NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Ndgt10 @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 06:05 PM) Good inning. 1-run should be for the count. You were saying?

That was a total meatball right there. 1-1 now.

PAULIE DOUBLES IN OZUNA!!!!!! YOU CANT STOP OZUNA..........YOU CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN HIM!!! 1-0

I told you guys the count would own these biatches. This is f***ing crazy!!!!!

Chat is going. Get yer selves in there and party!!

OH MY GOD THAT WAS FILTHY!!!!!! Nice work by the count!

Chat is open for business. Stop by and party with us!!!

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) Pratt, I disagree with your opinion. First the first amendment is "a fundemental right" which means it has higher protection than say "drinking alcohol". No one even has taken the time to read my post about rational basis standard of review versus strict scrutiny, instead everyone just relies on the circular logic: "Well if the amendment is part of the constitutional, then it cant be unconstitutional." But that is not true, here we are talking about 2 provisions that are directly in conflict. I do not think that the constitution was written to give Amendment's end all power, especially when that amendment is directly opposed to another amendment, specifically one in the bill of rights. If the precedent is set, where does it end. Can a super majority just make any rule that it wants, regardless of how directly in may oppose the original constitution? The answer in my opinion is no, that should the people of the United States (which the founding fathers did not trust) through the majority pass an amendment that is fundementally opposed to the bill of rights, the Supreme Court has the power to invalidate that Amendment. Because in the end, only the judiciary can enforce the law, so if they are unwilling to enforce, then the law has no effect. Crimson, Not all amendments are equal. Some protect fundemental rights, specifically those in the Bill of Rights. I would think that the Supreme Court would have the common sense to weigh, the 1st Amendment and the new Amendment. You jumped all over me for the "I believe" and "I suspect" logic and here you are using it a few posts later. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again are we? How can you say that? Is there some provision in the Constitution that gives older amendments precedence over newer ones? Would you say that the post civil-war amendments have less precedence than any of the bill of rights? Where is your research to back up your assertion that certain amendments take precedence over others? Fact of the matter is that the only time there ever has been a serious challenge to one of the amendments, that I can think of off the top of my head, was prohibition and it took another amendment to redress that issue. Fact is that the Constitution and ALL its amendments, whether you find them distasteful or not, are the be-all / end-all of this country's laws. You're pretty much spot on when you say that a super-majority can pretty much pass an amendment at will. The bar is set as high as it is for that very reason. It's extremely unlikely that any one faction of government will be able to wield that much power at any one time and that is what prevents the scenario you have described from ever happening. As it stands right now in order to amend the Constitution the sponsors of the Amendment must have broad, bi-partisan support ( which in the case if the flag-burning amendment they in fact do ). Do you have any idea how asinine it sounds when you assert that the Supreme Court gets to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it's going to say are valid? You extend that logic out and you could have a court that decides to nullify the anti-slavery amendments, or the women's suffrage amendment, or the one giving 18 year olds the right to vote. Where does THAT end??

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) Allow me to throw some more fuel on the fire. I seem to remember, way back when the subject du jour was alleged desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo and other places, some posters expressing the opinion, (I'll paraphrase, since I can't search for it) "I don't understand the big deal, it's only a book." I remember thinking at the time, "I wonder if these same posters would say that 'the flag is only a piece of cloth'." Apples and oranges.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199873,00.html Of course she gets off the hook scott free. Ahhhh theres nothing like being in Congress to get you off the hook when you commit a crime.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:48 PM) David Riske will never give up a hit, recognize fools. LOL THE NEW CHUCK NORRIS OF THE WHITE SOX IS..................................... RISKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

