Controlled Chaos

Thanks for all the rides on the way back machine...but you could have saved it and simple said I'm Wrong. I never said they take anything...I never said I took anything. I know you missed that in your whole diatribe of making your point over and over again. I simply was looking for an "I'm sorry I did put words in your mouth", but you wouldn't admit that....even when it's in black and white. I believe welfare needs to be reformed. I don't have all the answers...I definitely don't claim to have all the answers....I don't think it will be figured out on this message board either.

You are saying this post by me("You are saying that someone that goes to school,goes to work and pays taxes is the same as someone who goes on welfare and never works...just because we are both granted certain freedoms from the government.") says I am against education, food, clothing, shelter, health care? You're all twisted up

I never said they take anything? You said I said that, but I didn't...

I don't know where you are getting your information on me... I never said I was against us offering education, food, clothing, shelter, health care... Like I said you paint me with a broad brush....because I don't like you twisting my comments or my words......you equate me with someone that would beat up a homeless person or kick a puppy dog. It's sad....Because of some of my views you have all my postions figured out....even to the point where I'm beating up homeless people. Big Bad Me....You don't have a clue....

Oh and I was gonna have you over for dinner....

You paint me with a pretty broad brush. As if you know me so well and have me all figured out. Skirt and pom poms is not a homosexual reference...it is a cheerleader reference?? Perhaps you need to question yourself as to why homosexual came in to the conversation. That's a nice point and all...and yes I chose to ignore it because nowhere did I state that I was against any of it. You just felt like blabbing I guess.

Aren't you forgetting your skirt and pom poms???

That was NOT my point. I didn't take anything...stop putting words in my mouth. I was given freedom and rights just like every other American. You are saying am I am TAKING something from the government. I am not taking anything. I am awarded the same god given rights that all of us americans are awarded. I can read your comments and realize it is useless arguing with you... You are saying that someone that goes to school,goes to work and pays taxes is the same as someone who goes on welfare and never works...just because we are both granted certain freedoms from the government. Nice argument...like I said you took my whole original point out of context to fit your own dilusional retort. What makes you so certain?? You write as if you know me?? You know s*** about me? My Portfolio?? I don't even have a f***in portfolio?? What the f***?? The only thing you can be sure of is I am in Chicago and you are in Texas...lucky for you....cause putting words in my mouth, twisting my words, and assuming my positions isn't something I take too kindly too. Have a nice day

Typical democrat...taking my argument of hand outs to people that don't want to work for themselves...and turning it into my freedoms. Don't bother telling me of my f***in freedoms..I'm quite aware of what my grandfather died for and his brother died for. I'm aware of my Uncle who was a fighter pilot and my cousin who is in Iraq now. I'm quite aware of my freedoms the fire and police provide as my dad was both. I'm aware of the opportunities awraded to me and took full advantage of them instead of asking for more!! You take an argument discussing poor and middle class and turn it into a lecture to me about what this country has provided to me....You want to bash me to prove a lame ass point that wasn't even part of my discussion well :fyou Take that f***in argument to the liberals that complain about this country and our government and go on and on about how terrible we are. Don't bring that s*** to me when I was discussing middle and lower class....That was a total dick head move

