LowerCaseRepublican

He's gotten ahead on every hitter the 2nd. Nice job Jon to sit them the f*** down in the 2nd by throwing strikes and getting ahead.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) 0-1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to back first pitch strikes! /faints

Oh my f***ing Lord. He got a first pitch strike and got ahead of Cedeno... /Shocked //Shocked I tell ya

SouthsideIrish, you're right. He needs to start getting ahead of these hitters and pounding the ball inside to the righties. They may get lucky and get some b**** bloop hits (i.e. Ramirez getting the RBI) but he's gotta establish the inside pitch and throw motherf***ing strikes. C'mon and hold them, Jon.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) Why did pablo leave the game? He was hobbling a bit in the 1st inning on the basepaths.

QUOTE(BFirebird @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) Yeah he did not look comfortable out there...and his throw home on Uribe's hit was pitiful. Exactly...I'm not sure why Nevin is playing left field or why any manager would have him play OF, but I'll take it. Let's go Jon. Shut 'em down now!

"That he was masturbating himself going down that street. That's how the accident happened because he was not paying attention. He's paying attention to that video and all of a sudden he's shoveled somebody's car on the top of the sidewalk." Would it be weirder if he was masturbating somebody else while driving? Only in America can we have a sports star driving an SUV drunk, watching porn and jerking off while he's driving. God bless America! /salute flag

Why is Michael Bay still allowed to make movies? http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=182150 Some of the comments about Transformers and Bay are pretty amusing.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) sledgehammer - gabriel. Lionel Richie's "Truly"

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) But if we don't sweep, we'll have failed! WC

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) YEP THOSE TIGERS ARE GOING TO RUN THE TABLE!!! SEASON OVER!!! Lighten up, people. But we lost a game to Pittsburgh! That's it! Blow this team up! They proved that they're not able to win effectively anymore. Just have a massive firesale. Perhaps we could maybe get Kerry Wood for Thome and Kong. Or maybe we can just get our hands back on HOF catcher Miguel Olivo again. I mean why wouldn't we want that Hall of Famer? Scary part about the above is I could remove the green and it'd be serious for some posters around here. Christ... -You have people on this board expecting 60 HRs from a player and are disappointed when it doesn't happen. -We're 24 games over .500 right right so there is no need for all the Chicken Little-isms that one loss to Pittsburgh is going to mean that we'll suddenly not get into the playoffs *cough Wild Card lead cough* -Just like there is no attendance award -- Correct me if I'm wrong here but there is no award for winning the most games in the regular season. As long as we get a spot in the playoffs, that's what matters. It gets us an opportunity to win another championship. That said, continue jumping off the ledge about how we're suddenly going to become the new Royals.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:13 PM) So dying prison is better because you get an appeal? I hear two different versions on this first is that 95% of our case is at 1st trial the other is you have a great chance of getting cleared if you are LWOP. So which is it are you doomed after the trial or do you have a good shot at an appeal? If the innocent project and all these other teams and slew of investigators can not find something to at least get you a new trial after 10 years then guess what they might be guilty such a novel idea. If we were not as soft on crime as we are now maybe the crime rate would decrease. If the prison these thugs are going to are ran like Joe's in Arizona then I might agree to LWOP. But of course the liberals think the punishment is to hard there as well. Too soft on crime?!?!? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL That is damn rich... It isn't easy to get a new trial or even a damn evidentiary hearing in some areas of the US because of the irrational hardon for the death penalty. Please quit painting with such a large brush because it does your points no favors and really de-legitimizes much of the debate by creating a false dichotomy regarding the issue at hand. It greatly inhibits debate.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) "Not as bad"? No, it's not a bad decision at all. It's quite a good one, actually. :rolly Jim, it's only good if you love terrorists. BTW, are you coming over for the BBQ with Zawahiri later?

