jasonxctf

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum or not, but does anyone know someone who is looking to buy a townhouse out in St. Charles from a fellow Sox-talker???

with the constant amendments being added to a bill, I think this is a good thing. Only in America would we tie drilling for oil in Alaska to a highway appropriations bill. It's crazy and I'm not taking sides here. But if a Senator voted down a bill that was to Increase Funding for Schools with an amendment to make oil-companies tax exempt or something, he'd be blasted for "not surporting schools" while his main intention was to keep oil companies from being tax exempt. Crazy example, but I think this is the other half of the problem. If our senators played nicely and each bill was separate without amendments, there'd be no reason for a line item veto in the first place.

never mind this, I forgot that any cheap shot at Hillary is acceptable around here.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) If she runs for president, then this is an issue. did i miss Hillary announcing that she's running??? junior senator from ny is against the port issue while her husband is serving as a consultant= junior senator from nc is against the port issue while her husband is serving as a consultant.

just an fyi, elizabeth dole is opposing this as well while her husband is advising the co.

a cheney resignation would allow the President to possibly appoint their successor and help the republican party save itself from an internal bloodbath of 12 candidates for '08 and thus save millions of dollars in their campaign coffers to run against the Dem nominee. imagine the leg up Allen, Pataki, Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Gingrich, Romney or Hagel would have over the field if they got the President's endorsement and passed senate confirmation. (i think that's the replacement process???)

i wish that air america was available on sirius. it used to be. sirius left isnt bad though. congrats air america. keep up the good work.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 01:52 AM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/wl_ca...an_060228182131 i've got no problem with it, they've obviously dedicated some significant troop levels to the mission.

i'd like to add that for 5/5, the seats in section 106 row 25 are no longer available as I picked them up today! yeah, cinco de mayo with fireworks.

Bush's approval rating is now 34% www.drudgereport.com

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) yeah, i know. but the furthest right you are going to get is bill frist, as far as i can tell. compared to how far frist is from moderate compared to how far hillary is from moderate, that is what i base my assumption on. don't forget about that nutbag senator from kansas... i think his name is brownback.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:18 PM) I found out that gift certificates have to be used at the Sox box office, or by mail, unfortunately. boy that's a kick in the pills... merry xmas to me. now i get to drive 45 minutes down to us cellular to use my gift card to buy tickets. BROOKS!!!!!

does anyone know if the entire lower bowl of the cell is sold out for every game this year? also, does anyone know if you can use the whitesox gift cards to purchase tickets on ticketmaster???? thanks.

well put.

for some reason i have a gut feeling that member 3,441 is not going to last long on this board.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) I forgot to add the words Premeditated Murder. Even though I hate the thought of abortion even in rape cases I will give them a little more lead way even though it goes against my personal beliefs. I cannot stomach people who go out have there fun without considering the risks then when a baby is conceived they run out and have an abortion. yeah because this happens all the time. getting an abortion is not like going to the dentist or getting a car wash you know. the pain that the procedure causes is pretty severe. Severe enough where people aren't just using this as an alternative to going out and getting condoms. on a side note, would you rather have abortions or babies found dead in dumpsters? just asking....

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:13 PM) Do you know if the non-compete is enforceable? It has to be reasonable in time, location and a unique skill/knowledge of trade secret/industry standard, etc... the noncompete was 2 yrs and his last date was 12/21/04. on a side note, the original customer worked with this company before it was sold on 12/1/04. my ex-employee went to this competitor post-sale and took this customer with him. i've been told that the non compete was enforceable but who really knows?

hey i know that there are some lawyers floating around on this board. i have a general question. an employee of my organization signed a non-compete. He since quit and went to a competitor. A customer of his, worked with us in 2003. This same customer worked with this competitor he went to back in 1999. Now this same customer has used him and this competitor in 2006. Did this employee violate his non-compete? There is no doubt that he handled the transaction.

i love when people try and make the word "liberal" a bad thing. makes me laugh, and cry at the same time.

apparently he does represent the people of SF. He was elected right? It's not our call, it's theirs.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:23 PM) So you believe its medically necessary to induce birth until the head is exposed of the child, then puncture the head or crush the skull of the baby. This is the pratice that you are talking about. Stop acting like this is the start of Roe vs Wade. This is a barbaric way to kill a baby. And for all you abortion rights people, at the 2nd and 3rd trimester. This is a baby not just a mass of cells as you call it. if it keeps mama from dying, then yes i do believe it would be medically necessary. point here is that neither you nor i nor the pro-lifers or choicers know this for sure. if the doctors say its necessary and true, i'll take their word for it.

my personal thought is that the last sentence says it all. We've got anti-abortion people on one side saying that it never medically necessary to save a women's life and doctors on the other side saying that it's the safest way to save a women's life when she is in danger. let's just assume that the anti-abortion people are right on this one... just assume. if the procedure is never medically necessary to save someone's life, then they shouldn't have a problem with the protectionary clause. it would never be enforced. this makes me believe that it could be medically necessary to save someone's life but that the anti-abortion people want to save the fetus's life more than the mother's life and thus want it outlawed entirely.

Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban Feb 21 10:39 AM US/Eastern Email this story By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights. The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York. The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation. Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health. The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion. Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war." Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal. The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

i think the biggest problem is here is that many people are forgeting what the United Nations was designed to do. It's not designed to promote American causes around the world. You gotta take the good with the bad. If we start thinking that our opinions, goals, ideals, etc are more important than those of Europe, Asia, etc... we are in for some big problems.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) I love it when our Constitutionaly protected rights collide with common sense. just like the k.k.k.