WCSox

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) i'm just waiting for Princeton to give him a full scholarship. Since he doesn't appear to be that bright, he might have a better shot at Yale... Link :headshake

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) Right, but my point was that the ACLU isn't just promoting an ultra left wing political agenda that you said. They do protect civil liberties of people. You''re absolutely right. They do protect American citizens in need and that's a good thing. HOWEVER, they only do so when their cases fit the ACLU's liberal agenda. How often do you see the ACLU going out of their way to protect the civil liberties of child rape victims? Nevermind the fact that child rapists have gotten off with laughably-short sentences, the ACLU isn't interested in being tough on crime - that's a conservative agenda. But they'll represent NAMBLA (free speech - high proirity for liberals) pro bono at the drop of a hat. The ACLU aided Rush because HIS CASE FIT THEIR AGENDA: The district attorney in Florida accessed Rush's medical records in an apparently illegal manner. The ACLU's client in this case many not have been a liberal, but the principle at hand (illegal search) is one that's protected by liberals much more often than conservatives (e.g., the Bush administration's wire-tapping fiasco). It's not about WHO they protect, it's about WHAT they're protecting. And, hey, coming to the aid of Rush (who is a multi-millionaire and doesn't need their help anyway) gives the impression of political impartiality, so more the better!

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Didn't they support Rush Limbaugh during his drug phase? Sure, but at least Rush had a legitimate case (the DA illegally accessing his medical records). The ACLU doesn't have ANY case here. This is a frivilous lawsuit that will get thrown out of any court immediately. And the ACLU knows this, but doesn't care. They have no concerns over tying up our court system with a frivilous case. And guess who will pay the legal fees for this lawsuit: the taxpayers!

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) Well, where is it written that people are "supposed" to be in marriages in the first place? Um, in the texts of most major religions. Marriage has been around forever and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. While cheating has also been around forever, polygamist and official "open" marriages have been relatively few in number and have failed miserably in the long run. There's probably a good reason for that. I agree that some aspects of marriage can and probably will change (such as gay marriage), but I don't see the institution itself "evolving into extinction."

QUOTE(Pauly8509CWS @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) Of course it has nothing to do with the christmas shopping happening around that time either... LOL, no kidding! Any word yet on what Sony plans on charging us? I've heard as high as $900, but methinks that it would be closer to the X-Box 360's price.

Right, because running away from our marital problems is a better course of action than trying to deal with them! This quote provides examples of some of the worst trends of our society today: moral relativism, selfishness, irresponsibility, and the never-ending desire for instant gratification. :headshake

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Aside from the fascinating science, since this thing output many times over the energy on input, one has to wonder if they have stumbled onto a new energy generation source. If they could control it and harness the energy (as people have been trying with "cold fusion"), it would be truly revolutionary. Wow...

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 10:50 PM) I would hope that the Dems and GOP would be worrying about how to govern the country correctly. Unfortunately, they're only worried about staying in power. That's why nothing ever gets done on Capitol Hill.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) By representing an individual who has a concern about his civil liberties? Ummm ok. QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 09:47 PM) believe what you want but they come to the aid of EVERYONE no matter who if they feel their rights have been stomped on. And you know what? it creates precedent and helps us legally... Read the first post and tell me what that has to do with civil liberties. How does this "legal precedent" help us? I'm glad that we have an ACLU, but they're doing an absolutely wretched job of choosing their cases. This is a prime example.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 02:25 PM) Need to take back one of the houses in '06 first. They're in a good position to do that. What would help them even more would be to get away from the negative rhetoric/attacks, show the American public a plan, and explain why it would work better than the GOP's. And, for Chrissake, get rid of that bomb-throwing loon Howard Dean.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) There should be penalties for groups or individuals who tie up the courts with nonsense like this. This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame.

