Balta1701

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger? Here's my question...if everything in this report were true...what would we expect to happen due to it? Would we expect charges to be filed? Or Hillary has to apologize? Or anything? When Hillary's campaign was facing charges for improper campaign contributions or something, it got a lot of coverage, more I think than the acquittal got even. But it actually involved a court case...something tangible the media could point to and say "a-ha there's a story here." Heck, if I wanted to count up all the things that I've thought this Administration has done which were clearly wrong and could have deserved their own investigations but have gotten almost no press coverage and died off because the Republicans control the Congress, I'd probably have a couple dozen. (The missing $10 billion from the CPA in Iraq, transferring funds from Afghanistan to Iraq without Congressional approval...blah blah blah). If this is a conspiracy involving tax evasion and obstruction of justice...where are the charges being filed?

So it seems Pakistan is still claiming that they killed that bomb-maker, but they haven't produced any evidence to that fact, including examinations of the bodies.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) People don't know what happened, other then what was leaked in the NYSlimes. And the parts that Mr. Bush was willing to admit, amongst quite a few other sources now. If you'll note the title of this thread...I didn't launch it based on the NYT report, I launched it when Mr. Bush gave his radio address a few days later confirming the NYT report's accuracy and defiantly stating that he was going to keep doing it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) I would call that conclusive evidence that he is alive (Just playing devil's advocate since I think he's clearly alive) Didn't the CIA also conclude that Saddam had 3 body doubles and hadn't appeared on TV since the mid 90's? Hell, didn't at least some parts of the CIA think that Iraq had WMD and Ahmed Chalabi wasn't a lying SOB?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) its funny, as a democrat, whenever i see lieberman's name it takes a second for me to remember that he is, in fact, also a democrat. but that's mostly because he's not. Yes, he actually is...in his voting record. But the problem is...he's vastly more outspoken on things that there's no voting on (ike when it's not ok to criticize the President), and on those few things he does vote on that disagree with his party. You don't hear him coming out and even offering vocal dissent on environmental issues at all, for example. If he wanted to avoid this sort of thing...he could have done something very simple. Just like McCain, the media will let him make news by speaking because on occasion he's willing to disagree with his party. But when McCain does things like that, he also takes the time and effort to stress positions where they agree. He'll pass a torture ban, but he'll also shut up when the Administration says it won't follow it, and then he'll go and campaign loudly for another Administration initiative. When I see Lieberman speak these days, all he is doing is criticizing other Democrats. He doesn't take those opportunities to work towards building the party's strenght on issues where he does agree with the party; all he does is tear down the party on issues where they do disagree.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) That's funny, cause I thought when the White Sox non-tendered Willie and Timo, it was a sign that the offseason was a success. I can understand him saying that about Willie. The question is...would he say that if they also signed Timo?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy. BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power. The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them). Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty. I think I agree with this point...if it was a resolution passed by a vote of the House and the Senate, does it not basically have the force of law? There are still 2 major questions remaining - whether or not the "Whereas" clauses can be taken as justification for actions, and whether or not that resolution in fact gave the President the authority to override FISA with those statements in the Whereas parts. But that the resolution does have the force of law I didn't think was in doubt.

Is it just me, or in the last paragraph, does she make the same mistake the Bush administration made when it decided to rid the Mideast of WMD - replacing the N with a Q? (Somehow, I doubt that many people right now want to be supporting the opposition in Iraq. Unless she's suggesting that the Sunni rebels are already in control of the country, and the elected leadership is now the opposition)