OK here's your education.... I am a "common man." I am not wealthy, I am not former military and I am a republican. My point was, how can someone educated make such a vast generalization. As far as what government party has helped me as a "common man"??? I guess I never really looked to the governement for help. I worked hard and kept my sights on my goals and accomplished them without anybody GIVING me anything. What a novel idea!!!!...Not that I would have gotten any help anyway...ya see my dad was a fireman...(WE WERE LOADED) so we weren't able to get any financial assitance. My dad was a democrat when he was a cop and then a fireman...then he realized that the democrats didn't help people like him...They didn't help the people that busted their ass every day and risked their life for cheap pay. They only helped the people that were lazy and didn't want to do anything. My dad helped himself. I am helping myself. More people should figure it out. Here's a great article on "working poor" The 'working poor' scam Thomas Sowell June 1, 2004 | BusinessWeek magazine has joined the chorus of misleading rhetoric about "the working poor." Why is this misleading? Let me count the ways. First of all, Census data show that most people who are working are not poor and most people who are poor are not working. The front-page headline on the May 31st issue of BusinessWeek says: "One in four workers earns $18,800 a year or less, with few if any benefits. What can be done?" Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth -- or fewer than 10 percent of the workers -- who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense. Nevertheless, the personal human interest stories and the photographs in the article are about people in this one-twelfth, even though the statistics are about the one-fourth. As for "What can be done?" that is a misleading question because the article is about what other people can do for the "working poor," not what they can do for themselves, much less what they did in the past -- or failed to do -- that led to their having such low earning capacity. The theme is that these are people trapped by external circumstances, and words like "moxie" and "gumption" are mentioned only sarcastically to be dismissed, along with "Horatio Alger." But the cold fact is that what the intelligentsia call the American Dream is no dream. An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 have since then also been in the top 20 percent. This inconvenient fact has been out there for years -- and has been ignored for years by those who want more government programs to relieve individuals from responsibility for making themselves more productive and therefore higher income earners. While the economy is "rewarding the growing ranks of educated knowledge workers," BusinessWeek says, this is not so for "workers who lack skills and training." In a country with free education available through high school and heavily subsidized state colleges and universities, why do some people lack skills and training? More important, what is likely to cause them to get skills and training -- pay differentials or largess in money or in kind from the taxpayers as "entitlements"? This is an agenda article and facts that get in the way of the welfare state agenda get little attention, if any. Meanwhile, notions that have no factual basis are asserted boldly. For example: "Working one's way up the ladder is becoming harder, not easier." Evidence? Wage rates for people in the bottom 20 percent have not risen much over the past 30 years. The fallacy here is that it is not the same people in the bottom 20 percent over the past 30 years. Most people in the bottom 20 percent do not stay there even one decade, much less three. Young, inexperienced beginners do not remain young or inexperienced or beginners their whole lives. Some people, of course, never learn -- and never rise. Creating entitlements for them reduces any need to learn. But that is the way BusinessWeek urges us to go. They want higher minimum wages imposed, despite evidence that minimum wage laws reduce employment. Why would anyone think that making labor more costly would not affect employment, when higher prices reduce the amount of anything else that is bought? BusinessWeek wants "better day-care options" -- "especially for single moms." In other words, unmarried girls should have babies and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for taking care of them. And if we subsidize such irresponsible decisions, will that not have the same effects as subsidizing other things? Another liberal notion promoted by BusinessWeek is making it "easier to form unions." Workers can get unionized right now just by voting for a union in a government-supervised election. How much easier should it be? The problem is not a difficulty in forming unions. What has happened is that workers themselves increasingly vote against unions because they have learned the hard way that unions cost jobs, even if BusinessWeek is unwilling to learn that lesson. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20040601.shtml

Do you live in a bubble?? How can an educated person make that statement??

Yeah I agree with Krush. I don't think it was a rookie mistake as much as it was just a mistake. There is no way Konerko should be standing on 1st in the top of the 9th with no outs. If Ozzie didn't think of it....then where was Baines???

First let me say that I like Ozzie. I love the atmosphere and the way the guys are playing. However, since this thread is here, I figured I'd stick my two cents in. Now this mistake didn't turn out so bad because we won the game, but it doesn't mean it wasn't made. We needed an insurance run here and a pinch runner would have gotten it. If you are up 4-2 and Konerko leads off with a single it seems like common sense to me to get a pinch runner. Anyone would have been safe at second on Perez's FC which would have been a hit, then they would have easily tagged on Crede's deep fly and then scored on Olivo's double. I just don't get the logic on leaving Konerko in to run. Anyway that was one flaw I noticed. It wasn't magnified cause they won, but when Konerko got that hit I was wondering who was coming in to pinch run and nobody did. CHICAGO SOX 9TH -S Hasegawa relieved M Myers. -Top of the 9th inning -P Konerko singled to left. -T Perez grounded into fielder's choice to shortstop, P Konerko out at second. -J Crede flied out to center. -M Olivo hit a ground rule double to deep center, T Perez to third. -W Harris walked. -J Uribe flied out to right. 0 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors Chicago Sox 4, Seattle 2

Does anyoen know if KW is in Seattle??

