Controlled Chaos

woohooo...I may meet Steff "The Doable One" We're gonna try to bring the bean bags...we usually park pretty close to the entrance...where the sidewalk is....

I will be there along with 19 of my good friends partaking in our yearly opening day paaaaaaarrtttayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our plan was, if it's nice out...we tailgate. Is Lot E the bullpen bar entrance one? That is usually where we tailgate....and I'm sure we'll be there by 8:00 or 9:00.... If the weather isn't so nice( see last year) we'll probably pre party at schinnnks and then make our way to the park. please give us good weather!!!!!!!

dam there was a show that just did that same thing....I don't know if it was CSI or maybe NYPD or something....but they had same scenario.

I got my friend good about 10 years ago. We were like 19 or 20...both kinda just working jobs till we figured out what the hell we were gonna do in life. Anyway my grandpa lived in Florida and he knew that. So I called my friend on April fools and told him my grandpa's golfing buddy is head of the construction union down there and he said he could get us jobs. Well I hyped it all up with s*** like we'd be starting at $25.00/hour and we'd get a place on the beach..picking up chicks left and right partyin all the time...yada yada yada....I was like the only catch is the Job starts next week...so we got to pack up and get the f*** outta here. Well at that point...he had to hang up cause a customer came in and I was never able to say April Fools. When I finally got a hold of him...He already told his parents he was moving....he told the girl he was seeing he was leaving, and he told his boss he had to quit! When I told him April Fools...he almost s*** his pants. I was like I didn't get a chance to say it...and I didn't think you were gonna go yapping to everyone without callin me back. Well his boss was cool about it...and just said that was a good one...his parents thought it was funny....he did lose the girl over it though....soemthing about him just making that decision toi leave without letting her know, even though it wasn't true. Forget her....they were only dating 3 months....and she was kinda trampy anyway....

Please respond if you have been to past camps under Manual and this one with OZ. It seems as if everyone is relaxed and having fun. I like the attitude. I'm curious to know the differences in practices. Do they physically work harder now? Do they run a lot? Do they practice drills over and over? I think the Key's this year are Garland and Konerko. They need to take charge this year. Frank should be as steady if not better than last year. I think Rowand will have a huge year. He has impressed me ever since he's been here...Hitting and Fielding. He slumped big time last year...but apparently he was still feeling the effects of the accident. I'm looking for big numbers this time around. He is the man and that's that...As much as I like the Timo pick up for Ginter I don't want it to impact A-Row!!!!!

They have already meet with her for 4 hours privately...they are not going to hear anything different now...

Happy Birthday!

Look I am far from rich person lobbying for tax cuts....but I understand that if I make 50,000 and some other guy makes 250,000 that he is paying WAY more taxes then me. I also understand that when a taxcut goes out, he will get more back cause he PAID way more. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see why you do. It is his money...why should he be punished for doing well for himself? If you are RICH and democrat and you get this tax cut and you don't want it or don't need it or don't agree with it....then donate it to a charity...You don't have to keep it, but I just dont unserstand with telling some guy that worked his whole life to make good for himself ...that hey sorry...you're doing better than most so you don't get anything back... It seems like common sense to me. Most people that are rich aren't like the Hilton sisters...they have worked hard for their money...they own small business or they invested wisely. Either way it's their money.... Sorry but I will never get the other side of this argument...it just seems so black and white to me.

Well, I'm glad we help some of the younger generation on this site see both sides.

nice version...I think most will see which one is fact and which one is twisted. Here's the big bad rich...not too many of them running out and buying their wife a car. My version is reality yours is fictitious. http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publicati...s/brf10-25.pdf..

I still want to know why, ABC, CBS, NBC or any of the papers I have seen, havent' said anything about Clarkes comments back in 2002. Am I the only one who gets a little pissed off on this?? Whether you are on the left or right don't you feel you are getting half the story most of the time?? I mean seriously, I can not BELIEVE that the only place this information is on is FOX NEWS. This is an important story....I mean here is a bitter man absolutly tearing into Bush, yet he had praised him in August of 2002 for stopping Clintons roll backs on terrrorism and increasing the pressure 5 fold. Isn't this important?? If the major networks don't even want to do a whole story at least publish the f***in transcripts!!!! I can read the Clarke ripping on bush transcripts in the Lava Hot Springs Idaho Post, but I can't find the transcripts of him PRAISING the administration on any major news network??? The news is suppose to be NEUTRAL...at least giuve us both f***in sides.

How taxes work.....Here it is boys and girls.... Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language-- a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, "but," pointing to the tenth man, "he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, ........ it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short! IMAGINE THAT !!! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Yep that's how it was for me in grammer school too. If I did something my parents were very apologetic to the teacher for my behavior and then they would give it to me when I got home...It is totally different now. My sister is a teacher and you should hear the stories she tells me about kids parents. They seriously come in and yell at her saying..."my kid told me you just don't like them and thats why they failed" They actualy LISTEN to their kids when they tell them (as I'm sure many of us have) ...Mrs. or Mr. so and so just doesn't like me.... MY parents knew I was full of s*** when I tried to pull that

I am finding it odd that I can see this guy's transcript all over, but the only place I can find the transcript of him praising the administrations efforts is on foxnews.

holy s***!! Texsox I agree with you 100% Moons must be aligned or something

Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordoñez drove in three runs apiece for the White Sox (10-11). Thomas had two RBI doubles and a solo home run in the fifth off reliever Rick Guttormson, while Ordoñez doubled home a run and launched a two-run blast off Guttormson in the sixth. I also read today that Frank offered to do this last year and Manual didn't want to do it. http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox252.html Let's keep it going in to the season.