Girls, you're all pretty. Keep it to the debate and less on the personal insults. Gracias. -Your friendly neighborhood moderator.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) Even according to Barry Scheck's Innocence Project there have only been 174 DNA exonerations for ALL crimes, more than 90% of which were not murder, let alone death penalty cases. In fact, the number of inmates taken off death row specifically because DNA cleared them is....FIVE. An additional nine inmates who were once on death row were eventually fully exonerated by DNA evidence. Some might say, 14 or 140, it doesn't make a difference. That makes as much sense as being told you have a 1% mortality risk from a surgical procedure versus a 10% risk. This takes care of the innocent argument. I think with the appeals they have a better chance of being cleared on a capital case than a LWOP case because no one gives a s*** if they aren't on the row. There is where I find fault in the liberal cause, There isn't near as much attention to the people serving LWOP as there is with DP. I think it is as big travesty to serve LWOP while innoncent then to get the injection there both bad when innocent yet it happens there as well. Also to some of these thugs prison is not a punishment to the ones who live in poverty they will go and kill on purpose just so they can live better in prison. Think about roof over your head, fed, medical care, Cable TV, Exercise equipment. We should make it a crime for these thugs to commit murder instead of a reward. Minors, even one innocent victim on death row is too much. Illinois had 13 exonerated death row inmates. The fact that over 100 death row inmates have been released (either because the case was too flimsy and charges were later dismissed, DNA etc.), shows that there are problems with turning over exculpatory evidence and problems with the system that could execute potentially innocent men. The fact that the idea of innocent people on death row being glossed over is not only crass but quite thuggish. Who cares that innocent people happen to die. The punishment should still be there. It is a crass disregard and a depraved indifference to human life. And you're really not familiar with the justice system. 95% of a case is the very first trial. If you get a lawyer that does a bad job (because you don't have the money, the state denies you getting expert witnesses to dispel forensic testimony, your attorney falls asleep etc.) you have little to no recourse in getting successful appeals -- especially in areas known as the "death penalty belt" in the deep South. The court system is more about procedure than it is about facts, proof and truth. (see the Scalia quote regarding mere innocence not being cause to overturn a death penalty punishment properly reached via procedure) And please -- going to maximum security prison is not a 'reward'.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) That's their opinion. Im willing to bet there there quite a few people in the SF and CIA community who would beg to differ. Do you honestly think that any interrogator whether you classify him as abusive or not just walks into a room and starts going to work on a guys fingernails with a pair of pliers? COME ON. Even you in your self-righteous splendor don't believe that. Torture is a last resort which is used when the person with information just will not give it up. And..............I.........COULDNT CARE LESS. Yeah, the CIA who did such wonderful things like Project Phoenix But since you're so intent -- Why not ask some CIA agents? Some perennially high-profile retired CIA officers like Bob Baer, Frank Anderson, and Vincent Cannistraro recently spoke out to Knight Ridder about their opposition to torture on practical grounds (Cannistraro said that detainees will "say virtually anything to end their torment"). But over the past 18 months, several lesser-known former officers have been trying, publicly and privately, to convince both the agency and the public that torture and other unduly coercive questioning tactics are morally wrong as well. Speaking at a College of William and Mary forum last year, for example, Burton L. Gerber, a decorated Moscow station chief who retired in 1995 after 39 years with the CIA, surprised some in the audience when he said he opposes torture "because it corrupts the society that tolerates it." This is a view, he confirmed in an interview with National Journal last week, that is rooted in Albert Camus's assertion in Preface to Algerian Reports that torture, "even when accepted in the interest of realism and efficacy," represents "a flouting of honor that serves no purpose but to degrade" a nation in its own eyes and the world's. "The reason I believe that torture corrupts the torturers and society," Gerber says, "is that a standard is changed, and that new standard that's acceptable is less than what our nation should stand for. I think the standards in something like this are crucial to the identity of America as a free and just society." The moral dimensions of torture, Gerber adds, are inextricably linked with the practical; aside from the fact that torture almost always fails to yield true or useful information, it has the potential to adversely affect CIA operations. "Foreign nationals agree to spy for us for many different reasons; some do it out of an overwhelming admiration for America and what it stands for, and to those people, I think, America being associated with torture does affect their willingness to work with us," he says. "But one of my arguments with the agency about ethics, particularly in this case, is that it's not about case studies, but philosophy. Aristotle says the ends and means must be in concert; if the ends and means are not in concert, good ends will be corrupted by bad means." A similar stance was articulated last year by Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners." Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided." But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it." Retired since 1995, Pribbenow spends most of his time writing on Vietnam War history and translating Vietnamese works. With the exception of participating in a documentary series on the Vietnam War, he has never spoken to the press. But last week in an exclusive interview with National Journal, he revealed that part of what prompted him to write his piece was his own experience in Vietnam, where as an interpreter participating in CIA interrogations, he had occasion to interact with South Vietnamese torturers and their victims. "If you talk to people who have been tortured, that gives you a pretty good idea not only as to what it does to them, but what it does to the people who do it," he said. "One of my main objections to torture is what it does to the guys who actually inflict the torture. It does bad things. "I have talked to a bunch of people who had been tortured who, when they talked to me, would tell me things they had not told their torturers, and I would ask, 'Why didn't you tell that to the guys who were torturing you?' They said that their torturers got so involved that they didn't even bother to ask questions." Ultimately, he said -- echoing Gerber's comments -- "torture becomes an end unto itself." Pribbenow also said he was moved to write down his thoughts out of concern for the current generation of intelligence officers. "I don't personally know of any cases where an agency officer ever [tortured] anyone; that was always taboo, something we just didn't do," he said. "But I had been seeing stuff in the news, on TV, TV commentators, that sort of thing, in favor of torture," he said, "and I thought, 'I know there are a lot of new intelligence officers, new guys who don't have a lot of experience,' and thought maybe something like this will help them make their own decisions as to how to handle themselves in these situations, especially when people in authority are saying things that are unclear." Indeed, Pribbenow, Gerber, and other veterans interviewed all noted that one of their greatest worries is that the proposed exemption to McCain's legislation will institutionalize something that has historically been an exception in CIA culture: CIA officers actually doing physical harm to interrogation suspects. One longtime case officer asks, "Are there instances throughout history when we have known, and in some cases, at least, turned a blind eye to, that allied or friendly intelligence services are torturing people? Yes," he says. "Is it something our own officers have done? Almost never." What has many veterans worried, he said, is the fact that while case officers aren't actually trained in interrogation techniques ("I'm not sure I ever knew anyone who was a 'professional interrogator' in the agency," says Pribbenow), in recent years officers have been getting the worst combination of no training plus ambiguous signals from management on the ethics of interrogation. From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems. "One of the big lessons for the agency was that the South Vietnamese torturing people got in the way of getting information," he says. "One day, without my knowledge, the South Vietnamese forces beat one of my subjects to a pulp, and when he staggered into the interrogation room, I was furious. And I went to the station chief and he said, 'What do you want me to do about it?' "I told him to tell the Vietnamese to lay off, and he said, 'What do you want me to tell them in terms of why?' I said, 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' He laughed and said, 'Look, we've got 180,000 North Vietnamese troops within a half hour of here -- I can't tell them, don't beat the enemy. Give me a pragmatic reason.' I said, 'He can't talk. He's a wreck. I can't interrogate him.' He said, 'That, I can use with them.' "The important lesson for me was that moral arguments don't work," Snepp says. "But if you have pragmatic reasons, that will work. But the most important thing is that the only time you can be sure that what you're getting from someone is valid is through discourse. In Tai's case, the idea was to develop absolute trust, which you do not do by alienating and humiliating someone. He liked poetry; I brought him books of poetry, and in many sessions we sat and discussed poetry, nothing else. The most extreme thing I did was a disorientation technique, where I would keep jumping from one subject to another so rapidly that he might not remember what he'd told me the day before, or not remember that he had not, in fact, told me what I was saying he'd told me. Little by little, I drew him into revelations. And I was highly commended for this work." But today, according to case officers, younger CIA operatives have no formal training. No qualified old hands are around to informally mentor them, or to even swap collegial notes, on the practical or the ethical in interrogations. "We're not trained interrogators -- to be honest, in those situations I really had no idea what I'm doing, and I'm not the only one who has had this experience," says a decorated active case officer with nearly 25 years of experience, who on several occasions in recent years has participated in interrogations of Islamist radicals conducted by foreign intelligence services. "The larger problem here, I think, is that this kind of stuff just makes people feel better, even if it doesn't work.... I'm worried that this is becoming more institutionalized," the officer says. "There are other officers I know who I think are coming to take on faith that the only way to get anything out of a suspected terrorist is beating it out of him, because he's in an entirely different category, so fanatical that it's the only thing that'll work." According to a 30-year CIA veteran currently working for the agency on contract, there is, in fact, some precedent showing that the "gloves-off" approach works -- but it was hotly debated at the time by those who knew about it, and shouldn't be emulated today. "I have been privy to some of what's going on now, but when I saw the Post story, I said to myself, 'The agency deserves every bad thing that's going to happen to it if it is doing this again,'" he said. "In the early 1980s, we did something like this in Lebanon -- technically, the facilities were run by our Christian Maronite allies, but they were really ours, and we had personnel doing the interrogations," he said. "I don't know how much violence was used -- it was really more putting people in underground rooms with a bare bulb for a long time, and for a certain kind of privileged person not used to that, that and some slapping around can be effective. "But here's the important thing: When orders were given for that operation to stand down, some of the people involved wouldn't. Disciplinary action was taken, but it brought us back to an argument in the agency that's never been settled, one that crops up and goes away -- do you fight the enemy in the gutter, the same way, or maintain some kind of moral high ground? "I think as late as a decade ago, there were enough of us around who had enough experience to constitute the majority view, which was that this was simply not the way we did business, and for good reasons of practicality or morality. It's not just about what it does or doesn't do, but about who, and where, we as a country want to be." -- And torture hasn't been a last resort. It's been a modus operandi for MI (perhaps you should read the Taguba Report from Gen. Taguba)