Alias.."The Bad One" haha he must have been a puddle

No, but even if it was I don't think I'd particularly word it that way. Actually for me to think that gays are in relationships isn't homophobic at all. I'm assuming they are just like straight people. Most adults are in relationships or looking for relationships at least on and off anyway. To amass the kind of numbers they have....then I assume they are either cheating when they are in a realtionship OR they were all single and had ONE hell of a summer!! First off....would they really tell you if they did even if they were close friends?? Second....You can get an STD with a condom...and discretion doesn't really mean anything. There are some drop dead gorgeous girls that are total skanks and there are Homer-Simpson's-Las Vegas-Wife-types that have never been touched and clean as a whistle....and vice-versa. So there really isn't discretion... We are going to agree to disagree here...I give men..well some men.. a little more credit then that. I don't think there are too many single guys here that if offered to sleep with 10 beautiful women, would say no due to socital implications. Society doesn't deem s***...and if it does...we as men, can careless. I'm 30. I been with my fiancee for 1 year and 3 months and we're gettin married in September. The thing is I know what's out there...and I don't want anyone else. You can put salma hayek next to me, and I'll think she is hot, but I won't want to sleep with her..cause 1) she ain't gonna teach me anything new...2) she could be a dead stick and 3) I'm not in love with her so the most I can get out of it is some good sex...and if you're in love you're already having great sex...so why cheat. Look, without giving a number that would make Steff say gross or call me a pig , I have had my share of let's say...encounters. I have no trouble seperating emotion from the act.... That is my whole point. There is a BIG difference between sleeping with someone you love and getting laid just to get laid. Yes good sex is good sex, and you can get laid and not think anything of it, but good sex when you're in love turns into GREAT sex and the reason is because you CAN'T control that emotion. It embodies you. It's sad having sex with someone you can care less about and it gets old real fast....I mean I remember saying to my friends back when I was single...I'm sick of not giving a s*** about the girl I'm with. I mean I forgot what it was like to care about the person I was sleeping with. She can do backflips in bed...it still get's lame when ya don't care. Not sure how this became a sex discussion...but whatever.... sex happens!

Moronotti is an ass. Oh he had to drive to the middle of nowhere. I'm pretty sure the Cubs have quite a few fans out there in the middle of nowhere...maybe they shouldn't go to the park cause it's too far. It was a punk move and Moronotti is a punk for not callin him on it.

