WCSox

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) If that were only the case, I think I could live with bag searches on the subway. But, its not. The NYPD has said if they find anything they can use against someone in a bag search, they will. So it might not be a bomb. It might be something else. Not related to terrorism and that would constitute a huge growth of access into your private life by federal or local authorities. You may not have a problem with it now. But what if one day it affects you. What if you're carrying a can of spray paint home to paint something at your house and they think its to tag up the subway station? If that's the only evidence they have, I have nothing to worry about. A guy in Philadelphia told a bartender that he was going to kill Nixon back in the early '70s. The FBI showed up at his home, asked him a few questions, looked around the house, and nothing happened... until the guy attempted to hijack a plane at BWI and ended up killing a security guard and a pilot in the process. It works both ways. The families and friends of 9/11 victims might disagree with you. You're "comparing apples to rocks." The justice system in America is just a teeny-weeny different than that in East Germany was, don't you think? Again, I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic conversations without a warrant. I don't know what the solution to fighting terrorism is, but I do know that protecting one's right to complete and utter privacy no matter what the cost is certainly less important than taking the necessary action to save lives.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 09:16 AM) And right there (bold above), we have taken a huge step away from the Constitution and a free state, and moved towards fascism. I would hope that any American would be scared to death of that happening. This whole "I have nothing to hide" argument is so ridiculous that it could be used successfully to defend the Nazis. Oh, so our government is suddenly going to turn into Nazi Germany if phone and e-mail conversations are monitored. That's extremist rhetoric if I've ever heard it. I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's an "expectation of privacy" anywhere outside of one's own property.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) Also, if you know you are getting on the subway where searches are now routine, there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in your bag. There is, on the other hand, a logical expectation that a phone call or email in private would stay that way, barring someone breaking the law. Like, say, the NSA. So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore. If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about? Just curious.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) Are you serious? ALL telephone communications are regulated by the FCC, leaving you no other options, and all communications could be monitored by surveillance equipment. There is no choice there. Some people in New York have no other finacial option than to take the subway to work. For those who need to travel thousands of miles for work-related business, taking a plane is the only option. I see no difference between that and using a telephone.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) Completely different scenario. That's a person submitting to a search as part of a voluntary course of action (taking the subway). I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC. Now, that, I would have a problem with.

"Batwurst... sausage... Ditka..."

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 06:44 AM) Of course our rights come with a price tag. Get rid of Miranda and Search and Seizure laws and more criminals (and innocent people) will be off the streets. I am certain, and I am using an extreme example, the Gestapo and SS could show how their tactics saved lives by getting criminals off the streets. But that isn't America and it isn't what generations have fought to preserve. Not that I disagree, but I wonder how many New Yorkers feel that their rights are being violated when their bags are searched now in the subways. My guess is not too many.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 02:17 AM) If these homeowners had insurance, which many didn't, then they wouldn't take a financial hit. However, is the government supposed to be the nation's insurance company? Free insurance for everybody? Medical? Homeowners? ... If they are getting 60% return on what WAS the value of their property, as opposed to what the current value actually is, they should be thankful. I feel bad for the people who couldn't afford homeowners insurance. Then again, I'm sure that a large percentage of them couldn't afford it because they instead chose to spend their extra money on cell phones, DVD players, satellite TV, $20,000+ cars, etc. Why be responsible with your income when the government will bail you out if a disaster hits? It's a shame that government assistance is so widely-abused by people who just don't want to act like responsible adults. There are a lot of honest, hard-working people who actually need (and deserve) it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) I disagree with your complete exhonoration of teh Church however. Women can use barrier protections that the husbands don't even need to know about, but that is against Catholic teaching. So standing by an archaic prohibition against birth control seems to be more important to the Church than the healths and lives of the women in this case. Agreed that the Church's rules about contraception are silly in some ways, but most of the Catholics I know use them anyway. And, as I said, it's not like the Catholic Church has their own secret police who survey that goings-on in bedrooms in Africa. Africa's problem isn't one of birth control. It's one of behavior. If women were treated like human beings over there, rather than possessions and sexual objects, the HIV epidemic would be much less severe.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) this is purely about those who are apologists for the Church apparatus, failing to see that it has a helluva lot of blood on its hands) Nobody's "failed" to see anything. And nobody's acting as an "apologist" for the Catholic Church. EVERYBODY knows about these horrific acts.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) The Catholic Church and organized religion in general have done more to cause violence, hatred and evil on this planet than even the worst dictators could have ever hoped for. More blood has been spilled in the name of sectarian religion than any other cause. Wow, so he's graduated from anti-Catholic to anti-organized religion. How could we be so blind to follow these immoral organized religions! :headshake

