NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Oh, so our government is suddenly going to turn into Nazi Germany if phone and e-mail conversations are monitored. That's extremist rhetoric if I've ever heard it. I'm not necessarily advocating the monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's an "expectation of privacy" anywhere outside of one's own property. I knew you'd pick out the word Nazi and try to make it sound like I said that (even though I said no such thing). If you can't defend your position, paint the other person as an extremist. A favorite tactic of the current Administration.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) Well, then why are we so eager to rebuild it? Good question. I, for one, am not.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) If it's inevitable, see how easy it would be to insure your house against it. Which is exactly my point. It would be REALLY expensive, as it should be. No more making the rest of the country pay for someone's stupid choice to live in a sub-sea level flood plain.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore. If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about? Just curious. And right there (bold above), we have taken a huge step away from the Constitution and a free state, and moved towards fascism. I would hope that any American would be scared to death of that happening. This whole "I have nothing to hide" argument is so ridiculous that it could be used successfully to defend the Nazis. And BTW, if the conversation was overseas to Saudi, and/or I'm not a citizen, it isn't protected by law anyway. The law-violating situations are domestic communications.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) Some people in New York have no other finacial option than to take the subway to work. For those who need to travel thousands of miles for work-related business, taking a plane is the only option. I see no difference between that and using a telephone. The difference is the expectation of privacy, and the level of necessity of access. Regarding expectation of privacy, see my other post. Regarding level of necessity, let's put this in perspective. Surveillance of communications could cover phone, cell phone, 2-way radio, email, even direct conversation. Pretty much everything. So, if they are monitoring you without a warrant, then you have lost ALL ability to communicate privately, and they did that without a warrant. Clearly, this is a violation of privacy. On the other hand, a bag search on an airplane is much smaller in scope and is obviously an expected result of the choice. They search what objects you are carrying with you - not all things you own, or do, or say. And you know going in that you will be searched. Plus, for 99.9% of us, it is not necessary to take a plane somewhere to function normally in society. There are some jobs that require it, and it is certainly the most convenient option at times. But it's not truly a necessity, like basic communications are.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC. Now, that, I would have a problem with. Also, if you know you are getting on the subway where searches are now routine, there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in your bag. There is, on the other hand, a logical expectation that a phone call or email in private would stay that way, barring someone breaking the law. Like, say, the NSA.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) I don't see how it's much different than voluntarily talking on an cell phone that's on a network regulated by the FCC. Now, that, I would have a problem with. Are you serious? ALL telephone communications are regulated by the FCC, leaving you no other options, and all communications could be monitored by surveillance equipment. There is no choice there. Taking the subway, on the other hand, is an actual choice. You could take a bus, or a surface train, a car, a cab, walk, bike... and not get searched! Listening in on your communications of any kind without a warrant is no different than someone searching your belongings without one.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) "Batwurst... sausage... Ditka..." ...cold, dark weather... few outdoor recreation opportunities... large numbers of poor families...

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) Not that I disagree, but I wonder how many New Yorkers feel that their rights are being violated when their bags are searched now in the subways. My guess is not too many. Completely different scenario. That's a person submitting to a search as part of a voluntary course of action (taking the subway). The surveillance is more like someone going into your house and searching your bag while you are away.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) Of course our rights come with a price tag. Get rid of Miranda and Search and Seizure laws and more criminals (and innocent people) will be off the streets. I am certain, and I am using an extreme example, the Gestapo and SS could show how their tactics saved lives by getting criminals off the streets. But that isn't America and it isn't what generations have fought to preserve. Exactly. As I said earlier, the result is not relevant. Constitutional rights must be protected, even at a high price.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) I feel bad for the people who couldn't afford homeowners insurance. Then again, I'm sure that a large percentage of them couldn't afford it because they instead chose to spend their extra money on cell phones, DVD players, satellite TV, $20,000+ cars, etc. Why be responsible with your income when the government will bail you out if a disaster hits? It's a shame that government assistance is so widely-abused by people who just don't want to act like responsible adults. There are a lot of honest, hard-working people who actually need (and deserve) it. Agreed. See post #6.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711930/site/newsweek/ As Balta pointed out, not really such a great connection. And honestly, even if it was, it's completely irrelevant to my feelings on this issue. I am sure the police could catch a lot more criminals if we threw some rules regarding probable cause, warrants and weapons registration out the window. But that's not OK either. None of this is worth stepping on the Constitution.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) CNet news last month...There's no getting off that no fly list. Disgusting. You know, I'm a political independent, and historically, one of the reasons I voted for GOP candidates is the idea of LESS government in MY business. They preach freedoms. But there is an awful lot of unamerican, unconstitutional and freedom-diminishing crap going on under this administration and this congress. The idea that 80k people can't fly, most of them for no good reason and with no redress, is frightening, and it should frighten all of us regardless of party affiliation.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) Thats just a fact of life in the filabuster. Where we stand on this forum, what are the limits, we don't exactly know. However, there are two ways we can go with this: 1. We can get more strict and tone things down which could essentially take away from the point of this forum (which was to encourage all out debate and at times people may go totally off the deep end; and while that comment may be totally wrong in most of our opinions or overly harsh it could in fact stirr up quite a bit of other side debate and intelligent debate). 2.We could keep things very loose and essentially keep this a free-reign forum. The obvious pro is that pretty much all discussion is allowed (aside from porn) or anything that would get this site or an indvidual in trouble but at the same time you will have the occasional comment or topic that totally goes against what you stand for (whether religious beliefs, politcial beliefs, or on what you feel is the proper sexual orienatation). I prefer #2, leave it be. You do need Admins to kick in on stuff that's per se illegal, porn, and direct attacks on other individuals. Other than that, let it ride.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) James Moore, the guy who wrote the book "Bush's Brain" about Karl Rove, has apparantely been on our nation's no-fly list for over a year now. He can't get off, and no one will tell him why he's on it. But Bill Clinton had all his opponents audited! That's just... awful. I thought they put some sort of formal process in place back in '02 to address your presence on the list? What ever happened with that?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Who has the best sig on here: "Arguing on an internet message board is like being in the Special Olympics, even if you win - you're still retarded." I believe that is Las Medias Blancas (may be misspelled)

