Soxbadger

Southsider, I do not think that is the problem the current bill is addressing. If you are worried about highly sophisticated personell entering the US, no amount of border patrol is going to stop them. Russian mobsters, IRA members, etc have funding. When you have funding, you can fabricate the necessary items to cross into the United States and no amount of security in the world is going to stop it. Im not suggesting to just open the doors and let everyone in with out keeping tabs. Im suggesting that we let everyone in, and the ones we let in we keep track of. That way it is easier for the US to be on the look out for the terrorists, instead of just the people who want to enter the country. In the end, I guess I try and err on the side of allowing people in. I know that is dangerous, but that is what I feel America stands for. It is dangerous that our criminal system is "Guilty until innocent" or that the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but I am of the opinion our country was founded that way because it is better to let 100 criminals go free than wrongly convict 1 person. Its not easy to walk the path of the United States, the greater part of world history has been dominated by societies that were far different than our own.

There is a great irony that today we sit at a fork in the road, where ex-immigrants are trying to make it harder for future immigrants. No matter how high and mighty I may become, I will never forget that if it were not for the leniant immigration policies of the 19th and 20th century, my family may never have had the chance to come here. So give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, because it is the American way to accept them. Let them take jobs, let them compete, because that is American. It is only those who are lazy, those who are drains on society that fear the immigrants. Because can an immigrant that can not speak my language, that has not gone to high school, college, etc, really compete for my job? The answer is no, and the reality is not one illegal immigrant has ever taken a job that I have wanted. They take jobs from those who are no longer deserving, because they will work harder and for less. Its time to stop crying and asking for a bigger govt to come and protect us.

Its pretty apparent why Cartman aka South Park hate Family Guy. If you watch an episode its basically 95% non sequitur material. Hence Cartman's statement that when he makes jokes they are relevant to the developing plot line. In the grand scheme of things Family Guy is below South Park, which is slightly below the diety level of the Simpsons. As even South Park gave the Simpsons their due respect in the episode "Everything is turning into the Simpsons" or something to that effect.

I hope they show it. I doubt they will.

I propose after showing the exact same pitch/location that he try and set up Sweeney some where else. Especially since the pitch before Sweeney was right on it.

Whoever called that pitch just does not know what is going on. Sweeney was looking outside, you need to come inside. Ah well hopefully they can score 1 in the 9th. What was vazquez's pitch count?

Where would we be without Vazquez and Thome? Both have looked really good this year.

Some times breaks just are not going to go your way. With the pitching staff the Sox have though, when their offense starts to click they should be able to start winning games in bunchs. Also Vazquez is looking really good, so glad we got him.

I meant HGH. GHB is a date rape drug, I think Janikowski from FSU had some one time.

You mean, why did Bud Selig without any facts or aid from the players or owners launch a steriod campaign? Because if he was wrong he would of been ran out of the game and shamed? He had nothing to go with. He had no proof, he had no smoking gun, and even more importantly what was he going to start going after? Was he going to launch an investigation on the designer drugs that were coming into baseball that people had no ways of testing for back then? GHB was untestable, as were most other growth hormones because as always the steriods are about 10-15 years ahead of the testing. The reality is, even now that we are passed the "steriod age" we are really only past the age of the drugs that they can test for. There very well may be a drug that is just as good as steriods for strength but there is no test out there. Then in 20 years when people figure it out, are they going to say: "Why didnt more people do something about X" Well its because no one could then. People can only do so much without the aid of 20/20 hindsight. Its very easy to look back and question when you have the facts that the people at the time did not have.

Some times Ozzie is just not very good at being a politician. Hes probably frustrated with the way the team has been playing and is a little more quick to react when he hears something from a reporter. But in my opinion Ozzie needs to start thinking before he speaks. If a player is benched and the worst thing he says is "No comment" you just let that slide, or you stick up for the player. Im not sure why Ozzie just didnt say: "Hey its hard being a player and being told by your coach your going to sit. I didnt like it as a player, and Im sure none of my players are here to sit on the bench. If anything Im glad that my players have the desire and want to be out there every day." Not to mention hes been screwing with Iguchi for almost a season now and the guy has done nothing but play every day and do what hes told. Also Iguchi had a limited ST because for much of it he was in the 7th spot and now is back in the 2 hole so he may feel he needs the AB's to get where he wants to be.