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) It boggles my mind that seeing the massive moral corruption and amoral nature of so much of the Catholic church apparatus history that anybody would want to be a part of that organized religious apparatus. He's right. We should give up on being Americans as well, given the level of corruption in our government.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Funny, I thought it was quite clear that I was attacking the institution and the persons within the institution that kept their mouths shut while the Church has perpetrated some pretty horrendous activities over the years. Funny, I thought it was quite clear that the Catholic Church was not working to spread HIV all over Africa. It seems to me that teaching people to behave responsibly (no pre-marital sex and no extra-marital sex) works towards the opposite goal. I find it really sad that you blame the church for the HIV epidemic in Africa, rather than the irresponsible and immoral behavior of the people. It boggles my mind that you continue to insult Catholics on this board with your inflammatory rhetoric. I feel sorry for you. I couldn't imagine going through life with the amount of hatred that you carry.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) 1 Billion?!? Holy Crap! Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed. That reminds me of LCR's rant about how the Catholic Church is working to spread HIV all over the world... Nevermind the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't have a law enforcement branch and can in no way "ban" contraceptive use. Nevermind the fact that a high percentage of African men don't wear condoms simply because they don't think it's "manly" or the fact that most Catholics in developed parts of the world use them anyway. And nevermind the fact that these same African men spread HIV by having extra-marital affairs with prostitutes (something that the Catholic Church is strongly against). Being a married woman in many parts of Africa is a death sentence... but it's not because of the Catholic Church.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) To respond to the first part then .... Yes, I see the connection. I still feel that there was major overreaction because they were not denigrating the faith or the religion, per say. The criticism was directed at some of the policies of the institution. The Vatican has certainly left something to be desired throughout history as a representive of Christ. You make some good points, but obvious it's that LCR wasn't really trying to point out the difference. To the contrary, he didn't care if he stepped on the toes of a billion+ Catholics with his comments. And when he calls the members of the Catholic Church "hypocrites" and "fascists," that includes my priest. And I take offense to that.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) informer...se don she don be don se day-o... me look you boom boom down... oh...different snow. my bad.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) Here's something interesting to toss around. If a gay couple adopts a baby boy. Will he grow up to be gay, because of the acceptance of it? Can two gay guys raise a heterosexual boy? See I think it has to do with genes. When that kid hits 11 or 12 he is gonna see some girl and be like whoa!! It doesn't matter that his dads are gay...I think his body will tell him what he likes to see and what he doesn't. edit: BTW, I was trying to take this away from a s*** starting thread, into a legitimate discussion. From what little I've seen, it seems women tend to gravitate more towards homosexuality consciously (much of it has to do with bad previous relationships with men). The gay men I've known, however, seemed to have always been gay. However, I also know of exceptions in both cases. In my (relatively) uninformed opinion, it seems to be a mix of conscious decision-making and genetics. Whatever the underlying causes, it's certainly an interesting subject.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) Maybe you're right, but apparently more than one person was offended personally. I'm not a "rapist apologist". I am deeply offended by the actions of the church in some of these cases, but I am also offended by someone saying: If you want to f*** kids join the preisthood. All priests are not pedophiles. It's a stereotypical statement that wouldn't fly in any other case and IMO shouldn't fly here - Fillibuster or not. Excellent post.

I wonder what the response from the left would've been if I had labeled the Democratic Party as "aiders and abetters of homicide" because they "coddled" Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick.

But there's no double-standard in Progressive America. :rolly

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) Crede will go to arb with Bor-ass I am afraid. Agreed, unfortunately. As for Mackowiak... "Exxxxcellent" :mrburns

:headshake

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) That is simply a myth. In fact, the reverse happens even more often, with Americans heading to Canada for things like Eye surgery, which is cheaper up there. Canada can have fairly long waits for elective surgeries, but for things which are actually medically necessary, the waits in Canada may even be less. Assuming that most American-based health insurance companies don't contribute financially towards surgeries conducted in Canada, I imagine that most major and critical surgical procedures cost more up there (even with the differing values in currency). I'm sorry to hear about what your family has experienced. It's a very difficult situation. Medical insurance certainly is costly and, unfortunately, not everybody has access to it. But I disagree that socialized healthcare is the solution. JMO.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/...rt/krugman.html A number of people from Canada have come to the U.S. for surgery that isn't available to them at home (and, IIRC, they have to pay out-of-pocket). Socialized healthcare will never work in this country. When the obese baby-boomers hit their '70s, even our current system will struggle to deal with it.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) But still one person DID survive. And that's something too. It's freaking amazing, given the high CO level and the duration over which they were trapped.