Flying_Mollusk

My hope is that the Dolphins try and pick up Daunte Culpepper, and pick up Omar Jacobs in the second round. Dear God no.

The Cato to NY to include Crawford part seems to be a smokescreen as it looks like the Darko deal is about to go down. If we trade with NY and not Denver and if it is for capspace for 07, which I prefer, then I think itll be SteveO to NY for Penny(who will immediatley be cut, possibly literally by Brian Hill) and one of the three rookies not named Frye(if it is Frye, then Isiah willl be eaten for dinner in NY). I prefer Lee. And yes, NY is stupid for wanting a Marbury Francis backcourts. "Gee, lets take two of the most overrated numbers based non winning PG wannabe players of the last decade and play them together!"

I always get great dessert. This year, brownies in a heart tin. Ignored the tin while I devoured the brownies.

Hopefully Otis Smith isnt being stubborn with that draft pick. Top five protection in this draft is great. This draft class sucks.

YES!!!!!!!! I've been reading about this trade for weeks on another site. Perfect trade for Otown because they give up nothing to take a shot at Darko. The draft pick being protected is awesome, especially in a weak draft. Am I the only one curious to see what he will do if he gets minutes in Orlando? Also to the Orlando fans, what kind of minutes with your roster and rotation can we expect to see Darko get? The hope is that he will start as PF next to Dwight as C for the next 10 years. Darko should log heavy minutes soon, though he may be eased into the rotation. Battie is a team player who will gladly come off the bench. Kasun hasnt done anything to demand the future is his. Garrity is a SF specialist. Darko can truly get his chance now. If he performs, he should compliment Dwight perfectly. Dwight is developing his inside game and the hope is that it will go well with Darko's mid range game. The key is, we give up pretty much nothing to take the risk on Darko. Also, rumors are flying that we will trade Francis, possibly to clear cap space. Thats even better. That fits well with Arroyo being a good backup to Nelson. Once Hill comes off the books in 07, we will be big players in the 07 awesome free agent market. Throw in Dwight, Nelson, and hopefully Darko.

I look at it this way: If God was able to create the universe then he is too complicated to be understood using the logic of human minds. We are far from being able to answer these questions or even being able to understand what the questions are but it's always stimulating to ponder them. I just hate it when people think they are all knowing and believe they're absolutly right about everything Godish when really no one knows anything, such as atheists, or Pat Robertson. Can't disagree with you there. Well said.

The God and logic paradox is similar to the evil demon paradox, ie the one thing that has to be true is existence(very abstract sense) because one can't be tricked, by an evil demon, into thinking that one exists. The famous phrase-I think therefore I am. One is being tricked, so one cannot be tricked into thinking. Similarly, God cannot negate existence because he negates himself. So he cannot negate logic and such. Personally, I dont think a lot of these questions can ever be answered. It's almost like we are facing the worst kind of torture and we don't know it.

LA times is a more left wing source and I am sure it is written in that direction. But, is there any reason that independant non partisan inquiry can not be done into this? Besides the obvious political concerns, it should be done otherwise. It is foolish and terrible to think what happend, and could of been avoided. Instead it sounds like someone is to be made "one big scapegoat" instead of fixing the problems all around. How is the LAtimes a left wing source and how does that defeat the concept that this was a republican prepared report making these conclusions? Is this the same foxnews is fair and balanced because it is pro-right analysis?

