samclemens

wow...what can you say besides "arkansas"?

while i'd like to whipe out the people in power in iran, i have to say that its about time the citizens there grew some cajones and started some overthrow s***. the people in power there are determined to turn iran into the next north korea

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 04:37 AM) It's not a "unbannable forum", FWIW. It's not an "anything goes" forum, either. The disclaimer simply means if we don't want to deal with the petty bulls***, we won't, but we still reserve that right, ESPECIALLY if it carries over to other forums. what did anthrax do? i miss his "RIP Dimebag Darryl" sig already

seriously, ozzie is way more loved in venezuala than chavez. the only reason he is in power is because he's an effective dictator

justice? kill his ass, that's justice. justice sure isnt putting a roof on his head and feeding him three squares a day. he deserves torture, i think, but most would agree that torture is going too far realistically. in conclusion, i hope he's dead.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Time for another of my semi-occassional story updates. • The first item is a good challenge to Kap, who has suggested that there are as many legal/constitutional experts who think the "any means necessary" 9/14 Joint Resolution justification holds water as think it is hogwash. Let's start keeping count. 12 recognized experts have drafted and signed on to a letter just sent to Congress woicingh their considered opinion that the White House failed to identify "any plausible legal authority for such surveillance." Here's the link to the full letter http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650#fnr14 and here are some relevant extracts, as pulled and annotated by the folks at Truthout: Thr whole letter is worth reading. As for the credentials of the authors, here is the list. - Curtis Bradley, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office - David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center - Walter Dellinger, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General - Ronald Dworkin, NYU Law School - Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution - Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney General - Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ - Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ - Beth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel - William S. Sessions, former Director, FBI, former Chief United States District Judge - Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law and former Provost, University of Chicago - Kathleen Sullivan, Professor and former Dean, Stanford Law School - Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School - William Van Alstyne, William & Mary Law School, former Justice Department attorney • Laurence Tribe, from the list above, is a recognized constitutional authority. He's the one who earlier this week referred to the BushCo legal justification for nSA surveilance as "poppycock". • Former Clinton era General Counsel for the CIA Jeffrey Smith just sent his own 14-page letter to the House Select Committee on Intelligence asking to be allowed to to testify at hearings that Bush overstepped his authority and broke the law. I saw links to this story testerday but can't fine them now. • The NSA has warned whistleblower/patriot #1 Russell Tice not to testify before Congress. Why would that be? • Oh yeah, it turns out that the "any means necessary" 9/14 Joint Resolution justification may be an even bigger load of crap than previously believed. Seems now as if Bush authorised illegal warrantless wiretaps BEFORE 9/11. How about that? The link is to a Kos entry, and there are links to a Truthout story as well as the declassified document showing this, so if you are not a fan of the evil liberal blog sites you need not click. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/13/103350/780 i dont even care about any of this, man. get off clinton's (and his shody administrations') balls, for god's sake!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) I think that comes about because of this stupid rule where the nominee is allowed to claim that he won't talk about business that might come before the court while he's on it. If you could just come out and ask a guy how he would rule on a hypothetical, that would make this vastly easier, but instead, we're left with all these little word games which try to get answers to exactly those sorts of questions without really asking them. It's not a stupid rule- it protects the judges. Were a nominee to commit to overturning or affirming roe v. wade, and be confirmed, then if an abortion case came up at a later time that the judge thought merited choosing the opposite of what they claimed earlier because of a few facts that were different or what have you, they would be f***ed, since if they rule how they feel they will be called a liar, and if they go along with the ruling as they called it during their nomination it will not be the way they feel the case should go. the entire nomination proceeding is very delicate and above all...well, worthless, unless the nominee commits some kind of taboo that will get him censured. A good nominee will not let you know anything about their personal ideals, and will cite stare decisis at every chance possible. just like ginsburg, bork (he got shafted), roberts (the master)...

its been a good career bagwell. time to hang em up and give some kid a chance

embree sucks

i feel sorry for whoever is going to do it, but if it's all the same...option #2

i would have preferred beltin' bill melton, but ok...i'll give singleton a chance

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) Just out of curiosity, did he actually author any of those opinions, or did he just sign onto opinions written by others? Your post lists 2 which says he just signed on, and 2 which don't say explicity whether he wrote them or not. it shouldnt make a sifference. whether he authored to opinion or not, he felt strongly enough to agree with another's opinion. judges that are higher ups usually will write a concurrence even if they agree, but have other reasons for agreeing. if alito signed onto an opinion, it means he felt that way.

I've been following the hearings, and I believe that Alito will be confirmed, but very closely. Roberts absolutely had the committee eating from his hand. Alito obvioulsy has certain views, but I dont believe that anyone can say that he isnt being forthcoming and correctly answering these questions. of course, kennedy is blathering on and on about nothing, but even joe biden seems to be behaving. i'll call it now and say that alito is confirmed.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) It seems like the first guy doesn't like this trade, but I really do. The Cubs will have no pitching whatsoever. What does everyone else think? i agree with you. maybe the first guy is unhappy because he wants us to have abreu or something instead of the cubs (the chances of us getting abreu were slim all along). im all for it. this is going back to the days of when i was a kid watching the cubs when they happened to be on WGN after middle school (late 80's early 90's) (this was every other day as well- damn cubune). Well, their O might be a bit better. but they are going to have NO pitching whatsoever. if this deal goes through, i look forward to a season of white sox winners and the cubs getting slammed 2 out of 3 games.

ah...fernando vina. the most annoying player in baseball.

The Phills will easily swap Abreu for Lisa Dergan. What do you all think, yea or nay? p.s. there is nothing to talk about in baseball right now, I need the season to start