Selig did what he could. The true facts are that both the MLBPA and some owners were creating a very strong bloc to prevent drug testing. Its not like every owner didnt want steriods, there is some evidence from Canseco that many owners he worked for knew that their players were doing steriods and did not care. Therefore prior to about a year ago you had: Owners and MLBPA versus Bud Selig Doesnt seem like good odds

You go for the win? The game was tied, if the Sox were leading its completely different

Um if we went with a righty against Michaels, you then have a righty versus Hafner? You gotta pick your poison and Cotts v Michaels was a match up Cotts needs to win.

Isnt Shoppach not Martinez catching now?

Bunting with Paulie is a good way to get 2 strikes on your best hitter.

And McDonalds does not represent a team in STL's division. Where as Budweiser aka Busch was one of the owners of the Cards, and the namesake of the new stadium. Its like a big STL flag in the middle of Wrigley.

And they wonder why the Cardinal's are a better team. You dont see Stl naming anything "Tribune's Home Run Porch".

I really like Villanova. BC was a rough match up and they pulled out a win. Also I love a defense that puts pressure on the ball. I picked UConn to win it all, but I think Nova can play with any team.

First Amendment is not an absolute protection. You cant print, write, or say anything, there are certain limitations. As for why Barry's lawyers wasted their time: 1) Because Im sure they were paid substantially 2) Because as the lawyers for Bonds they have a duty to do what they can to help their client 3) Because they could make a good faith argument that the UCL made it so that if the journalists did something illegal that Bonds could get a TRO and damages. I just dont understand why the lawyers would not try this. Seems like a no lose situation: Scenario 1) They win at trial, the case most likely would be fast tracked for Appellate and then perhaps SC. They are looking at considerable legal fees, not to mention all the publicity of being Bonds lawyer. Scenario 2) They lose at trial, they then have the decision to appeal, they also still receive their considerable legal fees. I really dont know many people who would turn down thousands of dollars and all the recognition/publicity that would come with a case like this, should they prevail.

Here is the statute: Here is a link to a bunch of case law, but it seems that this is a really broad statute. UCL Info My guess is that they are going to allege that the authors did something "illegal" which therefore would allow Bonds the relief of the restraining order. Because under the statute one of the choices is "injunctive relief". Gonna be interesting what Bonds camp can dig up in terms of "illegal" because it seems that its very broadly defined by prior case law.

Now you have me interested, gimme like 5 minutes Ill see if I can figure out what statute they are using.

Im not exactly sure Steff. Judging from the wording of the article, it seems that they are trying to use some specific Cali Statute about unfair competition. Without knowing what that statute says or makes legal/illegal, its hard to tell what angle they are going for. Im sure that they have something up their sleeve though, probably had some one read the entire book and figure out what they can attack.

Where is the liability suit? They are filing a TRO (temporary restraining order) to try and prevent the sale of the book. They will argue that allowing the sale of the book will lead to irreperable harm to Bonds which no monetary award could make him whole again. Im not sure why they are "idiots" for doing what every lawyer would do for their client, protect their interests. Even if they lose on the TRO, it does not mean they will lose should Bonds really take them to the mat. A TRO just says that one side has a substantial liklihood of winning, while not actually making a binding ruling. Not to mention it specifically says that Bonds lawyers told them of an intent to sue, and then also filed the TRO. It will be very hard for Bonds to win in the end, but he can make it extremely costly for the authors and the publisher.

This case is a joke. What is more funny is that the prosecutor is actually pressing forward with it, I mean once you start having to write a memorandum on what constitutes a "lap dance", you know you are just barking up the wrong tree. Might be a good strategy to amend the charges and try and get him for "illegal gambling", atleast that is a crime. Anyways im guessing all charges dismissed or dropped, maybe a plea of some amount of money just so Daunte can get the f*** out of Minnesota.