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) This defeats the racist argument: A 2002 Rand Corporation study by Stephen Klein found that white murderers received the death penalty slightly more often (32%) than non-white murderers (27%). And while the study found murderers of white victims received the death penalty more often (32%) than murderers of non-white victims (23%), when controlled for variables such as severity and number of crimes committed, there is no disparity between those sentenced to death for killing white or black victims. Patrick A. Lanagan, senior statistician at the Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics has studied the system in its entirety, and reports: "I don't find evidence that the justice system is treating blacks and whites differently." Hard to dispute a independent study. The DOJ is really independent, not to mention the corporation that was created by the US Air Force. And I'd love to see raw numbers instead of percentages because...since 1976 only Twelve white defendants have been put to death for killing a black victim comapred to 213 black defendants put to death for killing white victims. But if we're going to run with DOJ stats: According to DOJ figures, nearly 80 percent of inmates on federal death row are Black, Hispanic or from another minority group. Minorities account for 74 percent of the cases in which federal prosecutors seek the death penalty.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) What you're implying is that we are playing a game of Risk with the Middle East and I think that's highly dubious at best. I guess I better pack my stuff and start reading all i can about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. LOL! Sigh. Sooooo. Some FBI agents dont like "brutalizing" terror suspects. Again........ . Again. Sleep deprivation, playing loud music, siccing the dogs on em to make em wet their pants, and leaving the lights on all night is only brutal in your world. And you know what? If terrorists get a beat down laid down on them while they're in Gitmo I really dont care. Goes back to my earlier statement where if all the "torture" whether actual or imagined only saves the life of one innocent person then it's all worth it. I have no love lost for these people at all. My favorite part was "you lose your soul" HAH! That was great. Nuke, check out KUBARK (1963). CIA psychological torture manual. The basic precepts they developed for effective psychological torture were: 1. sensory deprivation (hooding, sleep dep, sleep deprival, 24 hr. a day lights etc.) 2. self inflicted pain (stress positions) These were later refined in the 1980s when the new (declassified) torture manual came out discussing the finer points of both physical and psychological torture. So spare me that it isn't "brutal". It is psychological torture pure and simple. And Nuke, regarding "saving people via torture" -- that's the thing THE FBI SAID THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE IS NOT EFFECTIVE AT GETTING TRUTHFUL INFORMATION. The torture of suspects did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted. - James Corum, professor at the Army Command and General Staff College And what about the legendary Marine interrogation tactics of Major Sherwood F. Moran during WW II? He used empathy to establish intellectual and spiritual rapport with Japanese prisoners. Rejecting the idea that the enemy was a group of fanatics who required tough tactics, Moran, who was fluent in Japanese, approached each prisoner talking as a human being to a human being. His manual of these methods persuaded the Navy and Marines to train their interrogators in Japanese language and culture, producing grads who were among the most effective interrogators in the Pacific campaign of 1944 and 1945, supplying complete Japanese order of battle intel on Saipan and Tinian within forty eight hours of landing. So the proof is in the pudding that non-violent techniques without psychological or physical torture do elicit more accurate information than their more nefarious counterparts. I'd love to know how Nuke thinks we'd get accurate information from victims of psychological or physical torture. Cuz I sure know I'd trust a paranoid, incoherent speaking, disoriented, delusional person. From Physicians for Human Rights: Health Consequences of Psychological Torture The PHR report reviews extensive clinical experience and studies that have revealed the destructive health consequences of psychological torture such as memory impairment, severe depression with vegetative symptoms, somatic complaints of headache and back pain, nightmares, feeling of shame and humiliation, and reduced capacity to concentrate. One of the PHR's sources familiar with Guantánamo said that detainees there suffer from incoherent speech, disorientation, delusions, and paranoia. Prolonged Isolation Studies have demonstrated that short-term isolation caused an inability to think or concentrate, anxiety, temporal and spatial disorientation, hallucinations and loss of motor skills. The ICRC, government reports and documentation of individual detainees, who have been subjected to long-term isolation, all substantiate the severe health effects of solitary confinement. Sleep Deprivation Total sleep deprivation can cause impairments in memory, learning and logical reasoning. Sleep restriction can also result in hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Two detainees held in Afghanistan said that several weeks of sleep deprivation left them terrified and disoriented. Sexual Humiliation Victims of sexual torture forever carry a stigma and will often be ostracized by the community. Sexual humiliation often leads to symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depression and multiple physical complaints such as headaches, eating disorders and digestive problems. Suicides may also occur unless a strong religious conviction forbids otherwise.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Ok. From the poster point of view if you dont want to get attacked personally then dont provoke me by calling me out when I didn't even have a hand in this debate. Secondly, The "you just want to give candy to terrorists" statement can be morphed and made relevant here by simply removing terrorists and replacing it with a scumbag group of your choosing ( murderers, rapists, thieves, drug pushers......etc....etc...). Nuke, it's not even relevant to the debate. The candy to...argument is an over-simplifaction and a very poorly created false dichotomy (i.e. "We must kill inmates!" or "We want to give them candy and cake and let them go.") when there are more options that you either fail to mention or fail to see. I'd hardly consider 22-23 hours a day in a cell to be "candy". Capital punishment should be questioned by any sane and rational person given the arbitrary nature of its use, the racial and class discrimination so very evident in the use of it, the alternatives to the death penalty (i.e. life without parole when they have room to house people -- by getting rid of mandatory minimums for simple possession non-violent offenders), the chances that innocent people can and have been executed, the numerous exonerations from death row that have occurred and by people who believe in the fundamental dignity of all human life.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) Most of your "points" can be chalked up to this:: The part about starting a war to "control middle eastern oil supplies" is more like this:: . If the intent of starting a war was to control middle eastern oil we would have invaded Saudi Arabia ............. or .............. Nigeria...........or.............Venezuela..........or Angola.............or why bother leaving the continent. We could invade and sack Canada as we import more oil from them than anyone else. Some of the stuff you say is just off-the-charts insane. Nuke, I wasn't the one who said Iraq was a tactical pivot. ADefense Policy Board briefing with Laurent Murawiec did – the one where, in a Power Point presentation to Perle and the assembled worthies, Murawiec declaimed: * "Iraq is the tactical pivot * Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot * Egypt the prize. Yes Nuke, it's just crying Just the fact that shipping people off to countries where it is legal to torture is illegal. Just the fact that the FBI interrogators are incredibly pissed at the torture/interrogation tactics being used. They see it as not giving any benefits and see it as a detriment to actual security. (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/helenthomas/4023757/detail.html) By the way, take a gander at what that bleeding heart terrorist loving FBI agent discusses what interrogators did to people while detained. Just the fact that the Supreme Court ruled today that US detainees have the rights of the Geneva Conventions. From FBI bureau agent Dan Coleman: "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul." But outside of that and more, you're right. It's just crying

