Soxbadger

I dont even see how 1 was on the list. Was it because the game was played at ND between media darlings?

They said Wisconsin could be a champion. Was anything else said in that article?

The guy in the hatch, who rescued Desmond was the same guy who gave Sayid the box of tools to torture the Iraqi officer so that the US Army could find the pilot who had crashed. Lost is the best show on tv, and if you are interested you can download the episodes from season 2 for free, but the commercials are embedded I believe. As to the episode, finally some one looked at those computer print outs. I have been complaining about that since the time that they went into the Pearl. Prior to that episode Locke wanted to know if Henry Gale had typed the right number in, yet he never went through the print sheets to find out. The last episode had some interesting thoughts: 1) It is clear that the magnetism f***s up compasses. This is reinforced when Henry Gale tells Michael exactly what path to follow. It also makes Desmond's "I went straight (east or west cant remember)" and returning back to the island make sense. Since the compass will be effected it is useless as a navigational tool. 2) The statute and the rock formations. Maybe its just me, but when I saw that statute I thought "Clossus of Rhodes" and then when I saw the rocks I thought "Stonehenge". This led me to start wondering if this island in some way is supposed to represent the lost city of Atlantis. The four toes was interesting, but I think Cyclops in greek myth have the 4 toes. 3) Every time a character dies, the plot reveals something that if they had been alive would have blown the mysteries wide open. Libby dies right before Desmond comes back in her ship. If she was alive, it would have set off a huge domino affect of people starting to see connections. The second is Anna Lucia, who it turns out knew Jacks father and brought Jacks father to the bar where he met Sawyer. Since Anna is dead, she cant have that conversation with Sawyer where they begin to realize that something besides chance is at work here. I definitely thought the finally was satisfying. If they gave all the answers what would be in store for season 3. As of now I think Michael and Walt will turn their backs on freedom, return to the camp and next season will be about trying to get Sawyer, Jack, and Kate back. The whole story line about Walt being special has not at all been fleshed out, which makes me believe that he may be back.

YASNY, I think there are 2 different fact patterns here. Scenario 1 School promotes prayer at an assembly, graduation. Scenario 2 Students on their own start to pray. I would think that a judge would be well versed in the law enough to see the difference between scenario 1 and 2. In scenario 2, there is no govt action, therefore you can not invoke the seperation of church and state. The Amendments of the constitution only apply to government action, therefore since the students are not part of the govt, they should face no problem legally. On the other hand, we all know that schools do not have to allow full expression of speech. Therefore it would come down to school policy, and it would be up to the school to decide. The first amendment does not protect religion or speech absolutely. Instead it places a premium on their protection, and makes it much harder to restrict speech or religion.

I love the: "Of the 40 pitchers with 27 starts" stat. When you look at the stat it shows just how valuable Garland is. Of all the teams in baseball, only 40 starting pitchers (less than 2 per team) started 27 games. Of all of them, Garland was in the top 30 (1 per team), meaning that on any other staff Garland was on average the top 1 or 2 pitcher, but generally no worse than a 3. This reminds me of the "Vazquez should be traded" before the season started, and all the other "great" ideas that are based on rushing B-Mac into the rotation. B-Mac may be good, but he will unlikely ever be an Ace, so therefore there is no reason to press him into the starting rotation. Right now the Sox have the most talented team when Garland is starting and B-Mac is in the pen. By moving Garland you would severely weaken the pen, and possibly (in my opinion likely) weaken the starting rotation. If everyone here is worried about winning championships, then you have to keep both Garland and B-Mac, unless Garland was giving you a piece to win this year. The grass isnt always greener.

Midwest schools like ACT. West and East like SAT.

I do not understand how cheering for a player who is on another team equates to any difference in the chances the White Sox are going to win. If you cheer after he hit the HR, so what, its not like by booing the run does not count. Frank was the face of the White Sox, the only problem was between Konerko, Thome, and Thomas there are only 2 positions. Frank would not have come back as a bench player and he does not play enough positions to really spend the roster slot on (although Gload isnt doing much either.) Its not like Frank wanted to leave, he wanted to stay. People do not give this sort of treatment to every White Sox player. But when guys like Baines and Thomas, who grew up with the Sox come back, you just have to show them how much they meant to you. Its just the right thing to do and it has no impact on how the game will be played. Frank Thomas gave me so many memorable moments, I would think it would be an honor to be able to give him one.

How many times has some one been IBB in front of Frank?

Thomas never said anything bad about Sox fans, so why should the fans feel any ill will toward him. Im glad that he got the ovation and glad that he hit the home run. Loyalty is earned, and Thomas no matter what he said, always played on the field. Thomas can still be a good player, a lot of his problems have been in his head. Once he stopped getting the calls he just seemed to worry more about that then focusing on himself. Still my favorite player and probably always will be.

Generally speaking the best way to get to a White Sox game is: Take train downtown, take red line to the Cell. With the hassle of the Dan Ryan, parking, etc, you will find that public transportation makes it much easier and faster.

My vote is to stay with the veteran starting staff and let B-Mac stay in the pen like Shields. Only reason I would trade even Garland or Garcia is if the offer was to good to refuse.