Ok superangels, I?m not sure what your actual argument is but I?m going to try to respond to it as it is organized and as I perceive it. First you suggest that the president has the constitutional right to issue a search via the 4th amendment. This statement is wrong on it?s face. The 4th amendment does not grant a right to issue a warrant. It protects all in the US against unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants can be issued that allow a search except where there is probable cause. You then state that the warrant was issued by Bush and that it doesn?t say that a judge has to issue a warrant. You then go through the definition of the word warrant and state that police don?t need judicial orders, ie a form of warrant, to engage in searches and seizures because the police have some formative pre-authorized warrant. You then state that the president has warrant power as seen via the Japanese internment camps. The Clinton article is something I will address, but you then go back to the definition of warrant and who can issue a warrant. 1. First and foremost, to dismiss the argument that the police can issue a warrant and don?t need judges, go back to the findlaw article you posted. ''The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. This very statement destroys that argument. The police are clearly not a disinterested party. They are clearly an officer who is engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities, ? So it is pretty clear that law enforcement cannot issue a warrant. The police must show probably cause to a detached entity. 2. Second, to dismiss the argument that the definition of the term warrant does not always include the requirement of judicial order. This is a very strange argument and I?m not sure what the relevancy is. But it is pretty clear that the 4th amendment requires a warrant to engage in a reasonable search subject to exceptions. Like you said, a warrant is a sanction or authorization. The 4th amendment protects us against a unreasonable search and seizure and protects us from reasonable searches and seizures except where a court allows that search to happen. The court is giving the sanction. From the findlaw article: authorizes invasion of that privacy only upon a showing that constitutes probable cause, and limits that invasion by specification of the person to be seized, the place to be searched, and the evidence to be sought Your own definition states that: a precept or writ issued by a competent magistrate authorizing an officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search or to do other acts incident to the administration of justice The substance of the 4th amendment is pretty clear. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant And yes, there are exceptions. But they are clear and distinct. And you have not pointed to a single exception that authorized the presidents actions. This right to be free extends to the entire government. So the president of the United States is clearly subject to the 4th amendment. So therein lies why you?re analysis of the 4th amendment is totally wrong and does not follow from the evidence you provided. 3. The debate regarding what Clinton wanted to do was whether or not the 4th amendment did not apply to foreign intelligence searches and hence warrants are not required. Hence whether the president could authorize the NSA to do this and not worry about the 4th amendment. But it still dealt with issues surrounding the 4th amendment and it?s application. Engaging in definitional games does not change that. Now if your argument is that the president has the authority to grant the NSA the power to override the 4th amendment and engage in searches without court order, this is a different issue. First and foremost, the president does not have this authority. Your own Clinton article points that out: a. That what Clinton wanted to do was engage in a warrantless search, as described above: The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. So to claim that the definition of warrant means that this isn?t a 4th amendment issue is totally wrong. b. That congress, unlike with FDR, debated this issue and denied this unfettered authority under FISA. the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court ." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court So it is pretty clear that Bush, by ignoring congressional authority via FISA, violated the law and separation of powers. This debate was already settled. Arguing that Bush should be able to do it does not mean he can do it. Your argument regarding the Japanese internment camps incorrect because those actions were 1. authorized by congress, 2. occurred during wartime and 3. are unconsidered horrible decisions and actions that we have paid reparations for and no longer truly recognize, or won?t recognize, as valid law. So nothing in the 4th amendment, nothing in the Clinton debate, nothing in the internment camps, and nothing in the definition of warrant allows the conclusion that Bush has the authority to grant carte blanche searches for the NSA.

No offense superangels, but thats an unbelievably incorrect and logically flawed legal analysis. It is late now, but Ill address all the incorrect points first chance I get.

Something that rarely got mentioned when the riots happend last week is that the cartoons were published a long long time ago and there were no riots when they were actually published. This article adds the intelligent perspective to the broad stereotypes thrown around. By Christopher DickeyNewsweek InternationalFeb. 20, 2006 issue - When Hamas called for the Muslim world to calm down last week, European officials hoped they'd turned a corner. They'd been looking frantically for a way out of the clash of civilizations sparked by the publication of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad. Danish Embassies were burned in Damascus and Beirut. Afghan riots led to at least 11 deaths. Another protester was shot in Kenya. Any voice of moderation was welcome. But there was not, in fact, much optimism in Brussels. "The situation is very, very complicated," says an EU official close to the negotiations with Muslim leaders, who asked not to be named because of the talks' sensitivity. "The cosmological problem will have to be solved bit by bit." Cosmological indeed. The cartoon crisis has shown just how hard it is going to be for European and American leaders to straddle what Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi last week called the "huge chasm between the West and Islam." The strategy taking shape in Washington and Europe includes some tough, targeted talk. Troublemakers (including certain governments) are to be isolated. "Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "and the world ought to call them on it." Europeans agree. "You've had a series of more-than-spontaneous demonstrations in places where demonstrations are never spontaneous," says the European official. For Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose regime is dominated by members of the Alawite sect often seen as heretical by other Muslims, the cartoons are an ideal distraction. By allowing the Danish and Norwegian embassies to be attacked and ransacked in Damascus, he upped the level of global televised violence. A day later, members of a Muslim group with close ties to Syrian intelligence were among the Islamic flag-wavers attacking the Danish Embassy in Beirut, where Assad is still trying to prove that the only alternative to Syrian domination is sectarian chaos. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exulted in cartoon-inspired hysteria, allowing protesters to try to storm the Danish Embassy, and endorsing a Tehran newspaper's competition for Holocaust caricatures. His now well-established policy is to confront the West, isolate his country, then wave the flag to consolidate his grip on power. At least since 2004, the United States and Europe have been working more closely to rein in such roguish regimes. Damascus pulled its troops out of Lebanon last year under combined American and French pressure. After European-sponsored negotiations failed, France, Germany and Britain signed on to the U.S. position and got Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council for its covert nuclear research. Both the United States and Europe have taken a firm line against working with Hamas unless the group renounces violence and recognizes Israel. The question is whether the latest round of violence will cement this harder line, and perhaps even extend it to allies like Egypt, whose government-supported imams also played a key role in fanning the flames. That said, European policymakers are painfully aware they have few options right now. The Syrian regime is protected by fears that, if it's brought down, whatever follows will be worse. And Ahmadinejad is betting no sanctions can be imposed without sending oil prices over $100. It's been left to the European Union's foreign-policy chief, Javier Solana, to forge a coherent European position. Along with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he negotiated a joint statement with the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference that criticized the "insulting" cartoons, defended the principle of free speech and condemned violent protests. This week Solana sets out to visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian territories. Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas chief exiled in Damascus, clearly saw Solana coming. Hamas is "prepared to play a role in calming the situation" brought on by the cartoons, he told a press conference. As Rice suggests, there's no shortage of groups using the crisis "for their own purposes"?even terrorists presenting themselves as men of peace. ? 2006 Newsweek, Inc. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300953/site/newsweek/

