danwilson

Avalon, though I wish it were larger. by the way, is this Club Deep a small, medium or large club.

How do you mix up Exit with Roxy?

It would be cool if there was an online station that broadcast this.

Roxy on Saturday :laugh:

4elements, it will definitely not be Spirit or Crobar. It looks like it will be Roxy.

How much is Roxy paying PVD? Does he really get 40,000.

It will probably be Avalon or possibly SF.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077681932590 Comment: Human rights the court missed By ANNE BAYEFSKY The hearing this week in the International Court of Justice is ostensibly to advise the UN General Assembly on the "legal consequences" of Israel's security fence. But the UN itself, through a report by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and a General Assembly resolution, has already detailed the harm done to the Palestinians, and pronounced against the fence's legality. The question before the court has therefore been carefully crafted to elicit a list of negative human rights consequences for Palestinians. The ICJ hearing thus suffers from a glaring omission: consideration of the human rights of Israelis. Secretary-General Annan's report does not describe a single terrorist act against Israelis. The same 2003 General Assembly that decried the fence was also marked by its refusal to adopt a resolution on the rights of Israeli children – after passing one on Palestinian children. The UN message is clear: The human rights of Israelis are not part of the equation. A process that attempted to consider competing human rights claims would look very different. On the one hand, suicide-bombings violate numerous rights derived from international treaties ratified by Israel: the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to equality and freedom from persecution, security of the person, the right to health and well-being, the right to safe working conditions, the right to work, freedom from incitement to violence or war, freedom of religion, the right to the protection of the family, the right to the protection of the child, the right to education, freedom of movement, the right to vote, freedom of association, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right of self-determination. Suicide-bombings (along with other terrorist acts) target Israelis at work, at play, at worship, and in transit, anywhere, anytime. They have been hit in synagogues, at bar mitzvas, at Passover seders, moving from home to work or to school, while voting, gathering with friends in public places, in restaurants, cafes and discotheques, in their homes and in their bedrooms. Suicide-bombings kill and maim children and adults, women and men. They destroy health and any chance of happiness or well-being. The violation of human rights by suicide bombing, starting with the right to life, falls within the category of the gravest human rights violations in international law: crimes against humanity. This is so according to the definitions in the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as reports of organizations such as Amnesty International. The major human rights instruments also render it an attempt at genocide or "the commission of acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Suicide bombings also clearly fit within the rubric of ethnic cleansing, which is defined as the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area through killing or forced migration. Terrorism kills some Israelis, encourages others to leave the country, and discourages Jews from visiting or immigrating. The specific intent is to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews, a fact which has already been accomplished in all other neighboring Arab states, and most other Arab and Muslim countries. International treaties demand that Israel protect the human rights of its citizens, just as the government of any country would be expected to protect its citizens from the most grievous offenses known to humankind. The Palestinian terror campaign has also violated the rights of Palestinians, such as the right of children not to take part in hostilities. The Convention on the Rights of the Child says: "the education of the child shall be directed to ...the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms... [and] for civilizations different from his or her own..., [and] for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance... among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups." The right of the Palestinian child to an education which promotes tolerance and respect is violated by Palestinian media, schools, textbooks, posters, and summer camps – all of which routinely encourage Palestinian children not only to hate but to become suicide bombers themselves. Palestinians have other rights that have been limited or infringed, like the right to work and freedom of movement. These rights are limited or infringed, however, not by Israel's fence, but by the terrorists who live and operate among them. If an armed robber takes a hostage and in the course of the crime the hostage is killed by police, the law states that the death of the hostage has been caused by the robber, not the police. For if there was no armed robbery, the hostage would not have been harmed. If there was no terrorism, there would be no fence – and no "consequences of the fence" for the ICJ to consider. The Palestinian civilian population is hostage to the terrorists among them. Israel's actions, like those of the police officer, are taken in fulfillment of its legal responsibilities to protect and end violent and illegal behavior. The language of human rights is one of the most powerful political currencies of our times. That is why terrorists attempt to use it to their own ends, claiming victimhood for violations for which they are responsible. The International Court of Justice is at a crucial juncture in its history: to become another weapon in the terrorists' arsenal, or to reject the gross abuse of the rule of law and the attempt to deny the equal value of the human rights of Israelis. The writer, a professor at York University in Canada, is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.

