Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) Am I the only one who remembers how abjectly bad Green Bay's offensive line was in 2008-2009 and how many games that cost them? They were till the 8th best offense and scored the 5th most points. All i'm saying is that Roger stepped into a franchise that knows what it's doing and provided him ridiculous weapons. About the only thing they don't have is a legit RB and a good d-line. Everything else is above average. It's not like he was handed the reigns to the 2008 Lions.

That interview was blown so out of proportion. His comments sound a lot worse in writing than by ear. He was basically telling the truth - Rodgers is a great QB that stepped into a perfect situation. Why should it be a shock that there's an expectation to win?

Am I really the only one that's leaning slightly to the owners here? I mean, you've got teams that are losing money, one team having to be run by the league (another in SAC about a year away), you have small market teams that simply cannot compete because while they get their #1 stars they either (1) can't afford to keep them there after season 3, or (2) can never afford to give him a quality cast, the players already take more than the majority of revenue without taking into account the fact that owners have to spend money to make money. And most importantly, the players don't risk ANYTHING here. The owners risk losing money every year or having to take out loans from the NBA to make payroll. The players just accept their paycheck. If the two sides were really, really far apart, and the league was demanding a lot more, sure, I'd be on the players side. But they're so damn close, the players need to stop b****ing. The NBA is willing to give you 50% of the profit, contract a couple of teams to make the league itself better AND begin structuring a revenue-sharing model to, again, make the league better. This is craziness to me that they can't get this worked out. At the very least make it a 2-3 year deal and re-work this again so that the NBA can continue the momentum from last season.

My guess is that Walt/Jessie successfully kill Gus (or the credits will roll just as he's about to die, creating a giant cliffhanger going into the last season) and then Walt and Jessie spend the last season evading the DEA, culminating in a giant tell-all reveal between Walt and his whole family (including Hank).

I didn't really care about the comparison to Hitler. What bothered me more was the follow-up comment that "he's the enemy." I'm so tired of these parties and how they've completely divided the country into two separate camps that simply cannot (and apparently should not) agree on any issue ever. That's such bulls***. It happens in both parties as a campaign strategy and it's f***ing disgusting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) Yeah, but that was after he stopped. Why did he stop in the first place? I think it was his reaction to Jessie bringing up the poison. There was a lot of communication in the hospital chapel without words. I think both of them understood what was going on, hence Gus' backing down from getting Jesse to come cook. From Gus' perspective, how on earth could Jessie know that Gus played a role? He must have talked to Walter, and he knows Walter will do/try just about anything. Pretty stellar episode. The scene with Jesse and Walt was amazing. Re: Terra Nova, after two episodes I might be out. I dunno if my expectations were wrong, but this is just becoming Star Trek set in Jurassic Park. I was expecting more of a Lost style action/adventure/mystery show, or at the very least a good Battlestar remake. This is just a procedural. That's sort of acceptable IF there was some bigger plot device, but I don't see one. This show has the feel of The Chicago Code for me. I really want to like it. I really want it to get better. But I just don't see people sticking with it. I'm guessing they try some re-writes but ultimately give it the axe.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) You just slipped in an actual condition for losing your citizenship in there, which is absent from the real case. Additionally, publishing some state secrets may not be protected speech, whereas violent anti-government rhetoric is. If the speech is Constitutionally protected, you cannot be prosecuted for a crime or stripped of your citizenship for making it. Furthermore, in the Wikileaks case, neither Mannings's nor Assange's intention is predicated on "Death to the USA" or intentionally giving aid to an enemy in order to help them defeat America. well sure, and i've said the law needs to be changed to include terrorists/enemies with no ties to a nation-state, but still have ties to an enemy group like Al Qaeda. But that's a technicality IMO. I still think if the speech is strong enough, it can be treasonous. It might be that .001% rarity, but I think the line exists.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) I think you're missing the most important application of the 1st amendment speech rights: protection from government retaliation for speech against the government. I know you've moved to a hypothetical case, but I'd like to bring this back to the actual one. What you're saying here, that protected 1st amendment speech could be treasonous and allow the government to strip you of your citizenship, would still require a charge of treason and a trial. It wouldn't be a unilateral decision by the Executive to declare that you're no longer a citizen and then execute you. edit: I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of a position that says you can lose your Constitutional rights by exercising them. Treason is a different animal. What you're suggesting is that people that scream "Death to the USA, I am now a citizen of France, the mortal sworn enemy of the US, and I will publish various state and military secrets to aid them in their quest to destroy America" couldn't be tried for treason because they were merely exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly/speech/publication. If the wikileaks guy (but American citizen version) had given up actual state secrets/intelligence, don't you think he'd be tried for treason, despite exercising his right to publication? I'm not suggesting that someone should be tried for treason for complaining or arguing against the US. But at some point that stops being politically protected speech and starts being treasonous acts against the state.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 02:57 PM) You can't convict someone of treason for exercising constitutionally protected free speech rights. That would make said rights meaningless. I don't think it'd make it meaningless, i think it would just be an added exception. If you published sensitive state/military information knowing that our enemies would use it against us, I'd consider that treason. The wikileaks guy was pretty close IMO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) He never lost his US citizenship and there is no mechanism for doing so by calling for attacks on America, short of being tried for and found guilty of treason. I'm not understanding your issue here. I'm saying treason could be proven through his words that are conceivably still subject to 1st amendment protection. It might be circular logic, but there's no other way of doing it absent a physical act. Edit: and i'm talking hypothetically, not in this particular case