I personally think this is a grey area in the law. The first amendment does not really address this issue, as it states explicitly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which does not mean that the govt has written a blank check for excersising religion. It is well established that there are lines religion can not cross, sacrificing, etc are illegal. Polygamy is illegal, eventhough it could be considered "Free excersise thereof". The problem here is that in my opinion there is no answer that will keep everyone happy. If you let schools have prayer, then some people will be offended. If you do not let them have prayer, then other people will have a problem. Regardless, some one on some side will think that the rules are being written unfairly. Thus my answer is, to completely seperate church and state. This approach would mean that state funded schools, would have to strictly comply. They could not have prayer at graduation, school functions, etc. Not because it is wrong, but just because it makes it simpler. If people want to say a prayer, go down to your local chuch, synagogue, mosque, and have a grand old time. At private schools of course anythin goes as they are private institutions and can do whatever they want. So if prayer is so important, you can chose to go to the private school, or say a little prayer to yourself. But my understanding of the constitution and its enforcement fover last 200 years, does mean that you have the freedom to express your religion, whenever or however you want. Instead it means that the govt can not prevent you from practicing your religion completely. Anyways its such an unimportant issue, like a bunch of words should really bother people so much. Some times you have to pick your battles, and this is one where I would just let it go. I may not be religious or a believer etc, but since Im not, those words mean as much to me as any other speech. So if they are going to make some one elses day, go for it. There are much bigger areas of concern for religion versus govt to start wasting a battle on this one.

The difference between last year and this year is the Indians tanked the first part of the season while the Tigers are playing great. Its not losing 3 games, that will happen to the best teams.

If I was going Id give Frank a standing O.

Wisconsin has a very favorable schedule and could have a very big year. The defense should be much better, but who will carry the ball.

Yes. There was another article that said something about the Sox watching Cubs games. I did not remember the original article saying anything about the Sox players laughing. I just thought it was a reporter trying to sell a story.

DOMA has never been challanged. The only way it can be challanged is by some one who was married in the state of Mass. and then has standing to challange the full faith and credit exemption. It would have to be a specific case where the denial of full faith and credit some how was infringing on one sides rights. A potential would be: A couple is married in Mass. The couple is divorced in Mass and there is a domestic relations order that requires alimony, child support, etc. The person then moves to another state and that state refuses to enforce the domestic relations order because they do not recognize gay marriage. This would then bring the full faith and credit clause show down. But as long as the Supreme Court does not have to rule on it, they will not. It is very important to keep it out of court because it will be faced with either having to: 1) Erode full faith and credit clause 2) Support full faith and credit clause and force recognition of gay marriage in other states. Conservatives on the bench may not want to go after the clause, because generally conservatives like to pride themselves as strict constructionists. The constitution specifically made the full faith and credit clause so that states would keep their own sovereignty, and the rules and laws that they passed would have effect through out the country. If you start to erode the full faith, then you erode state's rights even farther, atleast imo. You can argue that by allowing states to not recognize other states that it is actually giving them more power, but I do not agree with that assessment. While they will have more power in controlling the laws of their own state, they will have less power in assuring that the laws in their state actually mean something outside of their own border. While state conflicts like this are for the most part a thing of the past, if the door begins to open, who knows where it will stop.

Rip them off like Hulk Hogan? They said you only had to wear it to the game, not wear it the entire game.

SS2K, Impossible for the Federal Govt. to stay out of it. Due to the "full faith and credit clause", http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articleiv.html If 1 state allows for gay marriage, then the other states would have to give full faith and credit to that union. That is why conservatives are trying to get an amendment passed to ban it. Otherwise a liberal state will eventually pass a law that allows gay marriage in their state, once this occurs the other 50 states will be bound to recognize it. Then it just becomes a matter of going to that state to get married and then returning home. This was how some couples got around early 20th century divorce laws of some states. Not every state allowed the same sort of divorces (most specifically no fault) and therefore if a couple wanted a divorce but lived in the wrong state they would go to the other state. On everything else, you need 2/3 of the state legislatures to ask for an amendment. This has never happened, every amendment has been proposed through congress. If an amendment is passed in congress then you need 3/4's of the states to agree. 3/4 will be impossible, thus why this amendment is nothing more than political posturing for the next election. In the end, the govt will eventually have to give the same benefits to same sex marriage as opposite sex marriage. There just is no legal argument to the contrary. The United States courts have consistently held that marriage is a fundemental right. If it is that fundemental, then as time passes and younger judges are elected the laws will be changed.

If the govt. recognizes female-male marriages then it should recognize same sex marriages. I dont think a constitutional amendment would pass either way though as I dont think you can get 3/4 of the states to agree.

A signed bat by Tony Torcato is their diety.

I dont mind Cuck. I just worry about over confidence. Whenever a team is over confident they pull some choke job.

So now are you saying that Springer did hit Bonds intentionally? Or are you saying Bonds did not use steriods? Honestly I dont have time for straw man arguments, so what is it that you are arguing?

Well because Cuck said the Sox will sweep, I would bet my life savings that the Cubs take 1.

Just because you were at frat parties were strippers were not harassed or abused does not mean in this case that it did not happen. I have been to my fair share of frat parties with strippers, the difference is at the end of the night the strippers went home and did not go to the police. Also, why would the DA ever reveal his case to the public? Even if he had a video tape of the Duke Lacrosse players nailing the stripper to the cross, then raping her with a broomstick and calling it the "spear of destiny" it would do absolutely nothing towards convicting the players. If anything it would make it so that it would be harder in voire dire because the defense is going to argue that every juror in the area has been tainted by the DA's release of evidence. The prosecution will get the first and last statement at trial, they do not need the hijinks of the press. That is the defense game, if they can get public pressure high enough, the DA may be forced to shut down the case even if he has the evidence. Im the first person to say, "innocent until proven guilty", but that is not what this thread is about. If I was the defense attorney in a high profile case, I would be more afraid of the DA who keeps his cards close to the vest, than the DA who is trying to convict my client in public. If they are going the second route, you know the case is weak, because why not just save it for trial? It would be like the Bears, etc unvieling their best new play in pre-season when it doesnt count. The defense has a million reasons to try and take the case to the public, plea bargain, charges dropped, etc. The prosecution has very little, because in the end it is the DA who decides whether or not to go forward, not the public and not the defense attorney.