samclemens

QUOTE(minors @ May 22, 2006 -> 01:31 AM) I totally agree that it a terrible practice but in the eyes of the law it is legal and just like some other practices that are morally terrible but legal they will still go on until a court decides to change it. exactly.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 24, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) It does effect his country's citizens, he should be concerned, he should speak out, but he shouldn't be on the side of illegal immigration. He should be on the side of respecting both side's needs, and respecting the laws of that nation. shoulda, woulda, coulda. lets face facts, fox is just another banana republic corrupt asshole. we all know that he wants an open border because if all mexicans had to actually work in mexico he would actually have to do his job and try to fix the horrid economy there, instead of line his pockets at the expense of our border.

i am so f***ing sick of vincente fox and his corrupt government. i am glad to see the senate is growing some semblence of a pair of testicles with the fines for business that hire illegals.

what the hell is going through the board of directors minds at GM? i have found every one of their marketing and especially their production decisions absolutely retarded lately, and by lately i mean the las 3 years. STOP MAKING SO MANY SUVS AND START EMBRACING FUEL EFFICIENCY, MORONS

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2006 -> 08:16 PM) Because no one ever made a movie about Fox News or crying Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or anything... not to mention hillary clintons "right wing conspiracy" legacy

http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/stcasx/n...ow.wmv/play.asx

to follow up on my post a while ago in this thread, heres another example of total PC bulls***: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14628069.htm

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 18, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) yes he did. What the country then did was fail to develop a better system for the next couple decades. i was an infant at the time. what was reagan's immigration policy?

dude those 14 and 15 year old boys are special ed. that is some sick and twisted s***.

i havent heard that tracing lineage of illegals and removing citizenship of their children is a proposed policy for immigration, and i would hope to god that it is not. i was under the impression that the goal was to start enforcing the laws we have in place, which would essentially result in a cutoff of sorts. tracing lineage would be a dispicable and infinitely complicated policy if it were implemented.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/21/D8HOCUJ81.html sorry...there are corrupt democrats, too.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ May 21, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Screw the asshole, he deserves it. What a Christian sentiment If you knew your IL law regarding school prayer (which it seems that you and Evil don't), the law provides for a period of silent reflection. That way they can pray to Jesus, Allah, the sun, Xenu or any other thing they feel like praying to as long as it is personal, silent and individual. These kids just wanted to fall all over themselves whining about how much they love Jesus, yet they didn't really follow that whole "love thy neighbor" thing. They're the worst kind of religious hacks. The Supreme Court has said that school led prayer is ILLEGAL (see court case I cited earlier in this thread). This is clear judicial precedent, that a prayer advocated in school and led during a school function is de facto promotion of religion. The kid was merely standing up for his rights. But it is good to see the "well the majority wants it so it has to stand". The majority of Afghanistan wanted the Taliban. Does that mean they should have it? The majority wanted women to wear burqas, get stoned etc. so therefore it must stand because thats what the majority wants. And hey, we should re-segregate the schools cuz that's what the majority wanted at that time too. you argument is lacking. all you have done is put words in my mouth, making my position way more extreme than it is in order to prove what an intolerant person i am. i stand by what i said. i dont live in IL, so no, i dont know IL law regarding the matter. what that dude did was the exact same thing as someone who is a pagan (or whatever) suing because prayers offend them. if you dont want to say a prayer, just dont say one. if you dont agree with a certain movie, dont see it. if you dont like whats on television, dont watch it. i hate PC b.s. like this. laissez-faire, baby. i dont want our country to be a white room with no pictures on the wall. i would equate this kid with that atheist who sued to get the word 'god' off the one dollar bill, but at least he had the balls to put his name behind the lawsuit. suing anonymously makes anyone a b**** in my book.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 19, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) There are lots of differences between Truman and Bush. First, Truman was willing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within his own administration. Second, the Truman administration was willing to change tactics of operations in Korea when it was apparent that things weren't working. Third Korea and Iraq don't deserve comparison. Korea was fought in a bipolar world regime where there was a legitimate need on the basis of US interests to combat a communist ideology and keep its interests alive and well in Asia. Iraq was an elective war, fought with an enemy that had no ideological bend and was sold as a central front with the war on terror. Despite the fact that the administration itself knew within ten days of September 11, that Iraq most likely had nothing to do with recent terror attacks against the US and had no serious connection with Al-Qaeda - the main non-state actor that we have been "fighting" for the last five years. The decision to go into Korea was an international one and for much of the fight was fought under the UN flag no less. That didn't happen in Iraq either. the administration knew within 10 days? never heard that before. i once heard that the bush administration blew up the pentagon too. there are, in fact, many characteristics that are fundamentally the same- the main point being that truman stayed his course despite low public opinion, and bush is doing the same. i think their administrations are very similar in many ways. many difficult decisions (truman dropped the bomb most viably). of course there are differences, it was a different time and a different place. your argument on the iraq war could go the other way, and the same exact argument you used against the iraq war could also be used to oppose the korean war. interesting article, i have heard that paralell used between those two administrations once before on some politico talk show.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 20, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) You think it might involve holding "people of interest" for years without interrogation? Regardless of what the riot in Gitmo was about, what's happening there is a national shame and against every ideal that this country is supposed to stand for or respect. you all obviously oppose it, but it is the view of our government (not just our administration) that holding those people indefinetly is legal. you all just let me know when a court opinion says that this practice is illegal. there is a reason why the supreme court refuses to hear an arguement on the matter- because they consider the issue resolved already.

