fyatuk

I don't think those reporters from ABC News have much to worry about though....looks like they didn't break any laws. not them that has to worry it is their sources for stories. because bush believes in only reporting the news he states to be reported (or more pointedly chaney tells) No, Bush doesn't approve of people employed by the government divulging confidential matieral to the media. If the media has a non-leak source, he won't argue with it.

I said no such thing. The total population the Marlins have in So Fla exceeds what SA would have in So Tex / No Mexico. That is the population that has the disposible income to take in games, and to make it worhtwhile for TV and radio to advertise in those areas during games. This is what makes the SA market so undesireable, as opposed to the So Fla market. The Marlins already can market to Miami-Dade/Broward/Palm Beach PLUS Martin, St Lucie, Brevard, Collier, Okeechobee, Highlands, Monroe, Hendry, and possibly Lee and Charlotte Counties which is a total of approx. 7,000,000 (using 2004 Census estimates) people of US incomes just within the southern part of Florida. That is a much larger potential TV and Radio market than SA can claim. I didn't even include Charlotte (157,000) and Lee (571,000) counties in my estimate : those are closer to Tampa Bay actually. etc etc... Did I even MENTION SA v Miami? Someone posted basically that Mexico didn't really like baseball. I responded with a comment that northern Mexico loves baseball, as evidenced by some of the figures for the Mexican League teams. You responded with talking about money, and since the conversation I was having was Mexico v Carribean, I responded as such. Go back and re-read my posts regarding this. I didn't even MENTION SA or Miami. Go back and re-read my other posts elsewhere on the board. I've always said Miami is a FAR superior market than SA and the Marlins would have to be crazy to leave if there was any alternative to stay. Also note, I didn't bother reading your post since it had nothing to do with the conversation I thought was going on. Ahh, what the hell... I'll go through it: Average income: Miami itself is a few thousand less than SA (can't find MSA stats, obviously Miami's would increase more than SA's when taking MSA into account). You aren't talking doubling though. You are talking about 1.3x or so most likely. However, costs of living in Miami are about 1.5 times higher from what I saw. On allegiences: More people are rabid fans of the Missions than the Rangers and Astros combined. Baseball fans will root for one of those teams (which one depends solely on whether or not they like the DH), simply because they are the closest. There is very little allegience there. There used to be a rabid Astros fan base way back when, until the Astros up and moved our minor league team. That killed them. There is little loyalty to any ball club in the SA market. Those statements of yours I had a problem with. Otherwise, you're fine.

If you are tired of it, know you are being tracked....then sue the government. If it is illegal, it will be stopped. That simple. You can't sue the military, intelligence, or several other departments of the government without their permission. That really sucks.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 15 2006, 1:28 PM) 1147827[/snapback] so wait you knew you were wrong and continued to say you subscribe you a false notion and idea? that makes sense. you should be proud i guess, not even facts you know and understand can change your mind about false assumptions. i said he has thrown more money at the issue the facts show that. he is trying but here in america we don't reward trying we reward DOING. and things have not really gotten better since the last administartion, seemingly have only taken a step down overall even though we are throwing more money at the issue and that is not a good thing. 1- you mean the same ports he wanted to hand over to an "enemy"? 2- as of when was airport security an issue? i must have missed any attacks on airports. oh and before you pull out the 9/11 card did we not know these guys who were on the planes? did we not get them on video tape? were they not under watch by the government? we had all the chances in the world to stop them but the intelligence all went to waste. 9/11 was more or an itelligence issue than an airport security one. Uhh. In the process of this discussion I discovered I was wrong and gave you the hint so you could prove it. I wanted to see if you could get the rest yourself. You haven't proved they are any worse. The total number of illegals hasn't gone up an astronomical amount, and you have no evidence supporting more have jobs and more businesses hiring them. In essence, you can't prove they are worse, while the increased work on them shows an improvement. 1) If you think Dubai Ports is an enemy, you are absurd. They are one of the most respected port management companies in the world, with holdings through out both the east and west. That deal would not have had any effect on security, since the port management is basically just loading and unloading cargo, not even responsible for inspecting it. 2) Airports are a point of entry in this country, therefore part of the border discussion. Airports now have more indepth baggage screening, and collect more data on people coming from outside the country. It's more secure in controlling who and what comes into the country.