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) LOL! Owned by what facts? On what point? Did I make any points at all in this thread at all for you to "own" me on? I don't recall even posting in this thread until I saw the hippie comment and got a chuckle by adding on to it. If I did make an argument that you "owned" me on please refresh my memory. BTW.........If you want me to slander you I'll be more than happy to do it. Dumbass. From the mod POV, watch it with the personal attacks. Secondly -- it was the point of view that dismissed any arguments made by the anti DP side with the ever so cliche "Well, he just wants to give candy to terrorists!" crap.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world. Here I was thinking that prison scandals, the usage of psychological and physical torture, shipping off detainees to countries where torture is legal, thumbing our noses at the Nuremburg Tribunals and the rule of law (i.e. habeas corpus, due process, Geneva Convention etc.), starting a war based on questionable intelligence as a tactical pivot to control Middle Eastern oil supplies, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping might cause some countries to have a few second thoughts of working with us.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Link to ABC news story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2133924 Synopsis from Raw Story So, the big story: The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. That ruling again: The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. What shoud we take away from this? The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. Flaxx, you get the 'devil weed' and I'll go get the cookies and milk for Osama -- since only terrorist supporting hippies can be happy about this clear declaration that executive authority is not taffy to be exerted whenever and wherever Bush thinks it can. It's a resounding victory for logic, reason, facts and dignity.