My apologies is somebody posted this earlier. It's unfortunate that the ACLU wastes our time and money with idiotic crap like this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187388,00.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) Not necessarily. Politically, Bush is in a horrible spot right now. Yes, but they can have a long, drawn-out debate on the issue (which will generate A LOT of press coverage) without having to suffer an embarrassing defeat when the motion is crushed. It's the best of both worlds. If that's true, it draws negative attention to and puts blame on a lame-duck administration, rather than the Republicans. The Dems shouldn't be worried about Bush and Cheney right now. They need to worry about how they're going to defeat the Republicans in '08.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) How does it help Feingold if he introduces a censure motion and two people vote for it? It doesn't. You're right. In fact, an overwhelming loss in the censure motion would do the Dems more harm than good. That's why the majority of Dems don't want to actually vote on it. But they're more than happy to engage in a debate that will generate significant media coverage that portrays the Bush administration negatively. This is a political stunt, not an actual attempt to censure the President.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Is scientology overly represented by f***ing retarded douchebag Hollywood types? I honestly cannot understand how stupid you have to be to fall for this garbage. Entertainers are on the of the few groups who are simultaneously wealthy and under-educated enough to buy into the cult of $cientology. Frankly, I'm surprised that more pro athletes aren't $cientologists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#C...y_and_criticism Sounds like a legitimate religion to me!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does. He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883 Sure, because a long, drawn-out debate in the Senate will mean more negative media coverage of the Bush administration than a quick, losing vote on censure.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Screw that. This guy has nearly 3000 American deaths on his hands. he should be hung at ground zero. Despite not being a huge supporter of the death penalty, I'm not going to shed any tears if he gets the chair. Even if he does get life without parole, there's a good chance that he'd be murdered in prison anyway.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Do we prosecute doctors for treating criminals injured in the act? No. Every human being is entitled to his or her human rights. Does every human being around the world have the "right" to medical care at a top-notch American hospital? I'm not sure about that. Can't say I'm in favor of turning away patients in the emergency room. The best course of action seems to be tighter border security and imprisonment of captured illegals prior to deportation. They'll have less incentive to come here when the worst-case scenario is more than just a free ride back to the border.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) Talk about fundementally flawed. When someone steps across the border and therefore shows total disrespect for the laws of this land, and then expects the citizens of this land to supply them with aid in any form, that is fundamentally flawed.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) Ok, I get your argument. It happened in the past, so that makes it perfectly acceptable now. Fair enough. Of course the big difference, which you conveniently omit, is that the vast majority of European immigrants who came to America in the late 1800s and early 1900s did it LEGALLY. I do not condone the prejudice that they endured, but this was during an age when African-Americans drank out of "colored" water fountains. Racism was obviously (and sadly) more widely-accepted in this country back then.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) Yep, I'm "screaming racism." :rolly If you're gonna twist my words that poorly, might as well admit you've run out of things to say and are just talking out of your ass... No, you're screaming "latent racism"! If you don't want to be labeled a race-baiter, stop using the race card to defend your arguments. It's nothing short of a veiled condemnation of the others involved in the discussion.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) But then why bring it up? How does it help your argument at all? Someone also brought up the argument to WCSox that if he couldn't afford kids and a family or it was difficult for him to then he shouldn't have them. It is my understanding that most Mexican's come across the border to provide for their family in Mexico. Because they can't provide for them over there. Many Mexican's have large families in Mexico. They have 5 - 10 kids that they can not support so they risk their life to come over here to get paid less than minimum wage so they can feed/provide for their 5 - 10 kids across the border. Why don't we tell them to stop having kids if they can't afford it instead of telling our own tax paying citizens to stop having kids or not to have kids. Obviously WCSox can support his and has no trouble doing so, he just doesn't feel like supporting other peoples families from other countries. That is the point he was tring to make and it was twisted around on him. Thank you.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 09:01 PM) While I'm on the ex-Sox kick, how about Antonio Osuna? (Not homefish, the guy with the ugly mug.) Or maybe we could bring back Carlos Castillo and make a run at the Heaviest Bullpen in the Majors title.

It just figures that when the Feds have a slam-dunk case, their idiot lawyer screws it up. :rolly Since I'm not a death-penalty supporter, life without parole sounds fine to me.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) The fatal flaw in your argument is that you assume that every husband with a house and kids shares yours views. That's not the case. Whiff! You miss my point again. If you want extra money taken out of YOUR paycheck to support people who are committing a crime simply by being on American soil, that's your business. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let people like you take extra money out of MY paycheck to support your liberal agenda. And if that makes me a "latent racist" in the eyes of you and your leftist cohorts, then so be it. If you'll stop using the race card to defend your argument, I'll agree to that.