Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 28, 2007 -> 10:06 PM) And I've seen the replay 4 times and still don't know what A.J. did. Me either...and wouldn't it be stupid as a runner to try and step on the first baseman's heel. I would think you would be the one at risk for injury. You would definitely be the one to fall down and wipe out.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 26, 2007 -> 12:35 AM) Good to see Ozzie hasn't changed. We played our cute little macho game tonight and it nearly cost us a win, and it DID cost Buehrle win #100 of his career. However other than that blaring bit of ignorance, nice win tonight. Let's get a series win tomorrow and hope we can finally finish off a sweep. I heard them say that on the radio this morning as well, but when watching it I just thought Mark was laboring a bit. Since when can't Mark drill a guy when he wants. He was inside on the bunt by Navarro and then was inside on his first two pitches to Harris and then inside again and drilled him. Then he was inside on his first pitch to Dukes. It seemed he was trying to be too perfect on the corner. Then when he couldn't hit it...he through a cookie right down the middle of the plate. It could have been an intentional drill, but as I was watching the game I didn't get that feeling there.

QUOTE(Brian @ May 25, 2007 -> 08:30 PM) Inexcusable. I know Young has a good arm but he didn't even catch that ball in good position. He caught it in great position, but a decent slide would have helped.

BOMB!!!!!

Ripping the lid off a secret immigration deal By Rebecca Hagelin Friday, May 25, 2007 I've never been more proud to work at The Heritage Foundation than I was this past Monday. I was seated at a conference table with 31 of the brightest, most analytical and highly principled people I've ever known as we dissected and analyzed various ripple effects of the Senate’s devastating immigration-reform proposal. After spending an entire weekend digging through a document that had remained secret for so long, Heritage was further scrutinizing it -- and doing what many in the U.S. Senate refused to do: Reveal the truth. Heritage received the “secret” text -- one that would fundamentally change the American landscape -- around two o’clock in the morning on Saturday. Within hours it was posted online at heritage.org for all to read. The next day, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., mentioned this on the Senate floor: “For the sake of open deliberation and public education, The Heritage Foundation, which got a copy of the bill somehow, is making this legislation, in draft form, publicly available to encourage widespread debate and discussion. Thank goodness they did make it public … It’s an opportunity, really, for the American people to know what's involved.” The document had been developed behind closed doors -- away from public scrutiny. It was crafted far from the eyes of ordinary Americans. Once Heritage experts read the drafts, it became painfully clear that our government is considering a measure that would provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and create multiple problems for how we deal with those pouring over the border in the future. Heritage experts crunched numbers throughout the weekend, weighing the cost both in dollars and in what it would mean to sacrifice the rule of law. We provided analysis through blogging on heritage.org and through columns to sites such as National Review Online, where Heritage constitutional scholar Matthew Spalding built a devastating case for why the measure amounted to amnesty. Again, Heritage did what the Senate failed to do: Inform the public. But Heritage didn’t stop there. My colleagues continued to scrutinize every line of the bill, researched past proposals, discussed alternative measures, churned out documents on the many problems of the legislation and how to solve them. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will eventually make them eligible for welfare, Social Security, Medicare and other government benefits. Senior research fellow Robert Rector gave a preliminary estimate of the cost of amnesty to the taxpayer -- a whopping $400,000 per person over the average lifespan and age of entry for the illegal immigrant. Rector called the bill “a blank check to illegal immigrants written at taxpayer expense.” Again, Heritage did something the Senate refused to do: Think critically. One of the many tragic results of this bill is that people will begin to flood over the border in numbers yet unseen in this country to register for the probationary period. An illegal immigrant needs only two affidavits (one of which can be from a family member) stating that he or she has been here and illegally working before January of this year. Any alien now in custody for entering the country illegally, or anyone caught crossing the border, will actually be offered the opportunity to fill out the paperwork to be put on the road to the entire package of U.S. benefits. Some 12 million people are estimated to take this first step to becoming a protected member of the United States on some level. They will immediately be able to enjoy free emergency health care, free public education and free welfare programs for children. Another tragedy is the bogus background check. The federal government has only 24 hours to produce criminal records for probationary applicants before the protection status is granted. Just 24 hours! In many cases, it takes longer than that for a background check when a U.S. citizen is arrested. Suppose three or five or 10 days later, a prior conviction is discovered? Too bad. That person is long gone, with a protection card in hand. Perhaps this helps explain the secrecy that surrounded this bill -- at least, until Heritage got a hold of it. According to Rector, “Any illegal immigrant during the next two years who enters the country and claims amnesty cannot be arrested, detained or deported. It’s essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for future illegal immigrants.” Our discussion around the table kept referring back to a previously written Heritage paper on principles of immigration reform. Government must be founded on core principles. When it isn’t, matters can spiral out of control easily. In demanding that the Senate act on core principles, Heritage did what the Senate has neglected to do in writing the immigration bill: Use principles as a foundation for policy. “First Principles” is a rally cry often heard at Heritage’s headquarters. We’ll continue insisting on them -- and you can rest assured that we’ll keep you apprised of the latest developments in the immigration debate. Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation and author of Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture that's Gone Stark Raving Mad .

