Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) But he failed in trying to get training. That wasn't in dispute. The Brandenburg test requires that some sort of imminent threat must exist before speech is criminal. The government never argued that such a threat existed and never drew any links between the translations and actual violent acts. They've essentially made stating Jihadist views a crime. Not plotting, not acting, but simply speaking. I see what you're saying and I agree it's a weak case. But I also think taking the evidence together he's not some random internet browser making comments. Either way, I think the appellate court overturns this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) The FBI's ability to lure desperate loners into extremist plots is a different issue. This guy very explicitly did not fall for one of the FBI's fake bomb plots. The only thing he did was post videos and translate stuff to English on the internet. Tarek Mehanna was never involved in any actual plots to harm anyone or anything. He advocated extreme views on the internet, and this now amounts to material non-violent support of a terrorist organization. Coupled with his actual travel to Yemen with intent to join a group and fight insurgents in Iraq (the reason it didn't work out wasn't stated in the article, i'd imagine it was in the trial). Sort of a key piece of evidence there.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Apr 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years? But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so. In some scenarios this makes sense - you want to be able to stop a guy from bombing a building before he goes through with it. But at the same time I agree that this is opening the door (at least hypothetically) to some thoughtcrime type stuff. I think this case can be distinguished though given the amount of facts that sort of build the picture of who this guy is/what he was doing.

Roger's wife. Holy hell. Why would you leave that?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 22, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) Ron Artest is such a piece of s***. There is no way he should be allowed to play again this season. It's getting to the point where he might need to be banned from the league. IMO he should be out at least 10 games (depending on Harden's health, maybe more) with a stern warning that another act like that and he's banned from the league for good.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 21, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) Another ex-NFL player suffering from severe dementia killed himself. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7839981/...mmitted-suicide Cancel the sport! Shut it down!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 12:21 PM) If only you needed an attorney not a cpa, Im getting tired of my daily grind. +1. SB what kind of law do you practice again? I'm a civil litigator. Dealing with other attorneys is the worst (especially old attorneys that play games).

Ha, yeah I know. I've given it several attempts but just never could stick with it.

Yeah I think this Celtic love is hilarious when they get swept at some point in the playoffs. Unless KG plays his A-game, they're still pretty average, no matter how well Rondo/Pierce play. Bulls should have no problem in Round 1 without Rose. Round 2 might be tough but they should be able to grind it out. The Finals against the Heat? I see a 4-1 Heat win again.

Well let's keep in mind here there are two sides - there's the media "let's hype this thing up like the next Rodney King" side and then there's the law where the cops and prosecutors know what's out there but aren't projecting anything other than the bare bones allegations to bring charges. And to Balta's point, there are a lot of legal blogs out there that thought the affidavit they filed was weak sauce and didn't include nearly enough detail. I've seen federal indictment affidavits that are a hundred pages long. Pleading standards are different (and more is required generally in federal court), but still.

Ah, Homeland. That's a miss by me. Loved that show. Shameless. Meh. Another one I never really got into. Too slow for me.

I love Wilbon, but Christ does his Cub-fandom come out sometimes: http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/...g-chicago-bulls The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Everyone run for cover!

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 20, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) I'm torn on Girls. I'm leaning your way but willing to give it a few more episodes. I was out on E&D half way through Season 1. I was bored during episode 1 of Luck but as the run continued, I heard people talking about how good it go so I may go back and watch it since it is done. You are right though. Showtime and FX are the two networks to be watching now. AMC is up there, at least for Mad Men and Breaking Bad. What does Showtime have? I never got into Nurse Jackie, Californication or Dexter. The Borgias is OK, but nothing great.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 20, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) If the Bulls end up as the 2 seed, it will happen. Which is what Brian is saying Ah, ok.