I think a major caveat should be placed on this money going to homeowners. If you take the buy-out and move back in, you are REQUIRED to purchase insurance on the property that covers floods and hurricanes. If you cannot do so, then you can't move back. Further, if you take this deal, and then stop insuring later, you are ineligible for ANY government assistance in response to a flood/hurricane in the future. The reason for this is that Katrina was NOT some unpredictable event. It was inevitable. NO has been destroyed more than once in it's history by floods and hurricances, and it sits below sea level surrounded by big water on 3 sides (another big factor was the loss of natural reefs and bars in the alluvial plain, thanks to the Army Corps of Engineers). If people want to choose to live there, then make sure that NO doesn't become a permanent financial crutch for the rest of the country. Those billions of dollars are going to adversely effect the whole rest of the country in some form, to help a few. Make those few take responsibility. If they can't afford the insurance, then take the buyout and leave (someone else will buy the home). Don't make the rest of the country pay for your poor choices again. I realize this is harsh, but I hate to see us prop up this disaster waiting to happen again.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) He kind of did and re-opened it. It has since be re-closed. While I still have a problem with it, it's not my "beef" anymore. He didn't acknowledge anything wrong, he simply said he tried to re-open it. Even that is, I think, classless, when doing it just to make a point. I don't think he understands that. But this post and the one you replied to are it for me. No more need to argue. I just wanted someone to point out that responsibilty was not taken seriously. I guess that's my conservative side showing up - stand up and acknowledge your actions.

If the mods/admins are concentrating on the issue of the discussion on the church or some other specific hot button issue, then frankly, the point of this thread has been missed. The thing that burned people up here, if you look at the initial postings, was that an Admin used their authority to post in a blocked thread to get in a last word. And his response, frankly, was well short of any kind of apology, or even an acknowledgement that he/she did something wrong. This situation may cool off quicker if said Admin apologized, or at least acknowledged the classless act, and then promised to not do that again.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) CC.. full ST holders and packages have been buying them up since early December. It's got nothing to do with when they go on sale to the public. We've been hearing for weeks it's sold out. Remember comp's, MLB, and the Sox employees and players get theirs first also. As for that date schedule above.. it's not so true. We got our extras confirmed a few weeks ago. Sorry Steff, I must have been typing when you were.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) I thought the season ticket base was under 23,000, and the park holds over 40,000. According to this, "1/24 is when full season ticket holders get to buy them, 1/25 split season ticket holders can, 1/27 general public can", the extra tickets available haven't even been sold yet. So where the heck are almost 20,000 tickets?? It all is very confusing to me....hopefully Brooks can at least shed some light on it. Before people start to panic, my ticket rep says those dates are still correct for individual game sales. As others have pointed out, there are a stilted number of split and Ozzie plans getting that game, as well as promotional and other "special" arrangement tickets being done. Kind of like the playoffs, but not quite as bad.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 06:20 PM) Here's a question...how does a "Serious stroke" on the part of the Israeli leader change any potential strike? Very good question. I think (correct me if wrong) this puts Netanyahu back in the front-runner position for PM. He is back in the fray. If so, he's fairly militaristic, so I'd say it increases the chances.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) I'm guessing if they could have done it, they would have already. Or it's not nearly as advanced as we think. The latter. But in the next year or two, it will be.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) Israel attacking "nuclear" facilities will be a much more difficult task than in 1980 because the facilities are much more spread out, hidden better and protected naturally. If Iran does have a serious weapons program - and I think they do, but it's probably not as advanced as we may be alarmed over- its gonna be really hard to destroy because its so diffuse across the country. Agreed. That's why I think Israel only makes that move if they feel confident they have most or all the pieces nailed down. But if/when they do (and you can bet they are trying pretty damn hard), they'll likely strike. If not, then you get the stand off. BTW, I am willing to bet that Israel has access right now to U.S. intel tools like satelite images, etc., in their search. That makes them more likely to make the right finds.

QUOTE(quickman @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) Your chances of winning are with better players. We won last year despite our team. Sorry that is the truth. Everything went right, just like our playoff team in 2000. By the way its the first time in like 90 years that we won. Don't think it can be repeated without better players. I'm tired of hearing this ridiculous claim. All the stat heads need to understand that all the stats in the world don't tell nearly the whole picture. Baseball has so many dynamics, there just are too many factors involved to completely analyze it with numbers. No team stays in first place an entire 162-game season and sweeps through the playoffs 11-1 "despite itself". Too many games, too many bounces will go both ways to point at luck. I'm sorry, it just makes no sense statistically or otherwise. The logical explanation is this team is better than the commonly-used stats say it was. And the results were obvious: W's. OK, that all said, yes, i do believe the 2006 team would be better with Tejada. I think that Uribe and Contreras s/b enough, though. Giving up another picthing prospect and Sweeney as well is a bit much, I think. But if the deal is for Contreras and Uribe, hell yes. Add in Sweeney, maybe. Add in Broadway or someone like that, I say no (unless we get back a great prospect in return, or Bedard). I want a better 2006 (which we ALREADY have), but i don't want to bankrupt 2007 thru 2010.