Jump to content

NorthSideSox72

Admin
  • Posts

    43,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by NorthSideSox72

  1. NorthSideSox72

    Ouch... !

    QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) http://www.sportsdignity.com/0032.jpg Um... OK Steff... why would you do that to us?
  2. QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Did you mean to say you CAN be a dual citizen...? http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. As Steff points out, you can indeed have dual citizenship. I know people who have citizenship in the US and Ireland, for example. I even know one who is US and Australian citizenship.
  3. Update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_...blic_corruption That's right, Ophelia. It's racism. It's not that there were dead voters in the election or anything. Gotta love the Tennessee Fords.
  4. And they've said repeatedly that Thome would hit 3rd, and Konerko 4th (which makes sense since Thome is the best hitter on the team).
  5. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) If the Terry Schaivo bill didn't cross that line, this certainly won't either. I for one think both bills are/were assinine.
  6. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) Eh, count me out then... Sounds to much like who can use Google the quickest and most effectively. I wouldn't say that. Just because someone can find some obscure quote or stat, that doesn't mean they have a clue what they are talking about. I'd guess that the judges will bear in mind that a string of HTML tags does not a good argument make.
  7. QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) Doesn't federal law trump state law, and voter initiatives? The short answer is yes. The long answer is no. Does that help?
  8. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) Serious question for you. I perceive myself as a moderate that leans strongly to the conservative side of the fence. How would you catagorize yourself? Hm. I took a questionaire online a year or so ago, asking where I stood on 50 current (at the time) important political issues. I fell almost exactly in the middle. But my individual views were all over the place. So far today, I have posted with the generally-GOP folks on the Walmart thing, and with the generally-Dem folks on the domestic surveillance thing. I'm right-of-center on most anything fiscal, as well as affirmative action, rights granted under amedments 2, 5 and 10, most business policy, most matters of crime and punishment, defense generally (not inluding the Iraq debacle), and balancing the budget (I would favor an amendment). I'm left-of-center on the environment (way left), on rights granted under amendments 1 and 4, on gay marriage and other social agendas, the Iraq mistake (though I do NOT advocate leaving Iraq right now), and on my current thoughts about the Bush administration's performance (i.e. warrantless searches, Iraq, trying to insert church into state, etc.). I have ideas not on either party's radar when it comes to mid-east policy, health care, the judicial system and education. Does that sampling help?
  9. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) :headshake You leftist centrist. Whatever, you mildly-right-of-center wants-to-be-centrist.
  10. QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) Lean on personnel?? They have a f***in person at the front of the store saying hi and handing you a cart. And never anyone in the aisles to answer a question, in my experience. But you could be right. I was just guessing that, since Walmart is highly cost-conscious, they'd likely not be staffed at a level higher than necessary. But if that's not the case, and they have room to cut, then this 8% thing will make them do that.
  11. QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) I'm guessing if we were sitting around a bar and not typing, we'd be a whole lot more centralist than we appear here. I know I do. I counted the Republican County Chairperson as a friend, and we never fought over political posts like I have with some of the mindless idiots here I think that's very true. Well said.
  12. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) All this does, is give incentive to Wal-Mart to keep payroll lower. Thus, less hiring and lower raises. They can always blame the Maryland legislature for poor raises accross the board. Agreed. If it's 8% of payroll, then reduce payroll when possible. Of course, given their business model, Walmart is probably already pretty lean on personnel, since they would see that as a cost center.
  13. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) For the most part, both sides here in Soxtalk seem to border on the extremities of their affiliation. In some cases, the "border" is completely out of sight. I don't know if it's a natural consequence of the debate in here. I do know this much ... every time I start being back toward the center, I get knocked back from it with a huge sandbag that hits me from the left. I know we have some swinging sandbags from the right at as well, but I don't if anyone on the other side gets close enough to get hit by them. There are plenty on both sides. I can think of at least a handful who tend to sit on the extreme on each side, and lob mortars across the middle to the other side. I get knocked off center a lot too, but honestly, it seems lately the sandbags are more from the right than the left.
  14. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) You leftist *searching for appropriate insulting noun*! Centrist *insert noun* is probably more accurate. I just happen to be taking up the "leftist" cause on this one.
  15. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) I'm not altogether down with what Sen. Clinton said, but both of Gore's speeches (the first one this thread referred to and especially his reply to the non-factual and impotent White House pushback) were very good. Agreed. And I am getting tired of the hypocrisy of prople saying labeling everything any democrat says as "Leftist *insert insulting noun here*". It's such an immature, laughable response, lumping all people who disagree with the GOP into the "extremist" camp. And then they b**** and moan when a Democrat says that the extremists in the GOP are dragging the party right, which is somehow taken to be an affront to all Chirstians. Can we have some maturity and intelligent discussions in here, without the insults and marginalization?