QUOTE(Maverick0984 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 06:40 PM) i read every post in this thread, and this is my first post of these forums. we all know Pablo is doing quite well right now, and that is great to have that in the lineup, but like others have said, he isn\'t an everyday player for a reason. throw him out there everyday and it might be too much for him and he might go 0 for 20 cause of all the added physical toll of playing everyday. As it stands right now, Podsednik is a much much better option as a leadoff hitter, regardless of numbers. The numbers are not the same thing, it\'s comparing apples to oranges. A veteren to a younger guy. An everyday player to a bench player. i\'m not discounting Pablo, i love the guy, he\'s done great things, but his fielding has honestly made me cry. when\'s it is hit out there I hold my breath, no matter where he plays, albeit OF or IF. Last year\'s team was built on defense and pitching, this year, yes some offense was added, but Ozzie will be the first one to tell you that his main concern is the pitching right now. It\'s been quoted left and right all season long. The comment about the tallest midget based on their two fielding is just ridiculous. I\'ve seen Scotty make play after play out there that I was amazed with, while I\'ve seen Ozuna stop, think he has it, start back peddling frantically, and misplay the ball disgustingly. There is absolutely no contest on fielding and that is the way the White Sox are built. Thats the reason Anderson is playing at all. Why aren\'t we getting on Anderson for his entire season of \"slumping\" ? He\'s in cause he\'s a pretty decent centerfielder, even though Machowiak is batting better. That is the way this team is ran, so get used to it. At this point, I could go out there and bat better than Anderson has... And then!!! another bat that is struggling is Uribe. However, his fielding out there is amazing. So it\'s a slightly different comparison there. All I\'m saying is, that this team is built on defense and pitching, and because of that and the consistency difference between Podsednik and Ozuna, Podsednik will never be replaced as the everyday starter in LF this season, that is just the way it is. Ozuna is hot, Podsednik is in a slump, both will equalize in time. When that happens Podsednik is the better choice. GO SOX! Trust me, Anderson has caught plenty of heat around here for his poor batting but Pods is also worthy of some scrutiny as well. My biggest beef with him is that he's consistently inconsistent. Id much rather see him hit a steady 275 than go from 230-300 and back down again. Welcome to the boards BTW.

EAT s*** REDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WALKED INTO YOUR HOUSE AND SLAPPED YOU AROUND LIKE THE b****ES YOU ARE!!!!!! FREDDY LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GONNA GET FINGERED AGAIN BUT SETTLED DOWN AND HAD A GOOD OUTING!!! CREDE WITH A SLAM TO START THINGS OFF AND THE REST OF THE OFFENSE WAS ON FIRE ALSO!!!!!! GREAT WAY TO GET THIS SERIES STARTED!!!!!! WHO SAID WE COULDN'T HIT WITHOUT THOME?!?!?!?! GIMMIE A HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is f***ing comical!!!!! Who wants to bet whether we'll get 20 runs or not?

Freddy cruising now. Going top 5 still 10-3

Hey everyone. Chat is up and rocking now. If you're not in there partying with us YOU'RE WRONG!!!

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Freddy won't make it past the 4th. He looks so terrible. I really hope you're wrong. If he can go 6 without any further damage this is going to be an easy night.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 06:32 PM) If you think that over half the electorate actually makes their decision on who to vote for solely based on how a Senator voted over an amendment about flag burning, you are stupid. If you think that gay marriage is on the average voter's radar, before its brought up for a vote as a constitutional amendment, you are stupid. Or maybe its me that's stupid. Maybe its just me that thinks that the average voter might be more concerned with what's in his wallet at the end of the day, how he can afford his life, whether or not he feels safe and secure and whether or not he feels that his elected official acts lawfully. Maybe I think, stupidly, that there are about 100 other things that are more important to the average voter than flagburning. And for the record, I didn't complain about you calling someone a leftist. I just said it was tired and boring. I don't even find the word an insult, because I'm proud to be one. What people's motivation is to vote for a certain candidate is their business not yours or mine. Maybe it IS flag-burning, or terrorism, or immigration or taxes ( a combination of the bunch? ). I never claimed to know what motivates people to vote for whoever but I do know that you blindly labeling 59 million + people as stupid because they vote for someone you dont like makes you and everyone who thinks like you look like an elitist, snobbish, asshole.

QUOTE(BFirebird @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 06:34 PM) Quality start and Freddy Garcia don't belong in the same sentence as of late. How bout the same paragraph. He's been total garbage lately.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 06:20 PM) I'm an idiot. Not so much.

WHO SAID WE WERE GONNA HAVE TROUBLE HITTING WITH THOME OUT?!?!? 4-0!!!!!

Can ya hear em?! LETS GO WHITE SOX!!! LETS GO WHITE SOX!!! lmfao!!!

Alright chat heads.......its about that time again. Lets get this party started!!!!!

If anyone was expecting the Flubbs to win against the Tigers they are going to be disappointed. They are far more likely to throw the series just so they can stick it to the White Sox.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) A constitutional amendment isn't going to stop flag burnings. Just like it isn't going to stop gay marriage. It's stupid boilerplate set to dupe stupid people into voting for poor candidates who can't get their vote any other way than making them feel at risk, under attack or in crisis. See this is what gets me really angry with people on your side. Anytime we do something YOU find distasteful you resort to namecalling and other vile invective because you cant change their minds and get them to vote for someone you find palatable. You have the balls to sit there and complain about me calling certain people leftists but then 2 posts later you label more than half the electorate stupid. Give me a f***ing break. Hypocrite.