Of course Marriotti doesn't really stick it to him. Can you imagine if Frank did the same thing?? I'm sure Prior was paid pretty well to make this appearance. It's one thing if ya don't sign before the game...but to agree to go to an autograph session and then bolt is kinda messed up. It doesn't take a genius to know what that place was gonna be like. I don't care if his start was today. It would have been the same if he wasn't starting today. I'm sure that place was just insane after he left.... http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay04.html Prior commitment just not very ducky June 4, 2004 BY JAY MARIOTTI SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement We've seen some weird, bizarre stories in Cubdom, but what happened Thursday evening in a Naperville strip mall is the stuff of Bartman. An event advertised as a meet-and-greet night with Mark Prior, full of fun and autographs, deteriorated into a farce in which an angry Prior fled the session an hour early, prompting the owner of the store to threaten legal action against the pitching phenom as he issued thousands of dollars in refunds to disappointed customers. Meanwhile, kids were seen crying as they were turned away into the parking lot, where TV crews and newspaper reporters had been banished when Prior refused to do interviews. There are worse things in the world, sure, than an athlete bolting an autograph session early and not talking to the media. And you've got to chuckle a little at the name of the store: Just Ducky Too, an arts-and-crafts shop off Route 59, out there by the cornfields of far western suburbia. But all in all, this was an ill-advised way for Prior to spend the eve of an important afternoon in his young career -- his comeback from a sore right elbow and Achilles tendinitis after spending two months on the disabled list. Just what was he doing there, anyway, using the most delicate arm in Chicago to sign dozens of autographs? Yes, he agreed to do the session back in early March, when one of his agents met artist William Lopa Jr. at a New York art fair and arranged for Prior to appear at Just Ducky Too. But given the significance of his start today at Wrigley Field -- along with Prior's well-known wish to be left alone the day before any start -- he really should have stayed home in Lincoln Park and vegged all night. Being an honorable young man, Prior decided to keep his word and take a 45-mile limousine ride through rush-hour traffic to the store. But when he arrived, he saw the assembled media and shooed us away like flies. And when he sat down at a table to sign porcelain replicas of Wrigley, which cost $299 with the promise of his signature, he saw hundreds waiting in line and eventually decided he wanted no part of the three-hour party. So he left around 8 p.m., with his wife and agent in tow, despite being paid a large sum by the Just Ducky people. Sounds like a case for Judge Judy. ''We're at the point where we'll probably have to take legal action,'' said Brandon Donofrio, part-owner of the store. ''He kicked all the press out, then he stopped doing the signing. He said there were too many people. This is a nightmare. All my customers are mad at me because he wouldn't sign something. Even when people were walking up to him, he was not making any eye contact with them and he was looking the other way. It was absolutely absurd, especially with all the fans there.'' Consider it a lesson learned: Prior always should prioritize pitching over off-field matters, which shouldn't take too long to sink in, given his phobia about media and attention. The timing couldn't have been more ridiculous. Certainly, he and the Cubs don't need these distractions as they try to use his presence to remain in the race in the National League Central. What Prior should have done was reschedule the autograph session. Donofrio said he would have been open to another date, but he added, ''The advertising was already done, and he was already under contract.'' It isn't like Prior to let an agent tell him to do an autograph session. The kid already has millions deposited in the bank and, on top of it, impressed the sports world last winter by returning to USC and earning his bachelor's degree in business. Just Ducky Too Gate goes against the grain of everything Prior is about. As he was saying the other day, he has enough trouble understanding why Cubdom is hysterical about his return to the rotation. ''I'm not here to do anything special. I'm here to do what I have to do,'' he said. ''And that's pitch innings and pitch ballgames. Just worry about what's going on in front of me.'' If Prior has a choice, he'd pitch in obscurity, in front of no fans or TV cameras. Sorry to disappoint Cubdom, but he hasn't missed the Wrigleyville hubbub. ''I am who I am. I do what I do because I love to play baseball,'' he said. ''I love playing with the guys on this team. It hurt me more than anything to miss two months because you feel like you let your teammates down and let your friends down.'' He is affable and down-to-earth, one of the most well-adjusted young athletes you'll ever meet. Yet Prior clearly is uncomfortable about his growing fame. At 23, he should be given room to grow as a celebrity, but if he's going to maximize his Hall of Fame potential, he'll have to adjust to life under the hot lights. That's no knock on Chicago, a city he loves. ''It's tough in this day and age to say you're going to stay with the same team your whole career. But you know, I hope and pray that I stay in the city of Chicago and that I'm a Cub for as long as the organization keeps putting a good step forward and doing the right thing to put a winning product on the field,'' he told me in a recent chat. ''I've said from Day One I'm happy to be with Chicago, knowing the history of the team and how bad they've done in previous years. I feel it's one of the best cities. Besides growing up in San Diego, where it's 70 degrees year-round, the city of Chicago is the second-best place I've ever been. It's the best sports town in the country, and personally, my expectations are probably more than those of other people. I want to win a few championships.'' But with life in an impassioned sports town comes an intense microscope. That part, Prior doesn't like. He was bothered by reckless speculation during his injury rehab process, with some media suggesting he would miss the entire season. ''The scrutiny, the attention, the false reports from people all around the country -- that has been frustrating for me,'' he said. So why, less than 24 hours before the first day of the rest of his pitching life, would a smart, worldly guy take a ride into the middle of nowhere to sign autographs with an arm that only recently stopped hurting? The answer: Prior made a youthful mistake, as he occasionally does in games. I'm just wondering what's going to happen when he pitches in enemy ballparks and rubber duckies are waved at him. Quack, quack.