SF is done unless they sign a big name DJ like Tenaglia.

notallthere444, you didn't hear. George Acousta just got a residency at Twilo. :laugh:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1077423458175 NY congressman at terror site: 'We would be using B-52 bombers' Etgar Lefkovits Feb. 22, 2004 A visiting American congressman said Sunday that had any other country in the world faced the onslaught of Palestinian suicide bombings that have rocked Israel over the last three years they would be "carpet bombing" the Palestinian territories. "If any country in the world would be attacked the way Israel is they would be carpet-bombing the Palestinian territories," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Dem.-NY) Nadler said. "If this was America that was attacked we would be using B-52 bombers." The New York Congressman, who visited the site of Sunday's Jerusalem bombing, blasted those who condemned Israel's construction of a security barrier, which zigzgas in and around the West Bank, and is meant to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country. "The various hypocrites arguing in The Hague against the building of the security fence are similar to those who condemned the Czechs 65 years ago for getting in Hitler's way," he said. Sunday's bombing, which killed at least eight bus passengers and was the 110th Palestinian suicide bombing in three and a half years of violence, only underscores the world's hypocrisy, Nadler said. "Israel is being put in the dock for taking mild defensive measures against terrorism," he said. "Arguments are being made that the fence inconveniences Palestinians — and I'm sure it does — but they ought to blame their own leaders." "As long as this wave of terror continues, Palestinians do not have any standing about where the fence goes," he said.

Glowgrlnyc, how were the other girl dancers. Were they as good as you?

THE FATAH-AL AQSA BRIGADE This morning (Feb.22) a suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus killed 8 Israelis ― including two teenagers on their way to school ― and injured over 60. The attack was perpetrated by a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. While it is generally accepted that this terrorist group is connected to Yassir Arafat's Fatah party, most major news agencies continued to downplay that relationship in today's reports: Associated Press: "The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militant group loosely affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack and identified the bomber as Mohammed Zool, 23, from the village of Hussan near Bethlehem." Washington Post: "Hezbollah television station Al-Manar reported that the bombing was carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the militant group that associates itself with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement..." CNN: "The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades ― the military offshoot of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement ― claimed responsibility for the blast in a statement." Agence France Presse: "The bombing, claimed by the radical Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed offshoot of Arafat's Fatah movement..." DIRECT CONNECTION The evidence, however, clearly indicates that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is not some "loose offshoot," but rather has a direct and ongoing bond to the Fatah party, which holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. The Palestinian government, therefore, bears direct responsibility for the group's heinous terrorist acts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3243071.stm In November, 2003 a BBC investigation found that up to $50,000 a month was funneled by Fatah directly to the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. When BBC reported on today's attack, their terminology was consistent with these findings ― unlike the outlets above, BBC described the relationship between Fatah and the terrorists in an entirely accurate manner: The militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, has claimed responsibility for the suicide attack. http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/pa_cd/cd.htm Documents captured by the IDF in 2002 indicated Fatah's "systematic, institutionalized and ongoing financing" of the Al Aqsa Brigades, including a special allocation to the Bethlehem branch of the organization (the very group that dispatched today's bomber). After inspecting these documents, President Bush called for Arafat's removal in June, 2002. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/142002f.asp The leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Maslama Thabet) in Tulkarm told USA Today on March 14, 2002: "The truth is, we are Fatah, but we didn't operate under the name of Fatah...We are the armed wing of the organization. We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is Yasser Arafat himself." http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_tonge_20040216.ram Last week, British MP Jenny Tonge went to visit Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades' Bethlehem branch. BBC's Radio 4 carried a report in which the terrorists themselves admit they are "part of Fatah...the militant part." (Click here to hear the report ― the statement regarding Fatah is about 2:50 in.) This is not merely a semantic matter. The close ties that bond the Fatah-led PA to terrorist groups are the fundamental problem that prevents progress toward peaceful reconciliation. The dominant political party in the PA remains a direct sponsor of ongoing terrorism ― the ruling politicians and the terrorists are one and the same.