It's not even close to the same level.....plus it's only half of one country as opposed to four entire ones. If you say so, on your first sentence. On your second... That is not a good response. Puerto Rico is the only carribean area with even a decent wage, and that's only because it is a US protectorate. Mexico as far as decent wage beats out all the other countries, the the northern half is where most of the money is. It's also has the higher population density, etc, for the most part. Mexico is a better potential secondary market than the carribean and venezuela. Now if you're looking for players, than yes, I'd have to say look in the the other areas, at least for now. But either way, MLB should take advantage of both markets and no one should be classifying who likes what based on race or country of origin. It's stupid. People like what they like no matter where they are raised. The difference is simply this - Mexico is half in love with baseball, half in love with soccer. That simply is not the case in the Big Four baseball countries of the Hispanic world. Venezuela overloaded Google with Marlin searches recently (thanks to rferry for that info), while people who originate from Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the DR could give a crap less about any sport that doesn't involve a bat, gloves, and bases. (I could also mention Nicaragua in all of this, but since Miami really doesn't have a large Nica population and I'm not sure SA does either it's a moot issue.) That's mostly the point.....if you go into a city full of Mexicans, you have a 50-50 chance they'll take kindly to the baseball team. If you go to a city full of Cubans/Puerto Ricans/Dominicans, you'll hear the Spanish radio stations talking about baseball during football season even when there's absolutely nothing to report. Okay, see, I wasn't saying that as a comparison between Miami and Sa. I was just mentioning that to say "mexicans don't like baseball" is NAIVE and IDIOTIC. A large percentage of Mexicans LOVE baseball and strongly as anyone else. Also, SA IS NOT A CITY FULL OF MEXICANS. Mexican decent, yes, not mexicans. The vast majority of people in SA have grown up watching the Rangers, Astros, and Missions and couldn't care less about soccer. As I said in my last comment, it's absurd to make those judgements based on race or country of origin. People like what they like, it's just a matter of whether they've been exposed to it.

Actually, some of the most affluent areas of San Antonio include a large number of homes owned by Mexican nationals. Mexico is a country of haves and have nots. Not much middle class at all. But make no mistake about it, the haves are a VERY desirable demo. You should see them during Holy Week here in SA, strolling the malls.....flush with large amounts of cash and shopping bags loaded with expensive merchandise. yup, that's why there are daily flights (quite possibly soon to be a shuttle) between here and Monterrey. It's not really because of the SA people wanting to visit Monterrey, but because of rich Mexicans wanting to be able to get back and forth easily.

In all fairness, northern Mexico is big into baseball as well. The Mexican League teams have a very good followin. But economically is it a population that would be worth captivating ? The average income below the border is not worth it IMO. Yes its a large number of people, but would they have the money to sustain advertising ? Just because there is a large population, it doesn't translate into $$$, which afterall is what the real deal is here. So you're saying the Carribean and Venezuela have more money than northern Mexico? Actually many places in northern Mexico do have a significant amount of money (from US tourists and business interests). The point was that a large part of Mexico loves baseball, so the statement that only the Carribean and Venezuela love baseball in the hispanic world was incorrect. But most parts of northern Mexico are certainly worth trying to cultivate as a broadcast market, but not a home market. Especially Monterrey (closest to be able to work as a home market) On a side note, i noticed I forgot the g in "following". Now I feel like a hick.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 10:11 PM) 1147561[/snapback] you raise an interesting point at the end there: oops? as shocking as this is illegals won't disclose their illegality and business won't openly admit they hire illegals. but it is common sense. illegals come here for money and farmers and resturant owners, sanitation companies, know where they can find their cheap miracle workers and the illegals know how to find people who are willing to pay them. if there was no more money to be had the illegals would stop coming but they dont and they keep making money to send back home, someone is paying them. so care to tell me how you came to that conclusion? Yup, you're right. In the process of discussion, it has been proven that Clinton did improve the border. I concede that point. But it still points a smile on my face that I got to tell you how to prove it. Although I could go on to claim the commonly accepted principal of for every 1 caught, 2 get across that's been around since the 80's Of course if that were true there should be like 30-40 million here or something like that. As for the jobs/businesses. You're not realizing that begging in the US can make more than working in Mexico. Working 1 day in the US can make as much as a week in Mexico as well. It's possible for more to be working without more businesses using them. Especially since many of the businesses that are considered prime industries for offending have grown dramatically, the same companies could just be using more of them as well. You're just claiming something that just does not necessarily logically follow. What, that Bush has increased border security? Significantly increasing bordper patrol personnel to protect the gaps (granted, the total training level has gone down because he rushed them into the field), ordering more searches of crossing and border region vehicle searches, providing nice biometric technology for official border crossings that makes sure everybody who crosses there is properly identified. There's also the greatly increased airport security and better port container controls if you want to count those.