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 25, 2007 -> 12:19 PM) I dont think its selfish, I plan on hving something tiny at a destination somewhere. I personally think Huge weddings are a bit selfish as some people want more gifts and some people just love being the center of attention for a day. I'd say large families are behind most big weddings and rarely do you ever get back what you put in so more people isn't about more gifts per se. I would say the only selfish thing would be is if you had a destination wedding and then expected everyone to shell out the money to come.

Happy Birthday Soxy!!!!!

QUOTE(striker62704 @ May 25, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) It seems like all but like 6 teams in baseball is under .500. 5 in the AL are over .500 and 7 in the NL.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 25, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) Im sure she has done some messed up s*** to him as well. If there is this situation, and she has just now come forward, and she has also been arrested for violence, usually there are two sides. It looks to me like he has a pretty steady pattern of repeated violence. And she has been coming forward since 2003. Of course, like most domestic violence situations...she stayed in the relationship. I'm sure she isn't a saint...but this guy is a POS and if he doesn't get rehabilitated someone will wind up dead.

Wow..this dude is a real benefit to society. Check out full article. Ballplayer's wife: He threatened me, kids Rays' Elijah Dukes is under a restraining order - again. By EDUARDO ENCINA and ABBIE VANSICKLE Published May 23, 2007 Elijah Dukes looks on from the Rays' dugout. He has a history of domestic disputes with his wife, a middle school teacher in Ruskin. NiShea Gilbert, the ex-wife of Elijah Dukes, has a message saved on her cell phone she says Dukes sent her with a photo of a handgun. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAMPA - In late April, Tampa Bay Devil Rays outfielder Elijah Dukes barged into his wife's middle school classroom at lunchtime. He was so irate that she ran to get the principal and a deputy, who banned Dukes from the property, records show. His wife, who said she fears for her life, sought a restraining order and told the court it was the latest in a string of outbursts by the 22-year-old rookie player. Dukes' wife, NiShea Gilbert, 26, a teacher at Beth Shields Middle School in Ruskin, told the court in another filing Thursday that her husband threatened to kill her and sent a photo of a handgun to her cell phone. She played the St. Petersburg Times a voice mail message she said was from Dukes: "You dead, dawg," says an angry voice. "I ain't even bulls-------. Your kids, too." Dukes is in his first season with the Devil Rays, and his eight home runs - the most by any American League rookie - speak to his professional promise. But Dukes' personal life is a mess. Twice in the last month, the wife of the Tampa native and former Hillsborough High standout has filed requests for protection against him. A court hearing on her latest request is May 30. "I just don't think I should live in fear," said Gilbert. "When (the Rays) go out of town, I come home. When they're at home, I go stay with my mother. I shouldn't have to live like that because he's a baseball player." Dukes, when approached after batting practice Tuesday evening, declined to discuss the allegations. "I'm just going to play ball, that's it," he said. "I've got to go. I've got a video game to finish." He referred to a statement provided by Rick Vaughn, team vice president. "The end of our marriage is a personal matter for my wife and me," the statement reads. "Out of respect for my family, especially my children, I wish to keep our proceedings private." Andrew Friedman, the team's executive vice president of baseball operations, said he was aware of the marital strife, but he knew nothing about allegations of threats. "I think it's premature to comment on it," he said. "This is the first that we've heard of it. ... The only knowledge we had was that this was a messy divorce. But obviously not the extent that she's stating." After the school incident, Gilbert filed a request for a restraining order. It was dropped when she missed a court hearing. She filed a second request Thursday. In it, she said she missed the hearing because one of her children was in the hospital. She said she has received other death threats in recent weeks, including the message she says Dukes left May 2 on her phone. Here's what the voice on the machine says: "Hey, dawg. It's on, dawg. You dead, dawg. I ain't even bulls-------. Your kids too, dawg. It don't even matter to me who is in the car with you. N-----, all I know is, n-----, when I see your m-----f------- a-- riding, dawg, it's on. As a matter of fact, I'm coming to your m-----f------ house." She also says Dukes called her and told her to check her cell phone. He sent a text message with a photo of a handgun, she said. "Elijah continues to call me telling me he is going to kill me and texting me pictures of a gun," she wrote in her request to the court. "I am scared for my life and my kids' life." However, Gilbert did not call police about those threats, saying she saw the restraining order as an "alternative" way of protecting herself. "People kept telling me it would mess up his career," said Gilbert, who said both family and friends told her not to press charges against Dukes. But deputies have been called four times to deal with the couple's domestic issues, said Hillsborough sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter. In 2003, Gilbert accused Dukes of throwing a remote control at her. In April 2004, she accused him of harassing phone calls. Later that year, she said he hit her with a soda can, threw a glass candy bowl and ripped a phone cord out of the wall when she tried to call 911. In August 2006, deputies arrested Gilbert, accusing her of scratching her husband's back during an argument. The charge was dropped in September. Court records show that Dukes was sentenced to probation in February 2005 for a charge of domestic battery. They also show that Gilbert received a yearlong restraining order against Dukes in October 2004. But the incident involved in those cases was unclear Tuesday. In October 2005, another Tampa woman, Carla Bryant, the mother of Dukes' oldest child, filed for a domestic violence restraining order against Dukes. A judge ordered that he stay away from her for a year. Bryant claimed Dukes threatened her over the phone. Dukes was ordered to attend an anger management course. Reached Tuesday, Bryant declined to say why she filed for protection. She said she was "going through complicated issues" at the time. Her grandfather was ailing. Dukes was trying to be more involved in their daughter's life. "We've resolved an issue that we probably could have dealt with ourselves," Bryant said. "As far as anything domestic, I haven't had any altercations with him recently, and anything in the past, I'd like to leave it there." The pair have a daughter. Bryant had no complaints about Dukes' treatment of the child. Four women have gone to court seeking child support from Dukes. In all four cases, the court found Dukes was the father, meaning he has at least five children by four women. Two of those women were pregnant at the same time, giving birth in 2003 within eight days of each other. Gilbert met Dukes when she was a student in 2003 at the University of South Florida. She filed for child support in March 2004 after the couple's first child was born. He was ordered to pay $222.26 a month. During her second pregnancy, she sought and won a yearlong restraining order against him. A judge ordered him to attend a certified batterers' intervention program and substance abuse evaluation. She noticed little improvement in his behavior, she said. After the child was born, Dukes proposed. The couple married Feb. 27, 2006. They have a 3-year-old son and a daughter nearly 2. Life only got more frustrating after the marriage, she said. "We went to the courthouse in Brandon and got married and things have gone downhill ever since," she said. "My life has been turned upside down since I've been dealing with him." Gilbert once filed for divorce but changed her mind. Now, she says she plans to file for divorce again. On April 30, Gilbert was in her classroom at Shields Middle School when she heard a banging on the door. Her students were at lunch. Another teacher answered the door. "It was Elijah (my husband) coming toward me at my desk stating he was going to beat my a-- and kill me," Gilbert wrote in her request for a restraining order. Dukes later left the room and walked through the school's halls, she wrote. Gilbert and her co-worker ran to the school's front office. "I told them to get the deputy because he was acting out of his mind," she said in an interview. "I told them, 'Just have him escorted off. I don't want him to go to jail. Just make him leave.'" Deputy Theresa Montaldo tried to calm him down. When principal Tom Scott arrived, he admonished Dukes, Gilbert said. Dukes was ordered to leave campus. "Estranged wife is employee," the trespass warning reads. "He came to see her - very irate." Dukes, who grew up in Sulphur Springs, saw his father convicted of second-degree murder when he was 11. Elijah Dukes Sr. received a 20-year prison sentence for shooting a man who sold his wife $100 worth of fake crack cocaine. Dukes, who makes the major-league minimum $380,000, is considered one of the best all-around athletes on the Rays, with a mix of speed and power that some scouts predict could make him one of the game's top players. He made the jump to the majors this season and earned some playing time, then took over as the starting centerfielder when Rocco Baldelli was injured last week. Before he moved up to the major leagues, Dukes had on-field confrontations last season with a coach and a teammate while with Devil Rays' Triple-A affiliate Durham. He was suspended for 30 games. Dukes was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession during a traffic stop on Jan. 15. A hearing is scheduled for June 4. "He's trying to act like he's made a change," Gilbert said. "He's made no changes. He's gotten worse. He says that since he plays baseball, 'No one can f--- with me.'" Dukes' agent, Scott Pucino, questioned Gilbert's motives in making allegations against the athlete. "I don't know those to be true," Pucino said. "I do know I think she is clearly using the media to leverage this divorce proceeding. There's money involved, and unfortunately she's going to the media." But Pucino and the Devil Rays both says Dukes' behavior has improved. "He has made a lot of strides, but obviously this is something that certainly requires our attention," Friedman, of the Rays, said. Times researchers Cathy Wos and John Martin and staff writers Marc Topkin and Kevin Graham contributed to this report. Fast Facts: Elijah Dukes' children Date of birth Mother Gender Nov. 25, 2003 NiShea Gilbert boy Dec. 3, 2003 Carla Bryant girl June 7, 2004 Shantell Mitchell boy June 16, 2005 NiShea Gilbert girl July 19, 2006 Porcia Daniels girl