Dodge, Bush's actions in the NSA spying are not an issue of whether we need to engage in the spying or not. It's about totally subverting the minimum checks on the system to make sure they aren't abusing it. All he has to do is give minimal justification that the person being spied on is in fact under investigation for possible terrorist threat. This isnt even given to a regular court. It's given to a special surveillance court so that the cat doesn't come out of the bag and undermine the investigation. If you don't go through that court, NSA operatives could be spying on American citizens for any reason whatsover and we would have no way to know or stop it(Ill try to find the links but I know there have been questional uses of the spying). I bet money that he could have stopped the LA attack if he had gone through the process as it is, ie legally instead illegally. But his claim is that he should be able to spy on people without any single check to make sure it isn't being abused. This LA incident, as it is told, doesn't justify his illegal actions. But how could this LA incident justify this? Only if he can show that the threat was SO IMMINENT that the minimal time in going through the surveillance court would have allowed the attack to happen. But he isn't go to show that. Instead he allows the perpetual emergency of fear to broadly attach itself to anything he does. Why should we trust him? Remember the imminent threat of Iraq bombing us with nukes also justified going to war without making sure first. And this isnt a republican or democratic issue. It's about the federal government having not one single check on it in spying on the American people. A lot of libertarians are pretty upset with this and they arent hardcore dems. When it comes to civil liberties, the government should have a pretty sharp and solid justification. But we don't force them to. If youve ever read anything about the Japanese internment camps, it's another example of a really bad and broad justification allowing a really bad action basically because we were afraid.

I have yet to see a reasonable argument why people in the U.S. need to own an assault rifle. We don't live in the Middle East, where it seems like 9 out of every 10 people owns an AK-47 and an RPG. Typical gun-related crimes are carried out with small handguns, not M4's. Therefore, I don't see why we need to allow people to own assault weapons legally. :blink: what on earth? Of all the questionable statements posted on this thread, that one is singled out for exposure? What's the point? Come on people, most of use agreed to disagree. Let it die.

Shoveling is not fun, it's a pain in the ass. I had to do it for the first time ever when Chicago had a snowstorm a few months ago. It made me want to kill myself. It's just as bad when a car gets stuck in snow too.

If youre not doing anything wrong, then why do you care! (sarcasm)

This law might not be as easily struck down as you may think. The state will simply argue that the 10th amendment grants them the right to ban abortions, since right to privacy is not an express right granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, ergo the tenth amendment hands it to the states. They'll just say no one has acted on it and now they are going to start. They have a case. Of course, detractors of the law will just throw the ninth amendment back and point at case precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the court has changed its mind before when dealing with slightly altered details but the same premise (Brown v. Board of Education), so while it might not be likely it's not the slam dunk one would think it is. At first I thought this was perfect for the left because of one of two options. The first is that Roe gets overturned. Most practicaly conservatives don't want Roe overturned for a couple of reasons. First, it would cause a reversal of what Roe invoked in the first place. Women would probably wake up and engage in the same political ferocity that the religious right does. Plus the religious right would probably lose a lot of steam since they accomplished their goals in saving unborn babies. It would cause a large cultural shift to the left. The religious right would have to shift to banning stuff like contraceptives and that would make them look even nuttier. Btw this is a theory Ive heard from a number of conservatives. The second is that Roe and Casey get affirmed by a 5-4 or 6-3(as Robert stated in his confirmation). If this happens, it would have been the third time the court has stated that abortion is protected by the right to privacy. The court has never actually overturned a decision within that short of time of affirming it. Situations usually have to drastically change and that is why Brown overturned Plessy. Plus there was strong legal foundation for Brown as opposed to overturning Roe. But then I thought about it, and I realize the second situation would be a disaster for the left. Because although courts don't overturn decisions that they affirm, they have limited the application of them by distinguising them to death. I think this is what is going to happen if anything, even if Stevens is off the court and Bush gets his third justice. By pushing this now, SD is stupid in that they will affirm Roe. But if they wait, they might have a remote chance at overturning it, though probably not. But again, they will still limit the application of Roe to make it next to impossible to get an abortion. Plus they get to keep the nutjobs who will stop at nothing until Roe is overturned, even though it is heavily weakened. They won't overturn it on the existence of the right to privacy though. Theyll overturn it on whether or not the state has such a compelling interest that trumps the right to privacy in this situation.

