NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) I've always believe that both teams had about the same base of knowledgable fans, and that the Cubs got 75% of the casual fan and 90% of the "out of town fan". Now is the chance to take the town from the Cubs and some Sox fans are trying to chase away the casual fan. We should differentiate the casual fan who attends a couple games a summer, from a true bandwagon jumper who tries to act like he's been a fan forever, those guys annoy me. The guys who try and quote Sox history, wrap themselves up in Sox swag. Those guys I have no time for. But Bernie and Betty from Schaumburg who decide to take their kids to visit The Cell this summer for their once a year MLB game, instead of Wrigley, I salute and welcome. I agree. Some people in this board tend to vilify anyone who hasn't gone to every single game their entire adult life. I don't get that. I've been a Sox fan since I was old enough to sit through a game, but I personally don't mind casual fans at all. I love it, in fact. Their presence indicates to me a new level of success for the team. That said, there are some dishonest folks who try to make themselves look like something or not. Certainly, those are irritating people. But I really don't see or hear from many of these. I see/hear a lot more casual fans.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) Now I likes me a good Monster Truck Rally, so this was a bit of a poser. I appreciate the sentiment that there would be difficulty in drawing a line if I were to urge the federal underwriting of anything and everything that makes Americans happy. And I suppose I opened myself up to that argument extension by submitting that "general welfare" encompasses the well-being of citizens above and beyond our essential needs. Fair enough, though I keep reminding myself that critically scrutinizing the Constitutional promise of welfare promotion as a "legal node" was originally your idea of a good time. We sure know how to have fun, don't we? At any rate, no, I am not willing to underwrite the whole of America's entertainment pursuits and pass-times. While I maintain that "promoting general welfare" does extend so far as to mandate some level of federal support for arts and humanities, I do not suggest such a mandate extends ad absurdum. I appreciate (as a debate tool), but do not accept the apagogical leap you have arrived at, i.e., 'if we're going to have government funded arts initiatives then we need to have government-funded monster truck rallies too.' I'll engage in a bit of reductio proof by contradiction myself by way of clarification. You and I both know that we enjoy by decree of Declaration the unalienable right to the "pursuit of Happiness." And I'm pretty sure my pursuit would be more rewarding if the government got to work on a Kate Beckinsale clone or two that they could throw my way. I don't expect that's going to happen though. In short, I see limited federal funding for arts and humanities as being well inside the line of reason that separates practicality from apagogy. Or as I will henceforth call it, the "Beckinsale Line." REBUTTAL: I’m glad you appreciated my bit of hyperbole and hubris in suggesting that monster truck rallies would fall within the bounds of your suggested fine arts budget. That was indeed an attempt at both humor and illustration, more so than an accusation that you might actually favor implementation of such a thing. Let’s take a look at your reductio proof. I most definitely agree that we as Americans have the right to the “pursuit of Happiness.” But you see, I don’t believe that providing you with a Kate Beckinsale clone does anything whatsoever to your pursuit – such a provision would be more about your resulting happiness. The pursuit of happiness takes us back again to a similar tone as the previously argued term welfare. The pursuit of happiness denotes setting the environment as to allow for achievement. That is not the same as saying that happiness is granted. The role of the federal government is to provide a safe, stable environment for the pursuit – not to guarantee such attainment. So again I’d have to say, using your didactic methodology, that there is an important difference between happiness and its pursuit. The federal government only allows for the forgone provision of one, not both. For that reason, I feel the Beckinsale line belongs as close to the bone as is reasonably possible (in so far as the feds are concerned). This means that NEA grants, monster truck rallies and, sadly, clones of Kate Beckinsale and Kate Winslet*, belong outside the purview of federal funding. * My personal addition to the clone request, should the powers that be decide to expand said Beckinsale line to that level of absurdity.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) Does her existence serve any purpose other than to generate annoyance and anger?