The "Attack Bush" Hysteria By Ann Coulter FrontPageMagazine.com | March 25, 2004 Are you sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it. As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration? When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever." "Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release – many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.") But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows. In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." (If only she used botox like Sen. Kerry!) Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization. But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. Just months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida. By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even the New York Times knew about al-Qaida. Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions. All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida." Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger – but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us. Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her – not him – to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters – a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement – left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime. As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag – you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?" http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=12732

Clarke praises bush team in 2002 Timeline this discussion is referring to is the transeferrence of power in early 2001. Some excerpts: "So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda." "Over the course of the summer [2001]— last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance." "And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

I was wondering where the game thread was....I have my friend messaging me the score...and he just wrote me and said Mags went yard on a 3-2 pitch. 7-0 SOX

Well first car was a 81 Regal Limited..It was a hand hand hand hand me down...but I tell ya what that dam thing ran ok till I could afford to buy one. Here's my car now...

France...all the terrorists are pissed at you for supporting the US led war on Iraq...pull out now.... oh wait a minute...you never came to begin with...guess some terrorists hate everyone! all and all I'm glad they found it and saved lives!

An article I read pertaining to the case...All I can say is whew...Im glad I'm getting married and won't have to worry about anything like this ever happening. Kobe Linda Chavez Kobe Bryant's guilt or innocence in the alleged rape of a 19-year-old Colorado woman will now be up to a jury to decide, but the case raises important moral and social issues that extend far beyond this incident. Have laws intended to protect rape victims gone too far, making it possible for women to turn disappointing sexual encounters into rape allegations? Do women bear any responsibility if they encourage sexual attention and willingly participate in kissing, fondling or even intercourse, and then decide to put the brakes on? Does "no" always mean no -- and is it necessary for a man to get verbal permission before he makes any physical contact with a woman? To what extent have we criminalized certain behavior that would be better handled by moral opprobrium? In deciding to send the case to trial, Colorado judge Frederick Gannett took the unusual step of issuing an eight-page written order in which he raised troubling questions about the prosecution's evidence. "Almost all of the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inferences which, when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable inference, do not support a finding of probable cause," Judge Gannett wrote. Yet, Colorado law compelled the judge to send the case to trial anyway because he was required to view the evidence in the way that most supports the prosecution's interpretation, "notwithstanding inconsistencies in (the victim's) statements and the other evidence." The Bryant case is a classic "he said, she said" situation. According to testimony from the police detective who interviewed her and investigated the charges, Bryant's accuser claims that Bryant forcibly raped her in his hotel suite after she had flirted with him, escorted him to his room, and willingly kissed and hugged him for several minutes. Bryant claims that the sex was completely consensual. Although during the investigation someone leaked stories that the alleged victim had sustained significant injuries during the encounter, the evidence offered at the preliminary hearing was far from compelling. The victim's clothes weren't torn -- despite her allegation that they had been forcibly removed. Her injuries consisted of "microscopic lacerations" and a tiny bruise on her chin, which the judge noted had not been observed by the investigating officers. More importantly, the lacerations might have been the result not of rape but of the accuser's having had sex with two or three different men in as many days. Although a rape victim's sexual history is usually off limits, in this case, Bryant's lawyers were able to demonstrate that the alleged victim's underwear showed physical evidence of sexual activity with a Caucasian male within the previous 48 hours, casting doubt on whether the lacerations were even caused by Bryant. There is no question that Bryant acted badly when he had sex with the alleged victim. Not only is he married, but even if we completely accept his version of events, Bryant spent only a few minutes with the woman before he made sexual advances. He may not have been a rapist, but he acted reprehensibly. But what about the alleged victim? She admits that she stayed late on the job in order to meet Bryant and that she expected him "to put a move on her," yet she secretly snuck up to his room, flirted with him, showed him her two tattoos -- one of which was on an unspecified area of her back -- and kissed and hugged him, willingly. There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for a decent woman to go to a man's hotel room, much less make out with him within minutes of meeting him. But feminism threw those rules out the window long ago. The changes in sexual mores have made the world a more dangerous place for both women and men. Women may have more freedom to be sexually provocative -- but they can't always control the consequences. And men may find themselves behind bars if they read women's cues incorrectly. If Kobe Bryant forced his accuser to have sex against her will, he deserves to go to jail. But the evidence, so far, raises more doubt than certainty as to who is telling the truth.

"Can I be honest with you?" "to be honest with you" or "honestly?" no f***in lie to me

I wrote this last year to piss of some friends....figured it was about time to bring it out again. Twas the championship series and all through the city fans came out cheering loud and not feeling pity After winning game four they all felt the vibe players and fans thought alike, Why even play a game five? Well five came and went without a run scored let's just do it at Wrigley we can party some more. As the 8th inning ended they all started to leave thoughts of goats and black cats and the infamous Steve Maybe God is to blame for an over 50 year drought they were so dam close only needed 5 outs. Well on to game seven With Wood on the bump This is the chance to get over the hump On Sammy On Gonzo, On Alou and Ramirez On Kerry, On Prior, On Matt and Dave Veres and then it all ended with a 9-6 score Imagine the sadness Imagine the horror A measly six hits.... In this crucial game but somehow the fans find Bartman to blame The fish didn't give up The Cubs thought they'd coast through Out hit and out pitched give credit where it's due They choked in the end without much of a fight it always seems to happen it's a pretty common sight but we all heard the schrieks coming from far and near yeah maybe we lost, but just "WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR!!!!" :fthecubs :fthecubs :fthecubs

Are they looking at Adkins as long relief??