Jenksismyhero

I completely agree.

I'm getting pumped for it as well. Sounds like the 1st 5 minutes of the new episode will be pretty crazy. For ubber Lost nerds like myself check out lostpedia.com. It gives just about every piece of info from the show...some things you've missed, some theories you haven't thought of, etc. Its a good site to kill an hour or so of your time. Be careful though, there can be spoilers.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) That's exactly what should be happening. The rank and file need to demand changes when something like this happens. Let the Dems spew all they want, do the right thing and the American public will respond favorably. Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House? I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't. I'm probably in the minority on this, but from what I've been reading I'm not sure how much blame I'd give the Repub leadership here. It all depends on the how much they knew. So a year ago they got notice 'hey this guy has been making inappropriate comments to a male page.' What's their duty? I'm sure someone called him or met with him and said 'hey stop that.' If he didn't stop is it really their problem? I guess I just don't think an entire party is responsible for the personal acts of it's members. Again, it all depends on how much they knew and how many times they told him to stop. From what I'm reading there's no evidence that the Repubs new this was an ongoing problem or that they knew of how 'nasty' it was getting. I do think it's ridiculous that people are calling for Hastert to resign and that the Dems are jumping all over 'Republicans' as a whole because of this. Most Republicans I know don't like to chat with 16 year old boys about their masturbation techniques. Unless we've been drinking lots alcohol...

Did anyone catch Opie and Anthony this morning? They did a reading of a couple of IM conversations this guy had. He's a creep. Asking how the kid got off, asking for details about his junk, asking him what he liked/didn't like. The reading was hilarious because the kid said 'LOL' about a thousand times (which Jim Norton acted out...quite funny. As for the Repubs who knew about it, I would hold them accountable as well, at least in terms of ethics and morals. As you guys mention I don't think there's any crime they can be charged for. It just amazes me these people we 'normal' folk respect (at least for their position) turn out to be people like this. It would be nice if we, the people, could muster up enough support to make an example out of this guy. But like anyone with money he's gonna get off....no pun intended.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) This is another sexual predator and my view on all sexual predators is the same. They are animals that dont deserve to be part of human society, there is no cure, there is no amount of rehabilitation that allows these creatures to be part of our society again. Now I am sure the American Psychiatric Society thinks a few shots of Prozac and some therapy and Mr. Pervert will be fixed, but lets say no and just warehouse them. You either warehouse them in a max facility in general pop so they can be as popular as a sex predator can be in a prison. Or you dig a hole in the back of the prison, toss pervert in the hole, and then toss dirt on pervert. Either way is the only way to deal with these types of animals. I agree with all of this, so long as we chop their sacks off before putting them there.

People like this need to get their sacks chopped off. Seriously.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Read my post right above yours... Gotcha. A good point.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 07:03 AM) Hey that's cool. I found this one guy, who even better than a judge is a senator, who doesn't believe in global warming so we can just throw out all of the decades of research and scientists who say otherwise! http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 I'm confused, are you being sarcastic? You don't agree with him? From his speech it seems some of the 'decades of research' have been proven false.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) 1. Bush the the President. If he gets hot under the collar and shouts at a reporter, the whole world will know about it. 2. The MSM is left-leaning, and tries to show itself as unbiased. Fox News is unabashedly far right, and only half-ass tries to say otherwise. I'll take slightly left over far right for my news, thank you. That Fox graphic above says it all. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS would never do something that atrociously biased in their news. 1. Clinton is an ex-president with just as much exposure, hence the reaction he got... 2. So? It was still a valid question and it was still a gross overreaction. So they used a poor word as a headline, what's the big deal? And are you kidding me? Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs bash Bush DAILY. The rest I don't watch, and PBS doesn't count as they are supposed to be neutral by law. I'm not arguing Fox doesn't lean to the right or even that Fox doesn't have an agenda (to put down liberal views). Anyone with a brain can see that. However you're full of sh*t if you don't think CNN is the exact same way for the left. In college as my senior seminar for my political science degree I really wanted to analyze both FOX and CNN treatment of news stories over a one month period. I ended up not doing it because it would have been too difficult to measure the difference (what is 'negative' connotation, what is 'positive' etc). However I did try for a week and it was amazing how each website (the base of my attempt at the study) had such differing headlines for the same story.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Also realize if they are claiming 4000 dead, odds are the actual number is way higher than that. I was thinking the same thing. Why would they tell the world the truth? They'd have to low-ball the number to try and sell people that they're winning the fight.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) I could be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're confusing a right to privacy with basic Fourth Amendment rights. Our Fourth Amendment rights are not the same thing as a right to privacy. You mentioned that privacy was formed as a "penumbra", and you're correct. The argument ofer warrentless wiretaps is distinct from any argument over any right to privacy. They're not distinct. A good lawyer would argue both. The ACLU argued 1st amendment/privacy rights. The district court considered both: "Warrantless wiretapping by NSA ruled unconstitutional-- On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered that it be stopped immediately, on the grounds that such activities are violations of the rights to free speech and privacy. [84] In her ruling,[85] she wrote: 'The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well. ' The Justice Department responded to the ruling by saying they would appeal." Here's a good article I found about the subject, written by an ex-Clintonite http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...ris/092606.html