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:32 PM) Anyone get a phone call today from players? Wait a second. The players call season tickets holders? Are you serious? Is this like the stories about Payton answering phones for the Bears, or is it an organized thing?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Texas was an Independent Country So was New Mexico for a short time (included most of NM, AZ, parts of CO, NV), though the US didn't recognize them as a nation during that period.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 01:40 AM) They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation. Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield. The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations. Nuke- I just want to clarify something, and I think you can help. It has been suggested in this thread that having side panels added to body armor would reduce casualties due to IEDs and other roadside bombs and such, particularly for passing vehicles. But the thing is, isn't the armor these troops wearing a Type II(a) or Type III armor? That's what I own, and that is meant to stop pistol rounds, submachine guns, shotgun and some rifles. It does NOT stop most high-powered rifles or edged weapons (except where there is a special trauma plate, over the mid-chest). So wouldn't the armor be pretty useless anyway, for that purpose? Wouldn't flying shrapnel fall more under the edged weapon category?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) 51 FOR 29 AGAINST Try again when Stephens is gone. Apparently, it isn't over quite yet... http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html I have to admit, I'm a little surprised at this move. I am not a fan of Alito, but I personally wouldn't blow what I think is a one-shot nuclear deal (the 'buster) on him, if I was the Dems. There are better things to use it for.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) I know it's a private lender and all, but you won't have interest rates that cheap for very long. They will become fixed. These are already fixed, for the duration of the loan, in our case. Mind you, we got that deal in early 2004, and rates had pretty much bottomed at that time. I was just trying to illustrate that we got a really good deal from them, so they might be a good source now as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) Again, if the President committed an 'impeachable offense' the Democrats would garner support from the American people. I really believe that. And they need to stop politicizing it and bring it to the front burner in a way besides a bunch of verbal diarreah, I mean, rhetoric. Actually, I am not 100% sure that the support would be there. Americans are spooked - partly due to reality, and partly due to the fear tactics the current Presidential administration used during their reelection bid. And there is a chance (and not a small one) that if the Dems tried to make it that big an issue, it would backfire, with them looking like they are giving in to terrorism. Right now, the Dems see themselves getting Congress back (or narrowing the gap quite a bit anyway) in the November elections. Momentum seems in their favor. They have decided to wait this out until then, for two reasons. One, why mess with the current situation, when they are looking likely to gain seats? Two, if they have more seats, this sort of thing will have more traction. You see, they are dumb... but they are not so dumb.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) Then if they think that the law was broken that bad, they damn well better grow a pair and do it. They won't. They fear losing (as the minority in Congress), and worse, as I said, they fear looking soft on terror. It's a shame for them, because I think it would make them look strong, not weak. But they are not willing to make that leap right now.

I have owed 2 Saturns (which runs somewhat more independently than other units, but is still GM). Both have been very reliable. My first one was a '95 sedan, has 165k on it, and is still running (I know the current owner). Current one is an '04 VUE and I love it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) But, 78%.... ...Support Hamas - not necessarily the destruction of Israel. Let's see what Hamas is really capable of as a governmental force.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) Relying on government or corporations to provide for you in your old age is looking more and more like folly these days. Thats why Im saving as much as I possibly can without sacrificing too much of what I want. Today: I agree. People who stated with GM in the 70's: No way they could have anticipated this. They did what everyone was supposed to do.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Excellent point And when someone has the choice of voting for corruption or another party, do they have to buy into the entire agenda? If you have the choice of a Republican or a NORML candidate, you would take the Republican because you are against NORMLs stance? Of course, then you would agree 100% with the GOP stance. I agree, this isn't a very good turn of events, but I'm not ready to slander all Palestinians because of this. David Duke won an election, does that mean the majority of people in his district wanted the destruction of all blacks? I tried to have this discussion in an earlier thread, and its obvious SBMI has decided that all Palestians are evil. Further, he claims, Islam wants to destroy all non-Muslims. Good luck trying to use any logic.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:29 PM) Now, another question for you, within the now narrowed topic of whether federal money should be used to fund the arts (I believe this is where our opinions differ the most, while we differ less so in terms of state and local expenditures in support of the arts): You have come down on the "no" side of the debate. And you have provided reasoned grounds for your opinions. But are you also willing to argue for an end to federal spending on the many art education, curatorial, research, and conservation programs and initiatives of entities such as the Smithsonian Institution? Who is going to fund the SAMM (Smithsonian American Art Museum, America's first federal art collection) if the government will not? Who is going to fund the Renwick (home of three centuries of American crafts and decorative arts) if the government will not? Who would have been the archivist for uniquely American folk music for the last 50 years if not for the federal funding of Smithsonian Folkways Recordings (the nonprofit record label of the Smithsonian)? I could go on, but I believe you get the point I am trying to convey. Excellent question again. I think the easy way to answer your question is to break it up into two stages. The first stage of your question is, do I see a grey area here? The answer is yes, I do. The Smithsonian institutions are an excellent example of this. The Smithsonian is, in essence, a guardian of some of the most crucial physical manifestations of our nation’s culture. But is it art? Or is it more of a publicly accessible national anthropological archive? There are others too. The second stage of the question then is, would I be willing to end federal spending on such things? The answer to this is both yes and no. I would submit that the Smithsonian institutions be granted continued funding, under the stipulation that it maintain a strict mission as a historical vessel for the entire nation. That is to say, spending money on archaeological and historical items, famous American art, and other important items should continue. And the studies they fund to paint a clearer picture of our past as well. These are all expected of any nation – the cataloguing of events. But any variance from that mission into art or entertainment for its own sake, changes the mission, and falls outside the purview of the federal government. Those pursuits would need to be funded in some other fashion. Their mission should be as a museum – teaching history, not making it. Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white. But as I think its fairly clear that the federal government is not intended to entertain or make us happy, I must be of the position that restraint in spending in those grey areas would be beneficial.