QUOTE(brijames @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) Audio "Who's Your Tiger," by the Natives of the New Dawn Who's Your Tiger (Detroit's A Winner) Music: C. Mayfield, Words: P. Barker © 2006 New Dawn Horizons (BMI) All Rights Reserved © 1968 Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. Introduction Keep On Pushin' Movin' On Up Movin' On Up Verse 1 We're a winner And never let anybody say Detroit can't make it 'Cause the Tigers are leading the way No more tears will we cry And we have finally dried our eyes Chorus And we're movin' on up (movin' on up) Detroit Tigers are movin' on up (movin' on up) Verse 2 Stick around so you can see The Tigers road to victory Detroit's a winner And everybody knows it's true (So we keep on pushin') Like Jim Leyland tells us to Around the league the Tigers roam Sending pride to the fans back home Repeat Chorus Bridge Who's your Tiger? Man, I don't know Maybe Pudge, Maybe Thames, Maybe Polanco Magglio's setting up a nice home in right Wilson's got the plate backed up for the night Granderson's in the outfield standing tall Shelton just launched another long ball Inge is on the infield puttin' on a show For Guillen, Gomez and Craig Monroe People are talking, they're causing a stir about Rogers, Robertson and Verlander. Bonderman's on the mound Blows 'em right by ya Much like relievers Rodney and Zumaya Who's Your Tiger? It's hard to decide I wanna thank 'em all for returning the pride Who's Your Tiger? It's hard to decide I just wanna thank 'em all for returning the pride Who's Your Tiger? Repeat Chorus Verse 3 I don't mind a loss or two The Tigers always follow through Detroit's a winner And everybody knows it's true (So we keep on pushin') Till Jim Leyland says we're through Together, we'll restore the roar Like we did in '84 Repeat Chorus Woo, Go Tigers Hey, got to keep on movin on up (movin' on up) We are winners (movin' on up) And everybody knows it's true (we keep on pushin') Movin' On, Movin' On, Movin' On Up (movin' on up) Who's Your Tiger? (we keep on pushin') mms://wm.detnews.gannett.edgestreams.net/2006/sports/0628whosyourtigers.wma Can someone please start beating these guys before I lose it! Did someone say 'Movin' on Up'?