NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) Just to make a point here, a full term baby could not survive on it's own. It can in the medical sense. That is my frame of reference here.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) Yeah one group lays their necks on the line and say they support killing of babies and the other group cowards under the pro choice label. I am pro-choice, and pro-child. That is not cowardice or supporting the killing of babies. It means two things. One, I think life begins when the fetus has reached a point where it could live on its own - thus, an independent life form. The other thing it means to me is that, knowing the horrors of an abortion, I would never, ever recommend it or endorse it to anyone close to me. But ultimately, its not my choice.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) For those who are interested, Here's the first real polling I think I've seen on this issue, which pretty much is what you'd expect based on the way this issue has formed up. Some interesting things in that poll. One thing that bothers me about the poll itself: the question of whether people support the Dems or Bush - what is that about? That is a completely bogus question in the way it is structured. Loaded question. One party or the Prez?? Its kinda scary to me that 27% of the US thinks that no foreign company should ever be allowed to by US companies. That is protectionist in the extreme, and is likely rooted in bigotry. One other thing. How is it that 72% of people have been following the issue somewhat closely, but only 39% of them knew the company was already foreign-owned? Stupid people.

This VOIP 911 thing reminds me of the early 90's, when managed care got its claws into 911. Some cities and counties went over to a private ambulance service to save money. But the side effect was, there were municipalities and rural areas around the country that had to call a 1-800 control center number for a health care company to get clearance from them, to send out an ambulance, for a medical emergency. Fortunately, that ended quickly. Hopefully someone will drop the hammer on this too, and get these VOIP providers to be held to the same standard for emergency services that the land line companies have to follow.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Oh and one more thing, (I have to say this), welcome YAS to the Young Republicans club. And for the record, I'm NOT a Republican. wait wait, let me guess. Green party?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) the arguing. I thought these were suppose to be flame free threads, to take some of the stress off the rest of filibuster. The one place where politics would be discussed with like minded, or at least similiarly minded people. No debates, no arguing, just a pleasant place. I'm supporting Gov. Perry in Texas, a GOP, and I voted for a GOP for Senator. I also voted in a majority of GOP primaries when I lived in Illinois. But I know I would be far left of everyone in the GOP forum, so I don't even visit. I don't have a clue what is being discussed. But hey, of you like the arguing, go for it. Don't fret, Tex. Overall, these 3 party threads have in fact served their purpose pretty well. There may be the occasional argument, but for the most part they have indeed remained useful.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Well, here's something I didn't think I'd be saying...Thank God (Or Allah) for those Saudi Security guards. Not to be lost in this... For the checkpoint guards.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) Well, as far as I'm concerned, a long and bloody civil war is the single worst possible outcome of our invasion there. So even if we're just delaying the onset...I'd say that efforts to prevent that outcome are justified, even if they only have a 1 in 10 trillion shot of working. You can't get much worse than a partitioning of that country and a civil war between the Sunnis and Shia, which would be almost certain to draw Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria directly into the conflict. I agree. I was just reacting to the post, which I took as you saying you thought Fox was being biased in asking the question. I disagree, in this case. But regarding civil war, I whole-heartedly agree. It is possibly the worst case scenario, and there are definitely better alternatives.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I understand those arguments and think that there's a chance that given our current circumstances that's probably the best we could hope for...but on the other hand, It'd be very nice if somehow we could get to that point without a bloody full-scale civil war. I agree. There are better ways of getting there, most definitely. But if it needs to go there, and that is not being allowed... we may end up down that road.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) OH. MY. GOD. In this case, I don't think it is necessarily a bad question. I mean, my answer is 'no', but there are valid arguments for 'yes' as well. I've heard some pretty convincing reasons why it might have been better to split Iraq into 2 or even 3 countries (Kurdistan, and then splitting the mostly Shi'ite south from the Sunni central and west).

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) I don't think that's necessarily the case. Which part? Maybe those issues were discussed a lot before I started posting in here a few months ago.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:46 AM) Any abortion case where there is no incest or rape and with both mother and baby being healthy is murder PLAIN AND SIMPLE. So if the fetus is the result of rape, its not murder? I don't get that argument. If its murder, its always murder, regardless of the method of creation. Right?