WOW wong...that's a lot to respond to. I can do most with this simple thought. Most of my statements were based on gays being in relationships and cheating. I have no stats to back it up. It is just my opinion that most of the high numbers of partners are not the result of the gay community all being single gay guys, but more so the result of them cheating on each other regularly. There are some other things I disagree with, but I can't get into too many as it's almost quitting time for me. You've said take the STD's out of the eqaution, but how could you..that is a big part of sleeping around. The other part is love. Caring about the person you're with and not wanting to be with someone else. You seem to think if there wasn't disease or a risk of getting someone pregnant that everyone would be screwing everyone all the time. I don't agree. I'm in love and I don't want to sleep with anyone else. I think some would yes...but I think most of us get to the point where you realize casual sex is ok, but its nothing compared to sex when you're in love with someone and that's what we strive for. Anyway nice chatting...be back tomorrow

Oops my bad. I thought you were nitpicking on the stats I posted, but you were actually pointing out that by wording it like I did, I included females. My mistake. I did not mean to include them in that 60% and I wrote incorrectly. I knew I didn't manipulate anything so when I read your post I kinda jumped the gun. Thanks for pointing out my error.

try reading the entire thread of you are going to throw out accusations...I am not manipulating anything...MEN had already been stipulated and I don't feel the need to repeat it over and over. If you wish to chime in perhaps you should at least read the whole thread.

So the reason more than 60% of homosexuals have had 30 partners or more is because it is illegal for them to get married?? I don't think so... You dont have to be taught to fall in love and I'm guessing gays fall in love just like straight people do. You said "As for promiscuity, that doesn't concern me at all. There's no chance of making an unwanted child(if you're in a gay relationship that is), so if you're practicing safe sex, why not f*** anything you could?" I say because if you are in love with someone you don't. If you are in a commited relationship....you don't. I don't think there are "straight relationship rules" and "gay relationship rules." I also don't think they cheat on each other and sleep around because they can't get married. I don't know their reason. I know what's right from wrong why don't they? You blame illegal marriage...I blame THEM. They make their own values. I don't think I was conditioned to do anything. I knew I could get married, but nobody molded me or expected me to. You are totally taking out the emotional side of a relationship and only focusing on the physical side. There's emotions that keep straight guys from screwin everything with a pulse. It isn't cause of baby ramifications and I don't know where you got that it is deemed "incorrect" behavior for a guy to get laid. That is the furthest thing it is deemed. If anything it is glorified. Now if you are in a committed relationship and you cheat...THEN...it is deemed incorrect behavior as it should be.

My heart rate is fine...Just seemed like an interesting topic to debate and I remember reading those stats a couple months back. I'm not sure I understand your post or the reasoning for it. Go back to bashing Koch.

Who determines their culture?? It isn't me. It isn't society. It is THEM. It sounds like you're trying to lay blame on something else for the way many of them act, but the only people to blame are the gays themselves. It's like you are saying..."oh the poor gays...they don't know any better..that's just how they were brought up, that's their culture" Well I say bulls***... they do know better. They have known for years. It ain't rocket science, we were all taught the same things. Maybe they are gay now and I am straight, but we were all taught the same values as kids and sleeping around wasn't one of them. Anyway, I am not saying all gays are like this. Hell, I have someone about 15 ft from me right now that has been with the same guy for like 10 years. I have no idea about how he was in the past, but he is settled down now. He's also 50 years old....but either way...he is part of the culture and he is in a long term relationship

Not sure where they got their stats from, but based on these I'd say 200% is about accurate...