Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:17 AM) The part that saids all issues not addressed by the Constitution are left up to the states... Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's. I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 05:38 AM) Yes. That is exactly what I implied. There does need to be some sanity. Who knows what they were investigating. They may have been close to another, bigger, arrest, but could not get enough information or evidence. Unless someone really thinks this was what they were after. It is unfair to label the investigation a waste after the fact.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) No we don't. Not even close. That's just blatently wrong. Again, if you don't like the laws that are written, you have a majority, pass the laws you want. But the laws need to be interpreted against a Constitutional standard, not "touchy feely" crap based on someone's definition of "rights". Those rights were pretty clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Health Insurance, Retirement, etc. for "pursuit of happiness" is not a "right". Just like all the decisions of emotional crap aren't a true basis against the Constitution. Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I understand it's intent - I think that it's a stretch but again I understand the decision. I think it should be struck down, but not because abortion is bad, IMO, it's because it's a state issue. Just like "gay marriage". Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is a state issue? Sounds like that touchy feely crap you do not like As soon as you said abortion is bad, I knew you would be against Roe v. Wade.

I get so few Sox games on TV down here, and we always seem to suck in those games.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ May 3, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) The stadiums the NFL plays in are largely financed on the taxpayer's dime. Does that amount to a legal obligation to play the Superbowl stateside? No. An ethical obligation? Arguably. I agree, however, a counter to that argument is the NFL pays taxes on their profits. Hell everybody else outsources, why not the NFL?

QUOTE (BobDylan @ May 3, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) I feel awkward. me too, yet I am strangely drawn to your sig . . .

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) That just made my day. you are board

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) shh honey...shh...simmer down....you are my gum drop... I better start joking around. I am gonna get a reputation around here.LOL LOL, I think you meant stop joking around

QUOTE (knightni @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) The good news: London you get the Super Bowl The bad news: Kickoff will be 1am local time. And it will still be a sell out.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) he quoted kap. I caught it and deleted my post.

Damn, he told me I was special

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 11:08 AM) The difference is, today, liberals want the touchy, feely to come first, not the lens of the constitution. Because, that's a way to create an activism for "rights" that are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. There's a big difference in that and what you are suggesting. And conservatives want to paint every decision that they disagree with as touchy, feely, activism, no matter what. Just as they want to characterize any bad press as liberally biased. Far easier to divert attention than deal with the issue at hand. Do you have the "right" to walk down the street in a pink suit with a green and purple feather in your hair? Where does it guarantee you that exact right in the Constitution? As soon as a Judge thinks that that right is in the Constitution, conservatives would call it activism if they disagree.

Should Soxtalk have a Naked Picture Forum?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) And prosecutions and incarcerations. And that should be the goal of law enforcement. They should have the freedom to pick and choose which laws they uphold and which laws they ignore.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:39 AM) Your first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not explain what you feel. THEN, and NEXT, not BEFORE, do you apply your knowledge to the law. They INTERPRET, not DECIDE what the laws are. If the laws are not what they think they should be, CONGRESS re-writes the law, NOT SCOTUS. I may not like certain decisions, but if they interpret the case based on the Constitution, and not what THEY think, then I cannot argue against a decision. Exactly. And interpret is not an exact science, as language is not exact. That is why we do not have a computer handle this. Interpret is not EXACT, which is why you should want to have eight DIFFERENT people interpret, from a variety of backgrounds, instead of just one. And it is what they think the law is. That is the heart of interpret. And did you really just say that thinking is wrong? They should be thinking about what the meaning of the Constitution is. DIFFERENT people think differently. I see more value in a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds, THINKING about what is meant in the Constitution. And many times, what comes before the court are situations that could not be foretold by the writers of the Constitution. Take something as simple today as wiretaps on phones. Think about the very first rulings. How did the writers of the Constitution handle that technology a couple plus hundred years ago? What should the Judges use as their basis when those sort of issue arise? Some one has to THINK about what is written and apply it to a situation that was not conceivable when the Constitution was written. Someone has to think about what is written and how it applies. Sometimes two competing rights are at odds with each other. Interpret the Constitution and decide freedom of speech for Nazis wishing to demonstrate versus the rights of Jews in Skokie; without thinking or feeling? Interpret the Constitution and decide who has the right to terminate a human by taking them off life support; without thinking or feeling.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) What did you think you were busted Tex? I'm flattered you would brag

Creedocide - watch more funny videos

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) You don't have a box (converter)? Not for this TV. As near as I can tell, the only benefit would be to get the channels straight. Oh and maybe to have sex with shipps again.

I did

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) Nope, it's the NATIONAL Football League. No dice London. Well, how about the WORLD Series in London?

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) Why the f*** should we let them get that revenue to their city ? We as in the US taxpayer? Certainly you jest. "We", in this case, is the NFL, who does not see extra revenue from the hotel rooms, meals, etc. So the question then becomes why would the NFL not take more money, expand their market, and play the game overseas? As NSS points out, many NFL teams are automatically blocked from having it in their city. So for those teams it is all about the revenue. I would rather the game go to the previous years winner.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2009 -> 08:48 AM) Yes. It would save a lot of money on detectives.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 2, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) Everything's all touchy, feely, emotion. Which is the human element. If not, we could just program a computer to decide. Once it is accepted that humans need to decide, than it becomes more important to have a balance of opinions, experiences, etc. on the court. A range of humans making decisions, IMNSHO, is better than eight clones. If it was that cut and dried, why have eight? Certainly one could figure it out. And if it isn't about opinions, but facts, why do we need more than one level of court?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 2, 2009 -> 07:24 PM) a total waste of resources. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) You have described in 5 words America's entire war on drugs. QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:49 AM) I'm not sure anyone has suggested that drug investigations like this one be eliminated, but I don't see how there's any disputing that this one was ultimately a collossal waste of time and money.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 2, 2009 -> 07:24 PM) a total waste of resources. Would you eliminate then all *investigations* like this? It seems pretty easy to decide after the investigation, which ones should have been conducted.