Except for sheer volume, the numbers are probably similar. Similar percentage hispanic, similar poverty percentage, similar mean age, etc. But the volume definitely wins out. Just had to say.....it's not about Hispanic population. See, we Hispanics are a very different breed from each other. Caribbean Hispanics (something Miami has a plethora of) along with Venezuelans (likewise) love their baseball, while all other Hispanics love soccer. It's not about speaking spanish but what dialect you speak. In all fairness, northern Mexico is big into baseball as well. The Mexican League teams have a very good followin.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 9:27 PM) 1147528[/snapback] what difference is it? if i showed you they used more man power and more hours would that make it better? hell if they did that or even used the same then i think americans have been robbed of money. it is common sense really: -only more illegals are showing up -only more illegals have more jobs -only more businesses are hiring illegals -illegals are making up more of the work force -all this in the face of a "better intelligence agency" and there are less and less arrests and fines? that is sounding like lazy work to me. here in america we celebrate results trying is nothing. and right now bush is not getting results. The trend argument is BS. I've already stated there is a natural downward trend for the first couple years, so really you have 3 years of valid data (down-up-down) for real trend, and it shows nothing. And sorry about the "waffle" thought that said 30 at first glance, not three. Blame the glasses or just not proofreading. That one number is suspisciously low, the number before suspiciously high. Yes more illegals are here now then before. That's not saying much as the way things are with the porous borders (that Bush has actually improved over the last couple years once Congress passed the legislation he wanted), unless an amnesty is declared and they are given legal status, that WON'T go down, period. Show me statistics saying more illegals have jobs, or that there are more businesses hiring them. The fact is you can make more money begging in the streets than you can working full time in Mexico. Heck, a lot of beggars make more money than me. So how do you know more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them? How does anyone since MOST illegals are working day to day on cash basis jobs. I'm suprised you haven't quoted the arrest numbers: 1.7 million arrested crossing the border in 2000. 1.1 million in 2005 (low point in 2003). That's more of an argument than nebulously claiming that more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them.

Hmmmmm, that would be like arguing your house provider has the right to anything you've done in a house they've built. I don't follow. They offer a service and part of that service includes speech which is, in some sense, protected. Big difference. The Bill of Rights specifically protects your home, papers, effects, etc. That is specifically protected by privacy. The house provider however CAN provide freely to anyone it wants when you moved in, and the previous address you listed on the application. This data mining isn't protected the same way things that happen inside your home are. Neither are things you do in your yard, etc. AND YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT SPEECH. The contents of a call ARE protected and not part of the data mining. This is no different than, say Walmart telling a partner company you bought a vacuum cleaner on such and such date. Which they (or many companies) do. It's THEIR information. They can do what they want with it. You really seem to not understand the type of information this is.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 7:13 PM) 1147391[/snapback] man you need some help. are there more or less illegals in the us now versus the clinton administration? more illegals are coming and finding jobs. the more illegals there are here the more illegals have jobs. which means there should be more arrests and fines. if the intelligence agency is working better now, by your own word, then we should be finding more and more of these businesses. but i fail to see how going from fining 417 employers to 3 employers in a 5 year span seems appropriate in this climate. its called an education i suggest you get one. :thumbup republicans need to realize it is no longer about clinton because at this point he will not make this country better or worse. just like nixon, reagan, carter, kennedy, eisenhower, bush sr, etc can not change where this country is heading. Meh. Last numbers I saw said over 11 million illegals in Clinton's last year compared to a bit over 12 million now (well, also seen numbers saying as low as 9.5 for Clinton and 11 for this year). So yeah, number of illegals has increased by somewhere around a million over what, 6 years now. Bet more illegals came into the country during Clinton's presidency. Like I said, the first few years you crack down, you catch the obvious, easy to track infractions. Yes, fining 3 employers is definitely off, but considering the previous year was 162... There's not even a trend on the fines, just a lot of up and down, so saying it dropped to 3 over a 5 year period is misleading at best. Like I said, show me a manpower/hour drop and I'll buy it. And I am well educated thank you. It does do wonders. Lets me keep an open mind and not be pigeon-holed into thinking what others want me to think. And not that I'm a republican, but of course none of the past presidents can change where the country is headed. That doesn't mean they didn't play a role. Clinton played a role in a lot of negatives and get's thought of highly because he happened to be lucky enough to preside of a technology boom. FDR helped bring the country back from the brink of bankruptcy and protect the world from Hitler, BUT he's also the root cause of many of the financial problems we have today. Bush has done a lot of good things, but he will be remembered for the bad.