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) So the law is not actually a law? He may have followed the law and we just don't know? Please explain to me why it is only MY OPINION that he broke the law. I would love to know why it is not that clear cut. It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority. While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law. I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) I'm sorry, but just because the nasty rightists did this with Clinton does not mean that the nasty leftists are doing the same thing to Bush. I think a large majority of America feels lied to and scammed by this president. The fact is that we may be over protecting ourselves from letting it happen again, or to maybe from letting it to keep on happening. I actually disagree with the phrase "Over-protecting ourselves" here...I don't think it's that we're over-protecting ourselves, rather I think its the reverse...we're leaving several obvious avenues of improved protection untouched, while going after various other avenues of highly dubious relationships to the actual war itself.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 09:45 AM) I see your point, but don't all mining accidents that involve the possible loss of life make the news?? Yes, but they're usually a 1 paragraph blurb in my LA Times in the morning a few pages behind the national page. Put there right next to the latest 2 car accident from Oklahoma and the woman in Michigan who poisoned her husband and son with milkshakes. They're not the biggest story of the day.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) That's more or less what I'm trying to say. A lot of LEFTISTS (hehe) are running around saying HE BROKE THE LAW, when in fact it's conjecture whether or not he did. As I've said before, the thing that bothers me most is that we will probably not really ever know because it won't get that far in the court system. I hope it does, for all of our sakes. Would it be fitting for this leftist to say that in his opinion Mr. Bush broke the law? I hope also it winds up being decided in a court, as a court can dole out punishment which I can't, but why does that stop us nasty leftists from giving our opinion as to why the facts of this case suggest strongly that the President is in violation of the law?

And now, because of the mess with the news media last time, every time there's a mining accident this year, the media will treat it like they would a missing young white woman. No offense to the families of course...but there are hundreds of people who die every day. Hell, there are usualy 30+ coal mining casualties per year in a good year. The only reason why this is a story is that the last one was a story. Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll focus some spotlight on the weakening of inspection procedures and safety standards within the coal industry in the last few years, but it's doubtful the media will even make that connection. *edit: sorry for the filibuster-style rant.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Of course not. In football terms, I'd say that you're in your prime when you're between the ages of 26 and 29. Without even looking into it (kinda like nitetrain), I'd assume that this will be his 12th or 13th year in the NFL? 11th.

Can Theo play shortstop? Cause that would really help them out.

Sun-Times

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) The rumors were that he was looking for more like 12-13 million a year for 3-4 years when the word that contract negotiations weren't going well first leaked out. And Jon Garland wants to play in SoCal because his wife is from Hawaii and he's from Socal too. Man, I am gonna get so much mileage out of that particular leak...

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 11:40 PM) Well, the triangle has a little somethin to do with that. It's a lot harder to double when everybody is movin. But yeah, it seems teams are content with Kobe getting 40+ and shutting everybody else down. That makes sense for 3 quarters, but in quarter 4...if the game is close, everyone else is just going to shut themselves down and give the ball to Kobe anyway, so why worry about stopping them when they do half the work for you by staring at Kobe?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 11:46 PM) We are the wealthiest society that has ever walked this earth and we can't take care of someone who desperately needed it. :headshake If we can't help a vet, who can we help? He should have just hired his own lobbyist.

Can someone out there please tell me why exactly Kobe Bryant is allowed to touch the basketball without an immediate double team? Especially in the latter part of the 4th quarter?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:25 PM) It didn't make it any better or worse, but if he got suspended for his wife being a b****, you better believe she's the one sleeping on the couch if in the house at all during those 5 days. I'd be pissed. Also remember...he's losing what, $500-$800k because of that?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:22 PM) T.O. isn't that old. He's in his prime. Plus he's going to be on the best behavior just to shove it up the Eagles' asses. If he were to play in the same division, he would do anything and I mean anything to make sure they beat the snot out of the Eagles and that would mean him being on best behavior. You know, even if TO tries to be on his best behavior...that really doesn't guarantee anything. Remember the MNF/Desperate Housewives thing? He thought he was doing what the team and the league wanted him to do, and somehow he still wound up causing a controversy. Beyond that, wasn't he supposedly on his best behavior when he made that Favre statement that got him kicked off the Eagles? I mean, all in all that wasn't such a horrendous statement, certainly no worse than what Manning said about his O-Line a week ago, but TO's problem was that it was just another item on the list. Manning can say stuff like that and get away with it because he hasn't had a running war with management for months. TO can't do that now. Right now, even if TO is on his best behavior, if he says 1 stupid thing in some random interview...the media will be asking about it for 2 weeks.

I have a habit of mostly staying out of some of the Israel-Palestine discussions...but sometimes you just can't pass one up. Here's the question...what will be more successful...Hamas's plan to improve its image in the West using PR firms, or the U.S.'s attempts to improve its image in the muslim world the same way?

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:03 PM) Shut out as usual. You will forever receive thanks in my sig, as long as I use you for Avatar purposes. You may dry your tears with that sentiment.