agreed, the amount of miner deaths has been much too high. i dont think it has anything to do with lack of unions. i havent heard that the cause of all these accidents is greedy companies neglecting safety, some of these accidents I beleive the authorities are still trying to figure out what the cause was. whatever the cause though, it would be nice if OSHA or whoever deals with mine safety would figure out what the hell is going on and do something.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 21, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) I don't have a problem with this in the sense that it was student-led prayer, but the fact that they made such a spectacle of it (standing up, probably saying it really loudly) AND they booed the kid makes me think they are just being asshats. screw that asshole, he deserves it. if he doesnt like a prayer that the majority of the student body wants to say, he can abstain from saying it, not sue anonymously like a little b****.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 21, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) Isn't it funny? The terrorists supposedly hate us for our freedom, yet our own government is invading our privacy. :rolly its the job of the courts to keep the legislative and/or executive power in check. the bill passed in congress and was even co-written by leahy, a democrat. until a court says it is illegal, the fact of the matter is that the wiretapping is not illegal. let me know when a court orders the NSA to stop tapping domestic calls.

interesting...leahy co-wrote the legislation that authorized these tappings. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/...5324.shtml?s=ic

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 17, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) They're rich white folk, and she's a poor black stripper. It's ok, they're clearly better than her. yeah, lets crucify them!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 17, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) Only President Bush has that power. when a single judicial proceeding comes to that conclusion, let me know. until that, its only your opinion.

finally!

damn, sorry, i didnt notice that it was already up here. someone delete this thread!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/17/D8HLNOKO0.html finally!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 16, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) Yup. All $25 million of that aid we give to Mexico. Cut that, and i'm sure they'll stand up and take notice. you are right. we should give more aid to mexico to improve a foreign country's economy. since mexico is part of the united states, its our responsibility.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ May 15, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) Nuke, Please explain how they are going to: 1) Sue the stripper for slander. 2) Sue the DA for false arrest. Each of these crimes have very specific elements. Im just wondering how they are going to prove them. The problem is, if you go for 1, you can in no way go for 2. If you go for 2, you can in no way go for 1. Im not going to do the time to actually pull the case law, but my understanding for malicious prosecution and false arrest is that the police can not of acted upon a complaint by a person. The stripper in this case made a complaint, therefore it is the duty of the police and DA to investigate it. They went to a grand jury, and the grand jury indicted them. That means that a grand jury feels that the police and DA have enough to get into the court room. Rock, Im sorry but I have to disagree. The only reason that the media is acting this way is because it is impossible for a good amount of people to believe: "Rich white boys wanted to rape a poor black girl." If this was a case where a pretty rich white girl was raped by a black man, ala Kobe or any football player case, the court of public opinion would have them locked away. Luckily for us, trials are not decided by what the media says, they are decided by a court of law. The defendants will have their day in court, and they will have the great equalizer of the govt having the burden of proof. If the govt has no case, then there is no question they will walk. Reasonable doubt makes it very hard for the prosecution. It should be interesting, but Im going to sit back and let the trial happen. IMO you will have atleast 1 conviction (not sure whether they will get rape, assault, or something else, but atleast 1 defendant will get a conviction or plea). Then what will everyone say? dude, how can you say that you see a conviction and a plea? there isnt any evidence yet revealed that is damning, and apparently now there is a serious lack of physical evidence. so, absent any other evidence, its going to be a gold digging stripper's word against the three charged players. and you see at least one conviction- how?? and yeah, if (and i believe it will) the charges turn out to be b.s., they can sue her for making a false accusation, libel, slander- but why even try? she obviously has no money to give them when she loses, all you will do is pay your lawyer to make someone else file for bankruptcy. of course they will not be able to sue nifong (the DA) for wrongful prosecution because that is incredibly hard to prove. they could sue the stripper for malicious prosecution, but why try for the same reason.