QUOTE(SnB @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Does anyone have any reccomendations on a private student loan company? I need some little extra money this semester to pay off books and put deposits down for my apartment next year, so the money would need to go straight to me and not through the school. Anyways, i'm sure alot of you have had to go through this process, which company is best? Great Lakes Credit Union (or something like that). We got a rate on my wife's loans that is around 2.75%, and will go down to 1.75% after two years of on-time payments. Plus they do auto-debit monthly if you want it. I can't seem to find their web address - I'll update this post tonight with it.

QUOTE(SnB @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Does anyone have any reccomendations on a private student loan company? I need some little extra money this semester to pay off books and put deposits down for my apartment next year, so the money would need to go straight to me and not through the school. Anyways, i'm sure alot of you have had to go through this process, which company is best? Great Lakes Credit Union (or something like that). We got a rate on my wife's loans that is around 2.75%, and will go down to 1.75% after two years of on-time payments. Plus they do auto-debit monthly if you want it. I can't seem to find their web address - I'll update this post tonight with it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) I'm still sitting here actually feeling a little guilty on that one...simply because I can't figure out a good way to answer it. The President at least has a legal defense (albiet a flimsy one), which means that the Democrats in the Congress are in no position to declare it illegal - the Congress makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws. But I still don't see a damn thing they could do to actually put an end to it or even enforce oversight on it. I think the reason the Dems are not more hot under the collar on this is that they are afraid to make any kind of noise that even hints at their disagreement with the war on terror. They can criticize Iraq because a bulk of the country is smart enough to know that Iraq is only part of the war on terror because they made it such. But when it comes to security issues, they are scared s**tless to beat the drums too hard. Their worst fear is to look soft. It bothers me. I wish they'd have the guts to stand up to it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) If Bush is in violation of the law or the constitution, all these people that have been throwing these accusactions around here should be extremely PISSED at the Democratic leadership for not throwing down the gauntlet. Until one of them finds the gonads to do so, this is nothing more than rhetoric. Pure political rhetoric. Funny how you turned the President's questionable (I'd say illegal) actions into somehow being the fault of Democrats. We've slid off into the partisan BS again.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) I don't bank on this, but I hope now that Hamas has 'real power' (whatever that means in Palestine) they will renounce the old and actually negotiate. Time will tell. Read Hamas' C&R statement that was pasted in at the top. At least in words, they appear to be softening already. Let's all hope.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) Judging by a couple of things that just hit the news wires, i am guessing it is to do with making the tax cuts permanent. Or the Hamas thing. Or the Russian nuclear proposal for Iran.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION AND IS OUR PATH TO CHANGES AND REFORM. OUR PLATFORM IS OUR WAY TO ENHANCE THE BUILDING OF THE SOCIETY WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY THE OCCUPATION. THE SAFEGUARDING OF RESISTANCE AND ITS AGENDA IS THE WAY TO STRENGTHEN NATIONAL AND ISLAMIC UNITY - ON THE WAY TO COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL LIBERATION. THIS IS THE PLATFORM OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE AND HOMELAND. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, this is definitely a big event. Scary too. Not sure how this will all fall out. But I also think it's important for all of us to look at the second document you copied in (the C&R, which I assume is Hamas material), and note that there is nothing about the destruction or removal of Israel in it. I don't think that Hamas as a group is seeking that any longer. But all that may be moot, because it seems plain that neither Israel or the US is willing to deal with Hamas in any way, shape or form. And for some very good reasons. This is indeed very scary.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 06:03 PM) And you all keep using "legal" as the basis of the argument, when you don't know for sure what's "legal". It's faulty logic. "legal" meaning making use of the FISA or other courts to obtain a warrant. It's pretty straight-forward. I see no fault or any grey area.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 05:43 PM) When FISA really was a formality to the process (a step that really isn't needed in the first place). I think if the FISA court was taken to the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds, it would get dismantled. It's a nice thing to have, and it's a 'good thing' if you're trying to protect 'freedoms' (which again IMO is lost when you start talking to dirtbags anyway), but it's not necessary. The law passed by Congress is pretty clear, IMO. EXTREMELY CLEAR. I think that captures communications intercepts. It includes LEGAL intercepts, using the current system in place for such. This says they will support and fund the executive in the LEGAL use of all resources. That "LEGAL" part is implicit in all directives from the legislative branch by law and necessity. Seriously. The FISA provides a judge 24/7 for warrants, grants them 99.9% of the time, and if all that isn't good enough, they even allow for you to get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the fact.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:36 PM) Congress authorized him to use military action (in the war on terror). NSA is a part of the military. If NSA is part of the military for this purpose, then any wiretapping of any kind on US citizens is in per se violation of Comitatus.