A high profile guy completely overreacts to a simple, relevant question. So he was criticized a little, get over it. You don't think if CNN got Bush to overreact (and posit a conspiracy theory against him for christ sakes) they wouldn't be publicizing the hell out of it? You don't think CNN reporters are told to try and bait Bush into saying something stupid? Give me an f'n break...

I'm not sure what New Yorks constitution says, but I highly doubt their legislature has the authority for such a law. Most likely it will be considered unconstitutional. I don't see such a law being a legitimate state interest that's narrowly tailored (again, assuming NY's state consitution is similar to the federal constitution, which I'd imagine it is in this respect). A smoking ban would be able to pass the rational basis test because it affects the health of the public, not just the individual. Edit: I just saw it's the city council and not the state legislature. Same analysis would apply though.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) The warrant is an exception? They only have to justify it if there is a right to privacy issue? I think you misunderstand some of the basics of this. A warrant is necessary for ANY search of a citizen or their home/property unless certain very high legal hurdles are cleared (someone in a house screaming "NO! DON'T KILL ME!" for example). It is a basic requirement. Probable cause is used in fringe areas - vehicles for example. And safety issues come into play in law enforcement encounters, such as the wingspan rule. It's an exception to the right of privacy, in that, everyone has a right to privacy UNLESS you can obtain a warrant (or the extreme circumstances you mention). If you're a cop and you obtain a warrant and bust into someones home, they haven't given up their right to privacy. The exception that the Court has granted (the warrant) simply overrides that right. So yeah, it's an exception to the general rule that everyone has a right to privacy at all times. I'm OK with it in the narrow situation we're talking about: people that pose a national security risk. They could search you or your home but they don't convict you on the spot and throw you in jail. They have to go through the judicial process of charging someone, introducing evidence (which in these cases they would be thrown out) and then getting a conviction. You're still innocent with respect to the law and the legal system.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) Not once did my post refer to a right to privacy. What I was referring to was the burden on government to justify intrusion into out lives, via a warrant. But they wouldn't have to justify it unless there was some right to privacy preventing them from doing that right? That's why I brought it up. The warrant is just an exception the Supreme Court has placed on that 'right' and to me if they can make that exception they can make other exceptions. And yeah, I could have sworn I read an article or two that said the UK plot was exposed based on an easier wiretap/evidence gathering process. From what Balta posted though, it seems I must have misread the article. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) Fortunately, our country uses the "innocent until proven guilty standard", instead of yours. Otherwise, they could pretty much do what they wanted, couldn't they? How so? They'd still have to go through the judicial process.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) Secondly, it's actually a fairly vital administrative step...because it assures that the NSA is not being used for strictly domestic purposes that have nothing to do with national security. Some folks here would like to argue that such a thing could never happen, and that we should trust our leaders all the time...but the problem with that is that those sorts of wiretaps were exactly what prompted the creation of FISA in the first place. Assuming the program is used for domestic spying (very very rare I'm sure), any evidence obtained would be thrown out. The person couldn't be convicted unless some other evidence is found through legal means. Of course then it's argued that the illegal tap is just a front and it could lead to finding other evidence legally. At this point, though, who cares? Like I said earlier we're not talking about people who are stealing cable or smoking some pot or whatever small ass crime that a million other people in the country are doing at the same time. I guess this just goes back to the 'if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about' argument. To me there are adequate protections in our justice system to keep innocent people, wrongly accused, out of jail. If a couple of innocent people have to go through the process in order for the government to catch a few terrorist or expose plots before they move into action, so be it. They'll get a hefty chunk of change in their lawsuit against the government (which the american people, as jury, would rightly give them). People fear the NSA (and Patriot Act) will lead to a 1984 style society. This country would revolt if such a situation would arise. It's just not possible and to me it's an unreasonable fear.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) First and foremost...no one at all, as far as I know, is opposing the government having the right to wiretap terrorists, people with actual terrorist ties, people making international phone calls, or in cases where there is a "significant national security purpose" for the wiretap. All we're asking is that the President has to go to the trouble of going to a secret court which almost never denies requests and submitting some evidence to that court to show that there's some reason for people to believe it's related to national security. That's it. But if it's this easy then who cares? It just becomes an administrative step that wastes time and money. If there's a situation in which they have a feeling some guy X will be contacting some guy Y tomorrow, they might miss the conversation completely by having to file a report to a commission. Who knows how long the process works, but even if it delays it 10 minutes and we miss that phone call it could be huge. I'd be fine with a system simliar to the Patriot Act in which government agencies are allowed to undergo the warrantless tap but have to come back with evidence later (if they couldn't do so before hand) that would validate the tap. So long as we don't miss out on an opportunity to catch people or gain more intelligence because of a formality that, as you say, almost never gets denied, i'm fine with putting SOME 'protections' in place. I just don't agree that we should fundamentally oppose any alteration or exception on a 'right' that the Court has defined and molded to fit certain situations already.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Show me an instance where the wiretapping (not any wiretapping, but the kind argued on this board as being questionable) did anything to make this country safer. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are so spoiled by their freedoms living in the U.S. that they use the "I have nothing to hide" argument when this administration chips slowly away at the Constitution. Ironically, it is often these same people who yell and scream that we must vigorously defend our freedoms at any cost... when they want to go to war with a country that represents zero danger to us. I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder. As was pointed out it's difficult to tell if it has worked. However there was the 'threat' on New York financial institutions a year ago that they say was uncovered by listening to phone conversations. Also, I believe the plot to blow up planes using hair gel/liquids in the UK was uncovered by using warrantless taps. As to your second point, there is no such thing as a privacy right expressly written into the Constitution. It was deduced from a 'penumbra' of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (uncovered over time through constitutional history). I am of the mind that if you can create rights in the Constitution than you can also take them away or at least alter them slightly. How is wiring tapping with a warrant any different? You're still infringing on a persons privacy rights, but they Court has simply made an exception. Why can't they create another exception when dealing with terrorists/terrorist activities? Further, there have been times in history when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been abridged for reasons of safety and security. Ask Mr. Lincoln about his policies leading up to and during the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus.