I am stunned that people can actually defend this crap. This program isnt about an invasion of a specific part of the bill of rights. It is about an enormously broad expansion of the power of the federal government. Youre effectively saying the federal government can track our every movement in the public forum and you have no problem with it. Youre totally fine with the federal government having a record of every phone call, purchase, and public activity we have ever undertaken. Please explain to me how this is the job of the government? How is this within their power? It's amazing how much people will give up for the sake of "security." It's one thing when they have probable cause that you might have done something and so they want to find out specific information. But this is just too much. See, there's the thing you are hitting at. Public Forum. Everyone has a right to anything done in a public forum, even the federal government. If you had the money to deal with the telecom companies, you could get the same information they are, no problems. The only type of transactions that are federally protected by privacy laws are financial and medical transactions. The government cannot access your credit card or bank statements without a warrant unless the company warns you they can do it (to my knowledge none do). The government cannot access medical records. What you are arguing in this case is that the transactional information for a telephone call belongs to YOU the person who made the call, and not the company you pay to handle the transaction for you, which is wrong. I have no problem with this because I know the police can stake me out without a warrant and get much more intrusive and valuable information. I don't see how who you call and when you call them is of much importance at all compared to when i leave my house, where I go when I'm out, and when I return, and there is no valid reason to state they cannot gather my comings and goings through a public area. This information is not important enough to throw a hissy fit over. It's not your information, it belongs to the company handling the call. They have the right to do whatever they want with it. End of story.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 5:33 PM) 1147299[/snapback] 2- why is there a problem at the border? because we have companies this side of the border offering to hire and pay illegals. clinton came down hard on companies who hired these illegals trying to cut down on the reason and oppurtunities for illegals. if no one hired illegals or paid them then they wouldn't come. under bush we have seen a STEEP decline in arrests and charges against these companies. the report went from 1999-2004 # of fines: 1999: 417 2000:178 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 100 2002 53 2003 162 2004 3 # of arrests: 1999: 2,849 2000: 953 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 795 2002 495 2003 445 2004 n/a http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05822t.pdf 3- bush has turned the agencies against eachother and most of them against the government. the cia hated having goss at its helm and they also are not happy with hayden at all. but it is bush's way to give them the middle finger a good thing you want to do i guess he doesnt care that the doj is not being allowed to investigate the nsa bush hasn't shown he can understand intelligence let alone reprimand those in his administration who lie to him about it see iraq war and condi rice and powell. *not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate. When you make massive arrests you weed out the careless, leaving the harder to prove situations. And less overall. There is always a steep decline followed by a stagnation period when law enforcement in emphasized on a specific thing. Same thing happened with meth labs in TX. A huge number initially, followed a steep decline in busts and a period of stagnation. Declining numbers does not prove a lack of effort. Show me a reduction in manpower/manhours involved in the investigations and I'll buy it. While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those. As for #3, Clinton is the one that started pitting them against each other. He's the one that oversaw putting in restrictions on how the different agencies communicate with each other, leading to much duplicate work, not taking advantage of strengths, and a more direct conflict for funding. I don't have access to any inside information about the CIA, so I really couldn't tell you what they think about Goss or Hayden (though it does seem that Goss was a very bad choice). But the intelligence communities work together much better now, so even though he pissed them off, they are much more capable then when he took over. I've never heard about Condi lying to Bush, or Powell lying to anyone but the UN under pressure from the rest of the Bush administration. Wasn't Powell's problem that he vocally disagreed with Bush and refused to lie. But you are right in that Bush doesn't know the proper ways to handle information. And he certainly has turned at least a good chunk of the intelligence community against him, as evidenced by the delay in releasing information he requested declassified.