The Amnesty Fraud By Thomas Sowell Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example. The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people. Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants. As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future? If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed? We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it? Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill. Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen. The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally. Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue. For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice. But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status? Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society? Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens. All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government. Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally. Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits. Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill. The Amnesty Fraud: Part II By Thomas Sowell Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it. The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs. Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do? The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading. For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices. If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money. What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job. But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime. Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today. People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate. Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English. As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born. These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics. The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did. Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced. What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian? Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do? Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow. "What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty. The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here? The Amnesty Fraud: Part III By Thomas Sowell Thursday, May 24, 2007 Whose problem is the immigration bill in Congress supposed to solve? The country's problem with dangerously porous borders? The illegal immigrants' problem? Or politicians' problems? It has been painfully clear for years that the country's problem with insecure borders and floods of foreigners who remain a foreign -- and growing -- part of the American population has the lowest priority of the three. Virtually every step -- even token steps -- that Congress and the administration have taken toward securing the border has been backed into under pressure from the voters. The National Guardsmen who were sent to the border but not assigned to guard the border, the 700-mile fence on paper that has become the two-mile fence in practice, and the existing "tough" penalties for the crime of crossing the border illegally that in practice mean turning the illegal border crossers loose so that they can try, try again -- such actions speak louder than words. The new immigration bill that supposedly secures the borders first, before starting the process of legalizing the illegal immigrants, in fact does nothing of the sort. It sets up various programs and procedures -- but does not wait to see if they in fact reduce the flow of illegal immigrants before taking the irrevocable step of making American citizenship available to 12 million people who came here illegally. This solves the problem of those illegal immigrants who want to get citizenship. The steps that they have to go through allow politicians to say that this is not amnesty because these are "tough" requirements. But, whether these requirements are "tough" or not, and regardless of how they are enforced or not, there is nothing to say that the 12 million people here illegally have to start the process of becoming citizens. Those who do not choose to become citizens -- which may well be the majority of illegal immigrants -- face no more prospect of being punished for the crime of entering the country illegally than they do now. With the focus now shifted to the process of getting citizenship, those illegal immigrants who just want to stay and make some money without being bothered to become part of American society can be forgotten, along with their crime. This bill gets the issue off the table and out of the political spotlight. That solves the problem of politicians who want to mollify American voters in general without risking the loss of the Hispanic vote. The Hispanic vote can be expected to become larger and larger as the new de facto amnesty can be expected to increase the number of illegal border crossers, just as the previous -- and honestly labeled -- amnesty bill of 1986 led to a quadrupling of the number of illegals. The larger the Hispanic vote becomes, the less seriously are the restrictive features of the immigration bill likely to be enforced. The growth of the illegal population is irreversible but the means of controlling the growth of illegals are quite reversible, both de facto through the watering down of the enforcement of "tough" requirements and de jure through later repeals of requirements deemed too "tough." One of the remarkable aspects of the proposed immigration "reform" is its provisions for cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Employers are to be punished for not detecting and excluding illegal immigrants, when the government itself is derelict in doing so. Employers not only lack expertise in law enforcement, they can be sued for "discrimination" by any of the armies of lawyers who make such lawsuits their lucrative specialty. But no penalties are likely to be enforced against state and local politicians who openly declare "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. Officials sworn to uphold the law instead forbid the police to report the illegal status of immigrants to federal officials when these illegals are arrested for other crimes. This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians' problems, not the country's. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 23, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) You cant compare Danks to Buehrle until Danks develops a cutter. What makes Buehrle so good is his cutter and his control. Danks is similar to Buehrle in that he is a left hander and he works fast thats about it. He's also similar in his approach and mound presence. He doesn't get rattled, he doesn't get emotional. He takes the ball and throws it. I never said he throws the exact same pitches as Mark, but just that I feel the same way when he takes the bump as I do when Mark does. I don't feel that with Javy, Count or even Jon.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxFan1 @ May 23, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) Makes sense. That is the route ill take if it comes to that, but im going to let her decide what she wants. If she wants me to meet her parents and try that route then ill do it, and if shed rather just lay low because shes scared of her father then ill do the best I can to make her feel as comfortable as possible. I dont know how much I can take since Ive come to the conclusion that I easily get anxious, and when that happens im pretty needy when it comes to hanging out with people. haha. I dont do long distance or text/phone relationships. Dude, do you remember my advice to you last time you asked a question on here? Take the same advice. and your Italian on top of it....this s*** is suppose to come natural to ya!! Wow...it's like Soxtalk's very own bake sale!! Congrats everyone!!!!!

