumples stuff getting it into the box almost daily).

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) I'll take you up on that bet. First of all, I don't think Minnesota will be all that great, but with their pitching staff, I'll be shocked if they finish under .500. And the Tigers should be improved this year. Sorry, but the addition of a few average veterans won't make a ton of difference to a 106 loss team. They'll be a little better, but they'll also stay in the cellar. OK, you're on - KC will not finish in last place in the division in 2006. Um... what are we betting? One of those sig bets people do? Or just a gentlemen's bet that we remember at the end of the year? I think MIN will be a bit under .500, and I think DET will finish last. KC will beat out DET and, possibly, give MIN a run for 3rd place. CLE will finish 2nd, no surprise there, but I think they will not be as good as last year. I don't see a wild card from the Central.