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) Understandable. I take those test and always come up centrist but I lean to the right. I'm really a libertarian. If you vote for Democrats then you probably want to support your choice, where I vote for Republicans and want to support my choice. IMO if we both voted for candidates that truly reflected our ideas we would support those ideas. Which is why I have vowed to vote for third party candidates when and if they can actually do a good job. That's a noble cause. I think part of my suddenly lefty position is because many of the issues I lean right on are not discussed much here. Issues like gun control/2nd amendment, states' rights, affirmative action, federal funding and budgetary issues and crime and punishment, for example, haven't gotten much play here (except for the death penalty). If they did, I'd probably look like a true GOPerhead.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) Northside, I wanted to add ... You mentioned in the post of yours that I responded to by awnswering your questions, that you consider yourself a centrist but here in Soxtalk you seem to land on the left side of center more often than not. I agree with that statement, as you do. I'll also point out that your approach to these issues, regardless of where you land, is not based on any agenda other than what in your opinion is for the good of the nation and the world. You are willing to look at and listen to both sides of an issue without party affiliation guiding your opinions and conclusions. You, personally, have done more to pull me back to toward center than Balta, Flaxx, Sqwert and RexK have done combined. In fact, they push me away from center with their methods. I'm not stating this as a dig at any of these guys, but I'm stating it as truth. Thanks. Biggest compliment I've gotten on this site.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) You could have said exactly the same thing last year. Word for word. Very true. I'm not saying he's back - I'm saying he could go either way. Can't write him off just yet.

You know, everyone here seems to think that Frank is hurt, but honestly, I didn't get that impression from the article. I got the impression he is still in the processing healing, and PT, and getting back into the game. He may or may not be ready for opening day, but I wouldn't write him off just yet. I see nothing that leads me to believe he isn't progressing as one would expect someone to, coming back from the injury and procedures he had.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:13 AM) I was giving serious though to a run for our local school board, before one baby came along. I was really wanting to see if it led to anything further, as I have a very vested interest in reviving the town I was born, raise, educated, and still live in. Good on ya. I hope you can do it... later.

