bmags

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 02:33 AM) I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits. The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people. you can still marry. It'd be discriminating you if only gays could marry and heterosexuals couldn't.

sure kap, you know me.

STATES RIGHTS

andrew sullivan addressing the judge's sexuality:

this isn't new. Everyone knew at the time of the trial that the prop 8ers got destroyed in every way. That doesn't mean that's how the judge would decide.

California is a state.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) I feel like they could have made more of a legal "this is not the case under the law" argument if they'd wanted to. I'm not sure they really tried. Andrew Sullivan is raising the question whether Scalia would actually be on the side of gay marriage because of Lawrence v. Texas. It's an interesting hypothesis.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 04:02 PM) Yeah, like the fact that marriage is in the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government. california

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 03:11 AM) INTENSE? oooooh we'll have another bulldog!

QUOTE (Allsox @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 02:08 AM) Edwin's definitely got the stuff to be more than a 5th starter. Just gotta throw some more strikes with his offspeed stuff and he could be Peavy Part II. constantly injured?

wellp, i think it is an equal protection issue.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 02:03 AM) RAYS TIE IT WITH ONE OUT IN THE 9th!! Hell yea

QUOTE (Wanne @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 05:19 PM) well...not sure he meant that. But the logic is we are held accountable and to certain laws and standards while being a "guest" in other countries...which REQUIRE you to go through appropriate channels if you want to reside there. I'm sure other countries enforce this quite stringently...while the PC correct Amercian government coddles. The thing about that article was that he was a REPEAT offender! Really?!?! As I said before...my convos with the Asst. County Attorney were pretty sad hearing him say the our system is completely a joke when it comes to handling of these situations. and a quick fyi: You think this is unique to america? There are few countries with borders or without borders that doesn't have this problem, they've had this problem in 2010, in 1910, in 1810, etc. etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) Serious point in reply... There was, for obvious reasons, something of a rash of anti-Muslim violence back in 2001, if memory serves; but aside from the government round-ups and arrests of Cat Stevens at the airport, it seemed to stay fairly subdued. There'd be bouts of it after things like the Netherlands comic riots, but for 10 years, it never really struck me as pernicious and widespread. Suddenly now, we've got people firebombing mosques in multiple states, we've got people organizing Quran burnings, we've got people declaring publicly that they can't build a Mosque in place X because I like most muslims but the ones that want to be here are all terrorists and dirty. There's a line of thought out there that the anti-Muslim hysteria that wanted to percolate out was actually kept under wraps by noneother than George W., who, although he screwed up a lot and alienated a lot of Muslims with policy, flat out rebuked almost every attempt to demonize Muslims from private groups and did a lot of things to publicly embrace them. It would then follow that now that there's a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist plant running the White House, it's bubbling to the surface without the big blockhead that was there the last 8 years. Just wondering if anyone had a response to that one. when the economy goes south, xenophobia explodes.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 08:08 PM) That's what happens when you're in bed with the leagues. ESPN "journalism" really can't be taken seriously since it's a sports network that's in bed with most of the people/leagues/organizations/assocations it covers. yeah, cause this is journalism

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 2, 2010 -> 06:10 PM) Depending on the D-man Bowman will bring in to play the 5th/6th spot, I give Stan a B+ on the off-season. He was faced with a terrible situation, and was able to keep the core almost all intact by keeping 19-88-81-10-36-2-7-4. The only move I was actually upset about this off-season was letting Ladd go. It terms of Niemi, I said on the first page of this thread Niemi wasn't as large of a priority that others were(Hjalmarsson), and if Tucro was actually signed at the 1.3 figure, and they bring in another capable body into the mix because of it, I'm 100% fine with the decision. Ladd was a great player, but I'm very happy we got to keep sharp, which I was not expecting.

I can't believe they killed off draper.

no.

can't believe Don f'd his sec.

had an absolute awesome time at the game but was supremely confused at why so many people were yelling at Andruw Jones to dive at balls that were landing 8 ft. in front of him, especially after seeing what happened when the A's RFer dove and it gave us 3 runs instead of 1 or maybe 2.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 06:14 PM) Way to ASSume things........... Oh, you see what he did there. The level of dialogue in this forum lately is absurd.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 1, 2010 -> 04:46 AM) You know they've been on fire since a certain closer went dookie in his pants a few weeks back, right? You know what I want to point out, when the white sox have a great win in an otherwise dismal season we always say "okay, this will ignite the season", and you know what, it doesn't. Because it doesn't mean s***. the twins were just playing s***ty baseball, and now they are playing what they are capable of.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 11:41 PM) I see this argument all the time, and I laugh. JR leaves so much trust and power in KW and Ozzie. I highly doubt he puts in much word over personal as you make it seem to be. meh, i don't think there's an ownership in the league that doesn't have to approve an increase in salary.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 09:13 PM) At least we made up for the complete botching of the DH situation in the offseason. win.

kap, maybe someday you will look back, read what you wrote in your post-post-post-post formative years and realized that your tangential vagueness wasn't insightful, and just created an atmosphere where no one, no one takes you seriously.