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 01:28 PM) If the thing being used to justify stripping him of his rights is him exercising said rights, you've got yourself a nice circular argument. How else could you lose your citizenship by swearing your loyalty to a foreign enemy?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) That's exactly the point...if the Executive branch is right and the person has sworn loyalty to a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States....I seriously doubt that he's actually going to show up to challenge his loss of citizenship. The only case in which this step would be reasonably taken is if the Executive branch oversteps the goal of the law and tries to strip someone of citizenship for unjust reasons. It doesn't need to ever be used, but the path for how to do it legally needs to be codified. That's all. But my point is that process is just as useless as having no process. Assume for the sake of argument that they change the law as you suggest. Obama (or whichever President) seeks to kill a citizen abroad. They do so. The ACLU files a suit claiming the same thing - lack of due process. SS and others like him will argue that the only information used to establish the guy has sworn his loyalty to some other group/nation that's an enemy of the US is information from the US government. He can't defend himself in court. He can't do anything to clear his name. At the end of the day the government is still basing that decision on government information that will never be reviewed by any independent tribunal or administrator (since that information would fall under state secrets/national security exceptions). I think you're just creating process for the sake of a process. The fundamental issue remains.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) Putting out a video calling for people to attack America is protected speech. That's a secondary issue to whether a traitor and enemy of the state loses his citizenship and therefore loses his rights under the Constitution. I agree the wording needs to be updated to include people like this (unaffiliated terrorists).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 05:21 PM) Bullplop. Complete and utter bullplop. Hell, go back a page and I can find the section of the law that you'd have to edit. Here's how you edit it. "In the event that a citizen foreswears his citizenship and pledges loyalty to a non-State organization hostile to the United States while residing outside of the U.S. borders, the executive branch can remove that citizenship, subject to review by court xxx upon challenge by the citizen." Done. President is explicitly given the right, by Congress, to strip citizenship in the event that a person does exactly this. Court review is possible so that the Exec can't do so indiscriminantly. Of course, edits to the law = wins for the President. So that can't happen. How exactly would that work? Is the person in question going to be dumb enough to come to court and risk arrest? Is he going to be able to find an attorney willing to represent him? Is he going to be given a public defender? Not to mention the fact that 99.9% of the "evidence" establishing his treasonous acts would be considered state secrets of national security and probably protected from being released in court. I agree with you guys that the law should be updated and that some independent person should be appointed to review the executive's request (the SC maybe)? But in reality it's just more work for a process that ultimately will be flawed and heavily in favor of the government over the citizen. So you'll create the system and then have the ACLU battle it out in courts for the next decade. In the meantime, this never-before-used power of the executive will remain an incredibly rare event left for the most obvious of people. Like this guy. Who put out a video calling for people to attack America. And I have issue with your last statement. I don't see Democrats running to the cameras claiming that we need to get this thing passed right now. I don't see anyone from the WH doing the same thing. Fact is the WH DOESN'T want any sort of approval process because they'll risk the military option of taking the guy out at a moment's notice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:52 AM) This, IMO, is Martz's "Correction" game. He had one last year, against Carolina conveniently enough. Got too pass h appy, tried to get his QB killed, now needs to refocus on the run, give his O-line a chance to work on the run in game scenarios, try to come out with more balance. Having Barber back ought to really help that run game. The Bears need to tighten up their defense before the Lions though. No other way to put it. The Lions are somehow going to put 20 points on the board in the 2nd half next Monday...if the Bears have already given up 17, they're going to lose. People are taking this Martz thing WAY too far. It's pretty simple really. When the Bears can run the ball effectively, they run the ball. When the Bears aren't down in the game, they run the ball. You're not climbing out of a hole by running the ball for a yard here or a yard there. Against NO and GB the running game wasn't getting ANYTHING and they were forced into lots of passing. Listening to the radio after the game, you'd think the Bears just solidified home field advantage. This is the pro-typical Lovie Smith "win" that keeps getting him contracts. Score a defense TD, make some big plays in special teams play and have your inept offense be JUST good enough. All of it adds up to what looks like an impressive win, but really it was luck against a bad team.

Lovie Smith is f***ing terrible.

Well, a minute to win it. Let's go Elway...err... Scheelhaase

Way to lose the game Jason Ford

f***ing terrible

Boom. Jenkins was right, he might be the best receiver in the big 10

Looks like the defense finally showed up to play

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Ford looks fat and slow, I'm not sure he shouldn't just be a fb. He also cuts back when there's absolutely no need to. Twice now he's given up 5-10 yards on the outside just to gain one by cutting back. Illinois should be up by about 2 touchdowns in this game. Beating themselves on both sides of the ball.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) Illinois just had a TD stolen from them by the refs. That was awful. Not even close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) There are 2 issues in your post here. First, how do you define "Imminent". "Conspiring to commit acts at some unknown point in the future and having done so in the past" may or may not reach the legal standard of "Imminent". Secondly, how do you define "Danger" if he's not the one personally committing the violent act? You're right, it seems like the President ought to be able to do this...but I don't think the law is clear on where the limits are. We have a U.S. citizen who went overseas and joined a group who the U.S. has taken out an AUMF against, but the U.S. itself is not considered to be at a state of war, there is no single entity at which the U.S. is at war with, and this "Citizen" had no option to defend himself in courts. It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer. I agree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) Based on what? Where is the due process that establishes his guilt and threat? All we have are State Secret claims. Is anyone who advocates for violence against the US government fair game for assassination? Go check his wikipedia page and see all the crap he's done. He's clearly a traitor to the country and he's clearly an imminent threat. Look at all the foiled plots that are attributable to him or his teachings. I'd think that would be enough. Imminent is just one (undefined) part of the equation. There's also a likelihood of action element that I think would be clearly established. The guy is a recruiter of terrorists in an organization that has been deemed an enemy. He gives speeches railing against the US and calling on his followers to attack the US. I'd say that's an actionable threat. If I remember right even the Brandenburg decision (might be a later one) said "imminent" does not mean "absolute 100% chance it will happen immediately."