Also, it's a game like last night that I really miss Kurt Thomas. Laying out Wade at some point in that game would have sent a message back, but Miami became the aggressor and that was basically the game. And it was absolutely ridiculous that Wade didn't get ejected. He didn't foul Hamilton, he purposefully body checked him onto the floor. And it happened RIGHT in front of the official. Flagrant 2 "is unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent." That play was pretty much the definition of the rule.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 20, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) I don't want the Bulls to have to play Indiana in round 2. That can't happen. Bulls will play Sixers/Knicks (or long shot Bucks) and then either Boston or Atlanta. Bulls will get the Pacers in the Finals if both get there. It's interesting that both the #1 seed and the #2 seed have difficult and "easier" 1st and 2nd round matchups. In the first round the Sixers stink (easier) but the Knicks (harder) have the potential to pull off the upset. In the 2nd you'd have either Boston/Atlanta (harder) or the Pacers (easier).

Nice dirty shove wade, geez

Come on Boozer. Three bunnies in a row

Deadspin reporting that Dwight called the owner DURING THE GAME and told him he refused to play for SVG. WTF. Sign him to an extension and then trade his ass to New Orleans. May he rot in basketball purgatory forever.

Do we need to discuss whether to shut down A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Anyone in their conference? Absolutely Anyone on their schedule? I can buy that in football but not in basketball. Losing one game because you let a guy transfer to a second-tier ACC team isn't going to make or break your chances at winning the NCAA tournament. Recruiting battles/media battles are just as important, if not more important, than losing a game. Think about it - a transfer generally doesn't transfer because he's happy about leaving. He might be ok with it. He might not be. You get him on a "rival" team and all of a sudden you have a transfer telling recruits on visits how Bo Ryan does x, y and z. Honestly this is an issue with no easy answer because either extreme doesn't do justice. It's a case-by-case basis depending on the schools in play. I'm sure they already have it - but just create an appeal process where some independent authority can take arguments from both sides and determine if the transfer is ok or not. I know Ryan talked about how this kid was able to appeal the bans within Wisconsin's own AD.

Man, seriously, f*** this guy: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7832334/...-stan-van-gundy He's quickly becoming the next Lebron.

So Bo just had a pretty long interview with Mike & Mike and he really didn't help his case at all. He was dodging the most important question (which was asked about 6 times in different ways) - why does this rule exist? What's the purpose of blocking a kid from transferring? Isn't this unfair? His response was basically (1) there's a rule, so I can and (2) some nonsense about "being in the trenches" with players/coaches. At the end of the day I feel bad for Ryan/Wisconsin, because this is just becoming a big story for no good reason. They're not the first program to do this, they're not the worst at it and they're not breaking any rules. The whole story has taken on a life of it's own. But still, the fact that he couldn't at least say "look, we have a way of running things here, and i'm not about to just let one of my players go to a competing team, a team we might face or a team we battle on the recruiting trail, and lose that competitive advantage. You think Coach K would allow one of his players to transfer up to Chapel Hill without question?" I also found it interesting that Mike & Mike repeatedly kept bashing him with "but this makes no sense, let him transfer wherever he wants!" and then they immediately admit that it's ok to have inter-conference blocks. So, obviously there's a good reason that exists to block these guys, and i'm surprised Bo didn't hit back with that.

IMO the only "rule" should be that if you're being an asshole and personally attacking someone (not with snide remarks, but actually something like "you're a f***ing idiot"), you're gone - suspended, banned after a while, whatever system the admns want to come up with. Everything else should be fair game. We're all adults here. We're not being forced to read/contribute. Since i've been a member (something like 2006), I've never really seen a "group" attack that would keep people from posting at all so I don't really see that as being a concern. But really the problem is the nature of the board. There are two major "political leanings," with one being completely dominated. So basically the discussion always gets drowned out by the numbers. That has killed most discussion, especially the last 4-5 months. Occasionally we'll have a fresh news story that can be debated (Martin), but otherwise as NSS says, we all pretty much know what people are going to say, so I find myself not posting something new just because I know exactly how the discussion will go. Bringing new blood in would be the best way to spice this area up, and I think making people agree to rules/restrictions really hinders that. I think it's common sense on message boards like this that if you're being a dick you're going to get banned/suspended. And if that comes as a shock to someone they'll learn pretty quickly I think.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2577796:date=Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:26 PM:name=knightni)-->QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:26 PM) <!--quotec--> Can we just kick that piece of s*** out of the League? Isn't he crazy? Like certified crazy?