FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:55 AM) I love The Hammer Hammer Time 2008 2008? I seriously doubt he'll be up for parole that soon.

Seems that way: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics...artner=homepage

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:38 AM) The administration should put together an enemies list and check it twice each day . . . BTW, IMNSHO, Bush should not be impeached for this, so far. I think we are far better off with him in office, than dragging through the hearings. IMNSO, I'm glad you're not the one who is going to be making that decision.

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest. . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122000685.html In other related news: • Rep. Blunt says he's enjoying spending life on his knees gobbling Bush's knob: • Scotty Mac unconvincingly redefines the term "any time" to mean, well. . . , 'not really any time': • Pat Roberts plays the lapdog: • McCain says Rockefeller should have done all that and more: • And Rockefeller explains what its like when Cheney f***s you stupid and then never calls you back:

QUOTE(mreye @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:17 PM) Or to here. Ah, what a wealth of information the SoxTalk community is.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:54 PM) Maybe this impeachment query will determine this in a definitive way. Did he break the law or not. We will see. It won't be absolutely definitive because the WH will be able to find at least one expert willing to accept the broad war powers interpretation they are pushing. But the more recognized experts who line up to side against that interpretation, the harder it's going to be for the WH to stifle a full investigation.

Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, is unleashing a potential s*** storm. (Forewarning: It's a Raw Story link, for those of you who don't care for that outlet. They do get scoops sometimes though).

In the wake of John Dean chiming in and opining that GWB has comitted an impeachable offense, Sen. Boxer is soliciting expert opinions about the appropriateness of impeachment.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:17 PM) That kind of sounds like MSNBC removing that poll about the death penalty after 72% voted in favor of it. Maybe. All of these constantly updating portal pages are slow on the uptake on some things sometimes. I didn't see that MSNBC had done that, btw. Too bad.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) Actually, no it can't happen in the house. There is no filibuster and the parliamentary tactics that the opposition has in the House is not the same. Oh, that's right. Back to high school civics class for me.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:14 PM) Damn tree huggers want to undercut our military and let the Katrina victims freeze. Ain't politics grand? Let's secede and form a Sovereign SoxTalk Nation. I call I get to be King!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:22 PM) What would end up happening is they would filibuster, table the filibuster and introduce a new version without the ANWR provision that would pass. Under the scenario I've seen. Yep. And the same thing could have happened in the House I believe.

Well, just so long as we're keeping the Gay Quakers on the run, I say they should do what they gotsta do.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:00 PM) Never going to happen. Why do you say that? In the light of day everyone can see exactly what the holdup on passage is and who is responsible for it.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:49 PM) So who is being spied on? Quakers apparently. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/print...splaymode/1098/ And the gays. From Sirius Radio News But my assumption when I saw these stories a week or so ago was that these surveilances were pursued with legal warrants. I still assume that is the case.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:45 PM) I guess this is an interesting place to mention this... UCLA did a media study on the respective news sites and networks. It is kinda interesting, but since Drudge is specifically mentioned, this study actually ranks it as Centrist. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 I'd pretty much agree, compared to the rest of the field.

The opinion of the court is a monstrous 139 pages (Christmas Reading List!), but the two cogent chunks I've seen a coupel times are these: and the awesome conclusion: It's serendipitous that the judge, John E Jones III, is a conservative judge, a devout Lutheran, and a Republican appointed by Geroge W Bush. The cries of 'judicial activism' will still come, no doubt, but hopefully they will be seen for what they are.

Dennis is always good for some irreverency.

I prefer the Drudge Retort, but yeah I check out the other one sometimes as well. The divergent poll conclusions are all over the place the last couple of days. I'm sure Drudge will have links to both the stories that show a bump and also those that don't pretty soon.

Big blow to the Creation "Scientists", oops, I mean the ID proponents. Big victory for sciece, education, and church/state separation. And good to see that science and education will not be made to bend over in Dover. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1424933

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) Ok, now I find that interesting not in the way you do, in that it suggests a motive, but in that until 2002, the FISA courts said no to a wiretap request exactly 0 times. In other words, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton each got the FISA court to agree to thousands of wiretaps without ever having a problem obtainning a warrant. What the Hell was Bush telling them? The text of the rebuke suggests they were: 1) making serial ommissions of information the FISA court would need to correctly determine the legitimacy of the requests, and 2) not sharing the information obtained from the wiretaps with appropriate agencies. On that note, all the pap about Patriot Act 'tearing down barriers' to interagency intel sharing seems to be a lot of hooey.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 10:29 AM) Jonathan Alter alleges that Bush met with NYT executive editors two weeks ago to attempt to suppress the story. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/ Try to keep up. hmmm? http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=994395

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:46 AM) Nothing pisses me off more than some random asswipe that I don't even know coming to my house and pissing on my truck in the middle of the night. Well duh, move out of Wrigleyville then.

Let's take another stroll down memory lane, to again examine whether we should believe anything GWB says. Here's an appearance in April 2004 in Buffalo, NY, where GWB was pimping the Patriot Act. http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.ph...hrase=&contain= He makes it very clear that court orders are legally required for any wiretaps to be authorized. Of course, we now know that by 2004 he had already had the NSA perform many wiretaps without seeking the court orders that by his own admission (for what that's worth) were legally required. Even though this appearance has some wonderfully ironic nuggets about how "when the President says something, he'd better mean it," and the like, here is the relevant point for the current fiasco: They may value the Constitution. They just don't like to have to adhere to it.