cwsox

sorry to hear of the troubles- a reminder to everyone, if SoxTalk is down, go hear, FutureSox forum

evidentally some birthdays are more important than others? great job however!

Mike Sirotka is somewhere asking if the Sox knew Olivo had kidney stones before he was traded

He's a competitor. We are getting one sentence. Perhaps out of context, perhaps not.

that is very true. if we lose the next three, the suicide level will exceed 62%

You are new so I will say this kindly: trolling is not tolerated here. Not saying you have done that but that is a damn fine line you walked with that PS. Just saying this as advice. And why am I not surprised you can't spell the words "cubs"? :fthecubs

I grew up on the NW side. And the people from the NW side that I still hang with, all Sox fans. And everyone in my family on both sides for all Chicago generations: cub fans. I am the only one who got the "good baseball" gene.

thank you Jon G. I have always had faith in him and always will. And to think we got him for Matt Karchner.

Actually I think we peaked in June that year And I don't want to be reminded of the 2000 White Sox as much as I loved that team. This is a really different team. I am hoping that I am building the memories of the always to be remembered 2004 team. Off hand I think we have 7 players on the 25 player roster still that played for us in 2000: Frank, Mags, CLee, Jose, MB, PK, Jon G. Is there anyone I am missing? That is actually a high percentage of carry over for a 4 year span.

mo men tum yep, I can say it the M words are easy for me too!

why would we do the CJ thing again? He walked on us once that is enough for me

true I can't cast any stones at former Sox player Steve Stone who is a good announcer his partner is horrid

a tad harsh there - Clee is Clee

Jas, you did an excellent job of editing the thread title and my post! It makes total sense and does what we want and is brilliant! I wish I had thought of that.

As Eminem says: You don't wanna f*** with Shady cuz Shady will f***in' kill you.

in my opinion, no, for the reasons kap stated go to the chat or the futuresox forum, link supplied above

bizarre? this thread?

f*** the stats Jose is playing his best ball ever for us and the stats don't show that last Sunday his fake at 2nd on Patterson who slid into second while Timo was catching a fly and doubling out Patterson at 1st was priceless - what a fake job - Jose has been doing stuff like that all season, best he has played for us, and that smart baseball is bound to and has already had an effect Go StJosE6!

that is just plain wrong

hardly - my buddy is poking fun and I am back - its all good

Oh, what is that supposed to mean? I think all threads should start that way!

cw knows!

no game thread Thursday - MSU boy:

Official Game Thread *Edited By Jason* The site is undergoing transition and such to a new server and the responsible admins have chosen to do it when they can best do it, today. That means no game thread as that adds stress to the system as they seek to change it and could crash on the server at the worst possible time prior to the work that is being done. Yes, we miss a game thread for a game against the Twins. You'd rather miss a game thread in a game versus the Cubs? Hard choice was made and it was to get things in shape for the weekend series. No game thread Thursday. Start one and it will be deleted and you try the patience of the admins who are all testy and nasty people. Good luck to Jas and kap as they work, and work hard, on Thursday for the good of the site. Looking for some game action, go the chat or to futuresox http://www.futuresox.com/forum but: no game thread on Thursday. A small price to pay for the greater benefit of soxtalk, and for the glorious weekend and season before us. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation and we may sweep today or we may not but whichever we have taken the series and will enter Wrigley as the first place team, by 2 games or % points, but 1st place none the less.

The president does not have line item veto. In some/many states the governors do but not all. Courts often strike down portions of legislation, contracts, whatever is before it and affirm others. It happens all the time. Thus they have "line item veto" and always have. Read the court decisons of the courts of appeals and supreme courts of your state and the feds. You will find the phrase "upheld in part, overtured in part as to..." numerous times. The glory of the American system is that no matter how "popular" something may be, if it violates the constitution, when the system works, it gets tossed. If America is not America in the most difficult of circumstances, than America is nothing. America is America when it is true to its constitution regardless of public polls. The blame here is squarely on Congress and the President. The Supremes have struck down a similar law before for the same reasons and Congress and he President signing returned a virtually identical law which of course got struck down. Had the legislative and the executive branches read the prior court decisions and crafted a law that met the court's stated constitutional objections, they would have been acting responsibly. But they did not act responsibilty. To pass and sign a bill that does not meet prior court objections is a fantatsic waste of time and money but is great political grandstanding in an election year at great cost. By the same token, the USSC will strike down the so-called partial birth thing. It has been struck down repeatedly because in prior versions there was no exception for the life of the woman. So in an election season it was passed in identical form again this time with added "findings" that the life of the woman is never at risk. Oh????????? What a farce. And I am not sure what competance Congress has to made medical findings such as that. And as a matter of course federal district judges are striking this retread law with its unconstitutional findings. And the USSC will. And people will cry, why won't the court uphold this law? The proper question is, why won't the Congress and the President out forth a piece of legislation that meets constitutional muster, to wit, that includes an excetion for the life of the woman. The refusal of congress and the president to put forth such a bill, but instead, put forth something that has been struck down at least twice by prior USSC decisions, is the height of political grandstanding and shows that they really don't care about the issue or the lives of women because otherwise they would pass a ban on this medical procedure that would include an exception for the life of the woman, as the court has stated repeatedly that the constitution requires. Yet when this is struck down, people will blame the court. No, blame those who passed and signed a bill that clearly does not meet constitutional muster in its disdain for the lives of women. When the grandstanding president and congress want to really ban a medical procedure, they will include a provision for the life of the woman. Since they won't, it is a fair observation that they care far more for scoring grandstanding points in an election season than in actually passing a law that protects women's lives that would then pass constitutional muster.