What does Don Zimmer and Grady Little have in common? Neither could take Pedro Martinez out. :laugh:

thanks

I'm voting for Bush in the election. But Kerry is right on the money on this. John Kerry released a statement calling Coulter a “Bush campaign operative†and saying her column “achieved a level of cruelty that is not only slanderous, but offensive to the millions of men and women who have fought and bled for America.†“If the best the other side can do is to attack disabled war heroes when there are millions of veterans in America whose health care and benefits have been slashed by this administration, then they are in for a fight that they will lose,†Kerry said.

I used to be a fan of hers, but she is such a fraud. Let me explain You know the show Kudlow and Cramer. Last August they were promoting this debate between Ann and Joe Conason. Ann ofcourse was going on alot of TV shows promoting her book Treason. Joe Conason writes for the NY observer. He's left center. He's a top notch debater. He also has a book out, how the media is for the Republicans. He's the confronting type and is great with facts. Joe also wrote an article about Ann in July where he really criticized her. So its 8 pm and I'm getting ready to watch this debate. All of a sudden, Jim Cramer says we had trouble finding Ann and we had to cancel the debate. From the way he said it, I just assumed Ann was caught in traffic or maybe she got sick. But you could tell from Jim Cramer's face, that he was not happy. Then 2 days later, I see Ann debating Susan Estrich on Fox. Susan Estrich is a formal type Democrat. I'm saying to myself thats odd. Ann doesn't look sick, so I doubt that was the reason she wasn't there for the Conason debate. A day later I called Jim Cramer's radio show in NY. I said what happened with the Coulter Conason debate. He said, Ann backed out of the debate. Jim also knew about Ann debating Susan Estrich the day before. He was so upset at Ann. You know what he told Ann's publicist that day. If Ann only want to debate the Susan Estrich types and doesn't want to debate Joe Conason, Ann is not coming on my show anymore. Guess what, Ann still doesn't want to be debate Conason and hasn't been back on Kudlow and Cramer. Joe Conason wrote about what happened about Ann not debating him http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/08/21/ducks/index.html Joe Conason's Journal More notes from a media book tour: What it's like to be ducked by Ann Coulter and avoided by Fox. Aug. 21, 2003 Where's Ann? As the Daily News reports today, Ann Coulter ducked a debate with me on CNBC's "Kudlow & Cramer" last night. Disappearing at the last minute, she blew off the producers, who had been so eager to book her with me that they changed the schedule at her request. Maybe she didn't feel like talking about her idol Joe McCarthy's patriotic crusade on behalf of Nazi officers who had massacred American soldiers. Or maybe she wasn't up for discussing my book, which includes a few unflattering facts about her work. In any case, I believe we'll meet again someday -- and I won't run. 5 days after Ann backed out of the Conason debate, I hear Ann on this NY radio show. The host of the show is Sam Greenfield. He has a radio show on 1600 am from 3pm to 7pm. He's also left center. He's great with facts and is definitely the confronting type. He starts off the interview by telling Ann about a false statement she said on TV. Then Ann just hung up the phone. I couldn't believe it, she backed out of another debate. Then Sam said, Ann just did her Roberto Duran no-mas imitation. The Daily News wrote about this. Its at the bottom of this article. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/108581p-98130c.html Then there's Alex Jones. He's a libertarian. I personally dont like his views. He's anti goverment. But one thing about this guy, he will confront you wheather your a liberal or Conservative. He's also good with facts. I'm pretty sure Ann never heard of his guy. She probably thought this would be another interview she would do to promote her book treason. Ann debated him last July. This guy confronted Ann big time. Ann was probably never confronted like this in her life. Ann was losing this debate. Guess what, she hung up the phone on Alex. Another guy she hung up the phone on. Here was that interview. You can listen to it here. The interview was 37 