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ May 23, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) No these guys liked it: jk Actually, with all the skimpy outfits and tight bodies, tf there was ever a network show to turn a gay man straight this is it. The sequel might be called Fixedfront Mountain.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 23, 2007 -> 09:08 AM) Danks is downright sexy. 1ER last night. The similarities between him and Buehrle are ridiculous. With the exception of last years second half, I have always felt very confident with Mark on the bump. It was going to be a solid performance and give the team a good chance to win the game. I feel that same way about Danks. Just give him the ball every 5 days and he's going to be consistent and give the team a chance to win. He won't have the sexy numbers every game, but you'll get that consistent start and that to me is as important as anything.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ May 23, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) I agree. She was really good and looked like she was having such a good time. It didnt look like a job or performance. When you truely are joyfull in what you are doing, it shines. She is amazingly good looking. Two young people, I am kind of suprised we havent heard rumors of romance between them yet. Yeah they always had such a great time. Oh the rumors are out there...especially since she recently called off her marriage. According to her and her husband, it's because she is going on tour and he is finishing dental school, but they are both still very much in love. Who knows, but her fiance better get prepared for her being in the spotlight. I'm sure she has publicists/agents telling her she needs to strike while the iron is hot. I read she is coming out with a couple singles. If she is even half the singer that she is dancer...look out.