seriously, what good has he done? he's: 1) squandered a tax surplus and created the greatest deficit in our country (and not just because of Iraq) 2) failed to provide adequate border security 3) destroyed the CIA and harmed our ability to stop future terrorist threats 4) further polarized the country 5) lowered the standard of living for all but the wealthiest 1% of Americans 6) eroded our constitutional rights more than any other president in history i could go on. 1) The tax surplus was gone as soon as 9-11 hit. He's made it worse then it could have been with the ill-timed invasion of Iraq and failure to re-instate the top 2 tax brackets, but he didn't "squander a tax surplus". 2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better. 3) Clinton did much more harm to the intelligence community than Bush did. Bush actually undid some of the harm from the Clinton administration. 4) no argument there 5) BS. I'm hardly top 1% and I live MUCH easier now. Same is true for most people I know. 6) BS. Several presidents have done worse, and really the only thing even remotely involving constitutional rights is the wire tapping thing, and MOST presidents have done their fair share of that (yes without warrants). But you don't mention he has greatly improved funding for unconventional energy research. He cut in half the taxes paid by the bottom 10% of tax payers. He's immensely increased federal spending on Education. Or are those bad things? There's plenty more to that, whether you choose to see it or not.

And that being said, we've had the freedom to say whatever the hell we've wanted to, to whoever we've wanted to, over the phone, terrorists as well as the rest of us red blooded Americans, and yet there's been only ONE "successful" major attack in the last 50 years. This particular program is not a threat to what you can say on the phone. They are not recording content, and in fact don't even have the capability to. They are mearly being given access to the telephone company records for telephone calls connected. You seem to be confusing the so-called illegal wire-taps (I'm not convinced they're illegal, but they are immoral) and this data-mining operation. Two separate things.

must be 63% of the Bush Cabinet asked and 51% of bushes family because I am pretty sure more then 70-80% and the Bill of Rights is against it The only Bill of Rights that could even be contrued to be applied: 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And this does not apply, since it is not YOUR person, house, papers, or effects (it means belongings in this usuage). It is information used in a transaction with another company, and the information belongs to the phone company. The time, date, number called, and number called from are all parts of the transactional information. The contents of the call itself are not (they are a transaction with the person on the other end though). Unless you have a privacy deal with the phone company itself (and they don't reserve the right to change the policy without notice), the company can do whatever it wants with the information collected in processing a telephone call, including selling it. It is their informaiton. The Supreme Court ruled this way in the past, and it's dead on right IMO. It really doesn't bother me. I don't see how the information is useful unless they are trying to find out who is talking to suspected terrorists to use as info to get warrants (or add to the stupid list of warrantless wire taps).

Now this is the big deal here. You seem pretty sure about this and I have no reason to doubt you yet. Now I'm 100% positive that there's no way that this guy would give away land for nothing, so there is something that the city or county, or the Marlins, is offering him in return for this. No business man is going to give away his assests for free. The question is what is this that they're offering him in return? I'd really really like to know, if you know what it is Festa. Actually I think that is one of the most interesting thing going on. Codina has been quoted as saying not only has donating land not even been discussed, but that he is not interested in donating or selling land for a stadium. But there is the fact that Hialeah working some mojo to get the boundaries moved certainly helps him out in the development angle, and it really doesn't seem likely that a city would do that without at least having a handshake deal for something they want, plus the fact that a stadium in the area certainly makes it a more appealing development site (meaning he makes more money off his land). He could easily make up the value of the land donated with the increased value, plus without the cities help he would probably not be able to use the land. It makes a lot of sense that he would donate the land, both as an exchange of favors, and to increase the value of his own ventures on the land.