minutes. http://www.prisonplanet.com/coulter_07_10_03.html Then there's Katrina Vanden Heuvel. When Ann came out with her book Slander. Ann was on MSNBC to debate the book with Mike Barnicle. Mike was subbing for Chris Matthews. Ann thought she was going to only debate Mike Barnicle. Then Mike Barnicle says he brought on the show Katrina Vanden Heuvel to join the debate. Ann had no idea that Katrina would join the debate. Ann got really upset. You could tell, she didn't want to debate Katrina. Check out Ann's reaction when she realized she would have to debate Katrina Vanden Heuvel. I later found out, the only reason why Mike Barnicle did this, is because Ann kept refusing to debate Katrina. Here's part of the transcript to the debate. http://theconservativeguy.com/slander.htm Thats the last time Ann debated her. Then there's Erik Alterman. He's a left wing confronting speaker. He's a commentator for MSNBC. He wanted to debate Ann when she came out with her book Slander. Guess What, Ann refused to debate him. Erik has written how Ann refuses to debate him. Then I realized something. Whenever I see Ann debate someone. Look who she debates? Susan Estrich. I must have seen her debate Susan 7 times on Hannity and Colmes just in August. She debated Ellis Hennigan, Pat Caddell and Betsy Mccall Ross and now Kiki Mcclean. All these Democrats are the formal type. There not the confronting type. She never debates the confronting type. And if she debates one of the confronting type Democrats. It will be a one time thing. Take Alex Jones You think Ann will debate him again? Heck No. When Ann backed out of that debate with Joe Conason and then 2 days later I saw her debating Susan Estrich. Thats where I lost all respect for her. Now when I see her debating one of these formal type Democrats. I just turn the channel and laugh. The other thing I dont like about Ann is how she treats guys. You know the term stuck up woman in NY. Jesus, this woman is horrible. You know she's never been married. Well I think I found out why. I was on an MSNBC site some months ago. Someone posted an article she did with the Guardian from last May. www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,957670,00.html The Guardian is a left wing paper. The interview was a cozy type interview. The interviewer was very supportive of Ann. But there was one thing that stood out in this interview. The interviewer found out, that Ann's been engaged to 4 guys in her life and she left them all. The interviewer asks Ann, are you still in contact with any of these guys you were engaged to? Ann says, not really. She then says, its like going from one boss to another. You forget about the other one. Now I got to tell you, I can see her leaving one guy she was engaged to. Possibly even 2. Maybe they weren't the right guys for her. But for her to do this to 4 guys. Comeon! You got to be cold to do something like that. I just get the feeling, she left these guys out of the blue and broke these guys hearts. Then when I see Ann joking about this in that Guardian interview. It just sounds like, she thinks its funny to get engaged to a guy and then dump him. I'm sorry, I cant root for someone like her. Whats interesting about Ann's looks. I'v seen her on TV where she looks great. These cable shows have the best makeup artists and hair stylists.. Did you ever see how Ann looks when she doesn't have one of these makeup artists and hair stylists work on her. I was on this site and someone posted pics of Ann at a speech she made in September. OMG, you got to see these pics. She looks so different then when you see her on TV. She looked horrible. Here's the link http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/7454.php

I say Mirage and Carbons

March 13, pick your choice. Sasha and Digweed, Cosmic Gate or Jonathan Peters. I'm going to Cosmic Gate. Who knows the next time they'll be back in NY.

What do you expect with Richard Grant. What nerve this guy has telling JP to go to Friday for Junior. Talk about humiliation. This is the reason JP went to Exit. He wants to stick it to Grant.

BXBomb, Boros was probably was the one who told Channel 7, Maddux was going to sign with the Yankees. It was obviously a trick to get to the Cubs to give Maddux more money. It worked.

What type of music does DJ Escape play?

:laugh:

They also look like they got breasts implants

lollie60, I think there probably stuck up.