5 starters, McCarthy, Jenks, Politte, Cotts, Hermy, and mystery lefty. Add in the 9 starters, plus Ozuna, Widger and Mack, and that leaves 2 empty spots. I am starting to think, with those days off early on, that Ozzie will only carry 11 pitchers. So... So who do I think takes the 2 spots? I think it will be the best 2 of Borchard, Grieve and Gload, based on how their springs go. I would guess Borchard and Grieve right now. EDIT: If the Sox do carry a 12th pitcher, then it is just one of those three, plus the pitcher. But I honestly don't have a clue who the 12th would be. None of the pool of lefties sticks out yet - maybe as ST goes on.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) Interesting. I wonder if that law would actually stand up to constitutinal muster? I can't see any constitutional grounds or connection one way or another. I don't think it would come up.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 09:36 PM) Out of touch? Seems to me that whomever scheduled this for him and whom handles his press, needs to be fired. I can certainly see how he might not be familiar with the show, but it is his staff's job to know that for him and prepare him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) Don't be surprised anymore... http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46859 Silly me. I thought it would be in Filibuster, since it was political. Sorry.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:42 AM) YASNY, you raise some great points. But let me take it one step further. Let's go back to 1994. What was the "Contract with America?" I mean, really, what was it? It was a response to 1992 when Ross Perot scared the crap out of the 'politics as usual' crowd, and the "Contract with America" was a smoke and mirrors way to say "you don't need those third party people, WE can do it for you". That allowed for the two parties that exist today to gain a stanglehold on the system and shut out any chance for a really well planned third party candidacy. I think that has bred some 'hate' from both sides of the political spectrum because there's not as much room for 'centerism'. Each side must cater to the fringes of their party to get elected. Furthermore, when you look at our government today, it's FULL of POLITICIANS. America today needs real STATESMEN, you know, the ones that will stand up and solve problems, not politicize every issue so that they get re-elected the next term. We need true representation, not beurocracy. Our government has really turned away from this and it's become politicians looking for opportunities on both sides of the aisle. What happens if the Democrats gain control of Congress this election? The real answer? Absolutely NOTHING. It will be all the same crap. What happens if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008? Absolutely NOTHING. It will be all the same crap. The issues will be different, but at the end of it all, nothing will change. And because of the cycle we're on, and the power structure in place, 15 years from now, if people are sick today of the Republicans and sweep them out of power, the Democrats will get swept out of power the same way. It's all a bunch of whiney crap from both sides of the aisle. At the end of the day, though, it's a government of politicians, not a government for the people. That's why I'm ashamed of our American government today. The people have lost the power. Here here! Nice post. So here is my follow-up question to all the regular 'busters here on Sox Talk: are any of you considering running for office at some point? Do any of us feel we could be such a statesman/stateswoman? Note: I do realize that if you are considering it, you may well not want to reveal that fact here, for many reasons. Don't feel obligated. I'm just curious, for those who would want to answer it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:18 AM) The are quite a few on the other side that come in here and all they do is Bush bash. You can take the time to post a substantiative arguement and they'll twist it, change the subject or ignore it. In fact, the whole Democrat agenda is to Bush bash. Why is it so hard to understand that when we see that garbage, day in day out, here and in the media, that we get fed up enough to respond to it with disdain? Prime example was with the MSNBC polls posted and discussed here. I post one that shows a clear majority in favor of capital punishment and a liberal swarm dismiss it as irrelevent. The BigSquirt finds one that shows a vast majority are against this UAE deal, and all of a sudden it's revelent enough to post. Squirt's poll sat out there for hours without a hint of relevence questioning. Where were all those people that dismissed mine. Same type of poll, same source, yet no objections whatsoever until I mentioned the previous poll. That's the rules they play by. If it fits our agenda it's relevent, if not it isn't. And it happens over and over again around here. I keep saying to these people that I could swung over to their side and some issues, but not when the main agenda is to bash Bush. That's all the Democrats have done since 2000 and they still haven't a clue as to why the Repblicans control the executive and legislative branches of government and well on their way to controlling the judicial branch. The Democratic party and their catering to the extreme left have no one to blame but themselves. You asked. There's my answer. And I appreciate your answer. You make some very good points. I agreed with you on those polls. If I didn't post a reply to Sqwert about the death penalty poll, it wasn't because i agreed with it - I just didn't feel it necessary to respond. Its also true that both sides will take an argument and twist it, and manipulate it. And finally, I do think that the Dems have spent a lot of time and energy bashing Bush. And for good or for bad, contrary to what many GOP'ers here seem to think, it has worked. The polls show it. Also, I agree that the Dems seem to not understand how the GOP has gotten such strong control of the government (my answer: combination of excellent marketing and the happenstance of global events). But I disagree on two points. For one, I don't think the Dems are catering to the far left. I think the pendulum is currently well right of center in this country, and the Dems are trying to stay put. That is why it appears this way (Rex pointed this out in the Indie thread). Second, I think it is untrue to say that all the Dems on this board do is Bush bash. I really only see one or two posters who do that. I see quite a few "lefties" disagreeing with Bush, but doing it with well-supported, logical points.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) Elections are 8+ months away. Polls dont really mean a lot until the last month or so. QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) a lot can happen between now and the elections. this poll is virtually worthless. QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:30 AM) These polls are worthless by November the Gop will take control in the red states and the house, senate, gov spots will all have the same make up as now if not a bigger majority. I am looking forward to Elections becuase then it will become evident that the liberal message just doesn't work anymore I see a theme here... I agree that the polls are not exactly all-knowing, but with Congressional races, it means more now than +8-month polls would on a Prez election. Reason being, on congressional races, people vote less on the person and more on party. And opinions on party don't change as rapidly as they do on an individual candidate. So I wouldn't say they are worthless - I'd call them a leading indicator.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:52 AM) Actually, I hope the Democrats gain a majority in at least one of the houses of congress. I think that is a possibility. But I think both houses will get very, very close to even, which in itself could make things better. If there is only a 2 or 4 seat gap in either house, there are always enough swing votes to call any partisan vote into question.