Dwight put up a ho-hum 19 points and 17 rebounds tonight. Did I forget to mention he's 20 years old? And he has yet to develop a potent and consistent offensive game, which will of course come very soon.

This doesnt make any sense: All star Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace: PF 15.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 43.5 FG% C 7.8 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 49.5 FG % Not an all start Dwight Howard: PF/C 15.2 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 51.2 FG% Maybe the Pistons can stop bitching about getting respect. Not even the 72 win Bulls had this many all stars.

Cutter? :whistle

Interesting take on the war. Also interesting regarding what he says about treatment of Jews and non-Jews by Israel's security and judicial establishments. Israel 'may rue Saddam overthrow' The head of Israel's domestic security agency, Shin Bet, has said his country may come to regret the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Yuval Diskin said a strong dictatorship would be preferable to the present "chaos" in Iraq, in a speech to teenage Jewish settlers in the West Bank. He also said the Israeli security services and judiciary treated Arabs and Jewish suspects differently. A Shin Bet veteran, Mr Diskin took over as Shin Bet's chief in May. His speech to the students at the Eli settlement as they prepared for military service was secretly recorded and broadcast on Israeli TV. When asked about the growing destabilisation of Iraq, Mr Diskin said Israel might come to rue its decision to support the US-led invasion in 2003. "When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos," he said. "I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam." Inequality The security chief was also asked to compare the treatment of Jews and non-Jews by Israel's security and judicial establishments. "I do not see equality in the way the system handles them when they are guilty of the same type of offence," he said. "If I had arrested a terrorist from Nablus and Eden Nathan Zaada [an Israeli army deserter who shot dead four Israeli Arabs on a bus in August], they wouldn't have received similar treatment in interrogation or court." Mr Diskin also said he thought Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had made a mistake when he withdrew the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip last year without ensuring the Palestinian Authority could fill the security vacuum. "From a security perspective, I am opposed to handling over territories to the Palestinians unless we know there are officials there who will take control and commit themselves to upholding the law," he said. "If there are no such officials, then I am against handing over territories to Palestinian control." But Mr Diskin criticised militant Israelis who have used violence to oppose further withdrawals from the West Bank. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696038.stm

Youre doin a hell of a job Brownie!

Chuck Norris does not use the bathroom. He merely concentrates, and everything is cleared. Chuck Norris once had a headache. He then roundhouse kicked himself, and everything felt fine. When someone said Bruce Lee could kick Chuck Norris' ass, Chuck Norris went into his basement, built a time machine, went back in time, beat the crap out of Bruce Lee, chopped up his body, returned to the present, and then forced the Bruce Lee fan to eat Bruce Lee. He then kicked his ass. Man, these are fun to come up with. Arent there thousands of these on various sites?

Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said. Maybe people who want to only racially profile brown people will actually wake up and smell the coffee now. Dont think they cant get white people too. The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative. And we see why it's important not to alienate the rest of the world? Anyone else think this timing is interesting? Talking about a 4 year old attempted terrorist attack when the administration is getting hammered with wiretapping criticism? Hmmm... Oh the timing is transparent. Like I said in the other post. National security will be driven into the forefront again.

I think the Rove assault plan this year is that everything critical of the president and Iraq(NSA spying, false intelligence, leaks, etc) is undermining the war on terror and national security. Theyre going to link everything to national security.

No, people never call fully-automatic weapons semi-automatic, and if they do they're very mistaken . So once again, the LA shooters did have semiautomatic guns. According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. that's a very broad generalization and rather stereotypical to say the least. Here is the backup to what I figured was obvious: A greater disparity exists when polling ownership of firearms; 46 percent of men reported personally owning a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other type of firearm. Only 22 percent of women own any type of gun, the Gallup Poll demonstrates. A similar survey, conducted by the New York Times/CBS, revealed that men are more likely to support the National Rifle Association. In the CBS News poll, 32 percent of adults said they own a handgun, rifle, shotgun or some other kind of firearm. An additional 16 percent said someone else in their household owned some type of firearm. Men are much more likely to own a gun than women. Almost half , 48 percent of men own a gun. An additional 7 percent of men live in a household where someone else owns a gun. On the other hand, only 18 percent of women said they owned a gun, with an additional 24 percent who live in a household with a gun. Households with guns are more likely to be in rural areas and small towns than cities or suburban areas. Almost three-fifths of people who live in rural areas and small towns have some sort of firearm in their household. On the other hand, in more populated areas -- cities and their suburbs -- less than half of the residents have a gun in their household. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nation...poll-watch.html