  16. QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 02:03 AM) Speaking as a registered republican, you've hit the nail on the head Flaxx. I'm done with the party until some sense of sanity returns. Their uncontrolled spending, faith based initiatives, pandering to the churches in cases like gay marriage and the like, protectionist economic policies, bowing to big oil, and blatant disregards for civil liberties (phone tapping, patriot act) have all left me feeling alienated. This isn't the s*** that I thought I was getting when I signed up as a republican. For some reason I thought conservatives believed in standing up for the freedoms enjoyed in the past by weakening government and empowering the people through a strong capitalist system. I applaud this dem from Ohio. Chances are I disagree with him greatly on many, many issues but he's rather accurate in his portrayal of the GOP. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Except for the part about being a registered Republican, I agree with all of this. As for Hackett, I think the Osama comparison was too far, but I agree with most of the rest of what he said. The Republican party is being dragged too far to the social right for my tastes, and the idea of an anti-gay-marriage amendment is absolutely un-American. Nuke, I don't see anyone trying to say that being Christian means being an extremist. That's ludicrous, and IMHO, just as much so as saying that all Muslims or Jews are extremists. Hackett is referring specifically to the extreme segment of a certain party. And Kap, man, don't take off. Not all of us are just flinging sh*t from with wings and trying to make everyone else seem like an extremist. Some of us here are up for real discussions on the issues.
  17. QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) That's friggin' horrible. Metra better build that stop now. Metra has said they are indeed putting in a stop at 35th on that RI line just over the Ryan from the park. But it won't be complete until 2007.
  18. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) Prior to FISA...were things like the wiretappings done by the Hoover FBI and the Nixon admin explicity illegal? The text of amendment IV says: I can see how that could be construed to apply to electronic assets, but prior to FISA, was that ever really established? Did anyone go to prison for wiretapping King, Lennon, et al. without warrants before FISA? I don't know who was monitored. But I think it's unconstitutional and just plain wrong in any case.
  19. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy. There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered). Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution. It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal. If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law. And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens. Here is the Text of the act. I think that Bush (via the NSA) is pretty clearly trampling the 4th amendment, and it's generally accepted interperetation regarding due process of law.
  20. QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) But if a husband stays, and can't get over the hump of the child being born 1) because of rape and 2) not his biological child, can you honestly say that a 2-person, possibly loveless, maybe resentful relationship is better than a single parent? Staying together because of the kids, biological or not, isn't always the best answer either. That being said, I don't think I could handle it. But I've never been through this scenario. I have had a gf that was raped and I wanted to track the guy down and shove a hot poker up his ass...many times. And if she'd gotten pregnant, I don't know if I could've dealt with that child. This is just me, but I can't imagine leaving my wife or abandoning her child, even if it was the result of rape. Heck, maybe even more true because of it. She would need me that much more. No way I could leave.
  21. QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Plus the founders created the electoral college so that the President wouldn't be elected by direct mandate at all, but rather - in most cases - by the state legislatures of each individual state. What if your state decided to determine its electoral votes that way again? Would that also be acceptable to you? Before you say "that'll never happen," it almost did. One of the hidden stories of the 2000 election was that if the recount had turned out that Bush had indeed lost the state, the Florida legislature was ready to pass legislation that would bypass the popular vote and assign its electors itself. That's another reason why the electoral college is dangerous - there is room for various entities to screw things up. Wasn't there some individual electoral rep in one state in 2004 that decided to vote for Kerry, against's his states vote? The electoral college is just a little too derivative for my tastes.
  22. QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) Wyoming is rural. Nebraska is rural. Utah rural. Montana rural. Kansas rural. Etc. You tell me what would happen if all these "given R states" caught wind that a Republican was going to abolish any and all farm subsidies. With 3 electoral votes each, do you think that they'd have a pretty big f***ing effect on the outcome of the election? Those states aren't ignored, they are pacified. If each of those "given R states" only had 1 electoral vote each then combined they wouldn't have the power of California. The politicians would s*** on those rural states both on the campaign trail and in policy matters knowing that rural states are completely powerless to enact change or resistance. The only change I could see, which could only happen on a state-by-state basis, would be to give states the choice to choose electors proportionate to the popular vote within each state. I believe Maine and Nebraska have a somewhat similar policy in place now. I told you what would happen in my earlier posts. They would vote on their political beliefs - on the issues. And you are wrong about their power being diminished. In both states, the people whose votes were not in the majority still actually count. Right now, that's not the case. In states like NE, KS, etc., the number of actual farmers is actually the minority, not the majority. If the issue was farm subsidies, right now, their votes are not as important, because they are the minority in a bunch of states, never getting the electoral votes. Their votes are worthless. If you remove the electoral college, you instead turn those farmers into hundreds of thousands of votes nationally, and that can make a difference. So again, the electoral college does NOT help states rights, not does it help minorities (electoral). The electoral college really only helps the few states with very large urban populations (and it only helps those urban parts of them).
  23. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) thats good to know ^^^ Winger I did always want hair like that. Feathered and dangerous! :rolly
×
×
  • Create New...