By the way, fyatuk, is it safe to say that any bill would include a path to citizenship for aliens here longer than 5 years? Sounds like that is the only thing everyone would agree on, the rest of the bill being the most controversial. It had better. Only the most hardcore anti-immigration people would oppose a path to citizenship for the people who have been here that long. Under 5 years is debateable, but over 5 years and they are pretty much accepted as part of society. I'm hoping the compromise contains that, and then some of the harder portions of the House bill for those here less. I think most people would accept that. I seriously want to meet one of the 29 percent who still approves of Bush. Honestly, I approve of Bush more than Congress. And I couldn't even say Bush has done even an average job. He's allowed too much to start falling apart. But I definitely don't have as low opinion of him as the vast majority of people, and I think he would have a MUCH higher approval rating if he had just avoided Iraq. People look for the bad in him now because of Iraq, so all his ratings take a hit. People just don't see the good he's done.

If they paid fines I think a lot more people would be in favor of it. That's what the Senate version of the bill required (don't know about the compromise). Unspecified fines, and only available for long termers. Short timers had to go back to country of origin.

If these immigration legislations pass, it'll start going up again. A lot of people are impressed that he's actually pushing a controversial bill in order to help the less fortunate. no way brah His immigration stance is the primary reason why his approval rating his been plummetting. Any drop in approval rating below 40-45% comes overwhelmingly from conservatives. Do you have any idea what a huge proportion of everyday conservatives and republican voters are vehemently opposed to amnesty? Which is why he said he was opposed to amnesty in the last election, even while spouting about his "guest worker visa". If you know anything about Bush, you know that he is definitely pro-immigration. He was when he was governor here. The conservatives that are favoring it are pushing it as not being an amnesty because illegals would have to pay fines before they could take advantage of the bill.

From my view, these SA guys seems to be almost as obnoxious as Samsom, maybe more so. No one owes anyone anything here, nor is there a need to "spin" anything. Seems clear to me that from the beginning there were no guarantees, just SA putting their best foot forward (although $200 mill wasn't going to get it done anyway) and the Marlins having a real interest in what SA had to say. Get over it SA, you are acting like an unprofessional real estate salesperson, angry that the buyer decided not to purchase the property you were selling. Uhh, the pirate reference can be taken in other ways, other than pursuing coastal teams. Just be glad the marlins were dealing with the County and not the City. Wolff is much more professional and nice about these things than Hardberger is. A lot of the disappointment hitting the news is that, pathetically, the Marlins and Saints are the closest we've come to a new team even though we've been trying for 20 years. The Saints fiasco was a frustration on so many levels and basically turned into a pissing contest between Benson, Tagliabue, and Hardberger. The $200 million wasn't putting our best foot forward. That is just showing a little toe. We easily could have found a way to pay out more and finance the entirety of the Marlins portion. The Marlins just decided they didn't need to pursue that with the stadium talks in Hialeah apparently going well. Larsen probably meant the pirate reference as you are thinking. I get the feeling he's planning on running for County Judge against Wolff and is starting the party early. The last couple months he's been contradicting Wolff any chance he gets, trying to paint him as a liar, etc.

When it was done, and the Florida front-office folks were jetting back toward Miami, the only thing everyone knew for certain was that they don't serve delicious breakfast tacos like that in Hialeah. Cuban food >>>>>>> Breakfast tacos :mischief Not only that but i'll put money that the Taco Bell on 49th street makes better tasting tacos than the one's their talking about. :mischief You would lose that bet big time. There are a few places in SA that make some of the best tacos in the world. No matter where it is, Taco Bell is CRAP in comparison to the family owned joints here in SA. I'd compare it to Cuban food, except my trip to a cuban restaurant got canceled due to illness when I was down there.

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/110506_b_billboards.htm I'm all for making the borders more secure to stop future illegals, but there needs to be an amnesty type deal for those who've been here and wish to apply for citizenship. Several open revolts and wars for independence have been fought over immigrant rights. We don't need another one on this continent.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 11 2006, 9:36 AM) 1144147[/snapback] and you got republicans running around saying its a good program even though the cat is out of the bag that the terrorists will fall for it anyway. conyer or something like that, some rep. from texas, was just on fox news basically saying terrorists will not try and stop using the phones basically. :banghead Well, in all fairness, just about ALL the Rep. from Texas are idiots. I'm totally in favor of cleaning house on those. Too many (even some of the Dems) followed DeLay's leads. I had a bigger problem with news programs talking about the locations of US stockpiles of chemical weapons shortly after 09-11 and how they could be a very dangerous terrorist target...