Am I the only guy here who got hooked on that show. That Julianne girl is going to be a star. This is probably just the very beginning of things for her. She's ony 18, but in my non expertise eyes, she had the best choregraphy of any of the pros. Let me also add she is smoking hot. I'm glad her and apolo won. Here's a couple of their dances...

QUOTE(Steff @ May 22, 2007 -> 03:02 PM) That might get a bit weak in 2 weeks. The hot rumor is that since Meadow's car is in the shop she will be driving Tony's truck and be driven off the road and killed. Where did you guys get that hot rumor??

QUOTE(iamshack @ May 22, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) He may be employed...but he will not be allowed to lob these bs columns at us every morning. His "schtick" will change. I refuse to believe the executives at the Sun-Times will allow him carte blanche to carry out personal vendettas against the man who owns the two most successful sports franchises in this City over the past twenty years. His column is certainly one which allows him to express his views. But when it becomes simply a forum to ignorantly bash one owner, one organization, one general manager, one manager, and one broadcaster, he is abusing his responsibilities. He will not be allowed to carry on that way. Whether it be a closed-door meeting with the people he answers to, another "vacation," or his ultimate dismissal, I don't know. But if this continues, something will be done. And remember, no one thought he was getting canned by am 1000 either. Bottom line. It's about selling papers. If people are talking about Marriotti, it's good for business and that's all that matters.

Mitch: "...glad and... Excuse me. I'd like to say I'm really glad and proud to be here tonight. I'm glad to see that Frank's dad made it out, that's awesome, I haven't seen him in like eight years. That's great, congratulations!" Frank: "I love yau dad!" Mitch: "True love is hard to find. Sometimes you think you've found true love' and then you catch the early flight home from San Diego an a couple of new people jump out of your bathroom blindfolded like a bleep damn magic show ready to double team your girlfriend and it stops..." Beanie: "It stops right there and it continues right here because what I think my friend Mitch is trying to say is that true love is blind. Let's raise our glasses, whatever we got in front of us. Salut, Health and happiness."

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 21, 2007 -> 10:50 PM) Well to be fair, if Ozuna slows down and touches 3rd, it's 8-3 heading to the bottom of the 8th and the pen is still untouched. Pablo's defense will cost us at least 1 run a game at 3rd, which is why we have to decide if we DL Crede or not very quickly. MacDougal still looks awful though, despite that. I thought Ozuna actually made a good play there and the ump blew it. I mean Ozuna had a brain fart that there were two outs, but I thought he made the play. He stepped right on the bag and caught the ball and then fired to first. He was trying to make a double play, which was uneccessary and a mistake, but the ump blew that call.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 22, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) No, I haven't noticed much about Baccala since he's said a combined 10 words since their huge brawl in episode one, which Tony Soprano healed from in three hours time, so nobody in his crew ever found out about. I think Baccala has also be in about 1.323 minutes of footage SINCE that episode. I thought they'd delve deeper into his psyche being screwed after the wacking, but in typical Soprano fashion, they just ignore it all and move on. Meh. Some of the stuff in this show is annoying, while other parts of it are still really good. IMO, the show has fallen dramatically in terms of quality since season 2 ended. I'm just hoping the show ends in a non-predictable way, because if it ends like Goodfellas -- well, then I'd have to say I already saw that ending, and I liked it better the first time around. I don't think they ignored it at all. If they had, I wouldn't have noticed his behavior. I mean they're not going to spend the last few episodes on a background character like Baccala, but they have shown enough to see the change in his persona.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ May 21, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) What did you say? I'm too busy staring at the tits in your avatar. Nice work! Sara Varone nice Italian girl.

Anyone also notice what a prick Baccala has become. His character has done a 180 since his first wacking. Next Episode Detail: The Blue Comet - The Sopranos Loyalty to Tony reaches a critical stage for those within his sphere of influence; a case of mistaken identity has grave consequences. Could the mistaken indentity be Meadow? She was supposedly rear ended in this last episode. Which they didn't even elaborate on. I thought that was kinda strange, but if she is driving Tony's car in the next episode and something happens then it would all make sense. It's a stretch, but possible.

It does certainly sound like North keeps egging AJ to get into some s*** with Mark.