And the problem with this is......? I'm all for protecting liberties and freedoms, but much like the wire-tapping issue, if you have no link to them you have no worries. The purpose of both is to detain those that aid terrorism, not those that steal cable or smoke some pot at home. If it makes the country safer (which the wire-tapping has already done) then i'm all for it. Yes I know Ben Franklin has a wonderful qoute about not sacrificing liberty for security (as have many prominent American icons), but he probably never envisioned suicide bombers or plane hijackers that target civilians and not militias/armies.

AJ's homerun for me is at the top of the list. I was at the game and you could literally feel the stadium shaking from all of the cubs fans hearts and jaws hitting the ground. Iguchis defensive play at the beginning of the year. Not sure what team but it might have been the freakiest thing I've ever seen. 'unreal' Konerko's bomb against Rivera was sweet, just because it rarely happens. A personal memory was taking batting practice a few times on saturday at the cell over a weekend in august. amazing experience.

It's a shame that Bush has lost any persuasive power in the world by being the scapegoat for our own intelligence debacle and the media writing revisionist history. I don't support all of Bush's decisions (a lot actually), but the guy has been blamed for everything (hurricanes for god sake) and is now practically useless on the world stage. He's made mistakes, I know, so I'm not going to defend him totally, but still I refuse to become so anti-Bush that I fault him for anything bad that happens in the world. But what he says is true. There's some f'd up people in the world who are trying to start an ideological/religious war. The pope says muslim people are violent, and then they kill a nurse, bomb buildings and burn down churches in response. Hmmmmmm....no, they aren't violent. The problem needs to be addressed by the world and not just the US, because ultimately other countries are going to be affected (as some European countries already have and will again). As an aside, are people as tired of the extremist muslims as I am? PR wise I mean. These people can stand up and say 'death to all jews' or 'death to the west' and it's cool, not one cares, rarely is there a word about it. But the minute any western person says anything bad about Islam they revert to violence. It makes me sick we don't stand up for ourselves. The arguments have been rehashed, I'm sure, but the Denmark political cartoon situation comes to mind. We as a country refuse to piss these people off, for what? Respect? Or fear? Modernity rarrived when were civilized enough to laugh at Jesus beating the crap out of Santa Clause on South Park (much earlier I'm sure, but I'm young and that's the biggest media moment for me with that). These f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it. The Chirac thing doesn't surprise me. The French are the biggest p'ssies in the world and I really hope the next time they're attacked we ignore them. Lets decipher their logic: we'll remove sanctions that will protect us in the future because we fear them attacking our troops. What nonsense is that? Why don't they just roll over and beg for mercy now?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Gas at $1.15 again? This guy is insane. But let's hope he's right....

Very good read. I liked this the best: Have we ever thought about substituting bombs for porn? Maybe that'll solve the problem? We'll let the region 'release' their frustration.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:40 AM) There is a terrorism lobby? Lame attempt at a joke...