bmags

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 04:39 AM) And I remember after the homer some random 15 yr old girl sitting behind jumped into my arms and I planted one on her lips and I didn't feel one bit guilty about. so you pleaded not guilty then?

go missouri...

this reminds me of the big 12 realignment. Hopefully my the bulls don't get screwed like mizzou.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 05:42 PM) we obviously need a government program to open vegetable stores in Mississippi. well, yeah, we could decide to heavily subsidize healthy things instead of corn syrup and meat.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 04:13 AM) And I dont think the Illinois Constitution is infringing on the US Constitution, and strangely enough, neither did the Supreme Court. If the Illinois Constitution is an infringement, then shouldnt the Illinois Constitution be under attack here? Instead it is the City of Chicago. The state of Illinois has the ultimate right to interpret its own Constitution, unless the Supreme Court states that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional. Thus it should have been up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether or not this law was legal under the Illinois Constitution. If the law was deemed legal, then it should have gone before the Federal Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cut out one of the most important steps of state rights. Generally you do not have a situation where the Constitution of the State is slightly different than the Federal Constitution, which could give rise to a different interpretation of law under both. But in this case it existed and in this case the state was given no deference to interpret its own Constitution. Its probably one of the biggest blows to state rights in history. The state of Illinois doesn't have a right to interpret the US constitution. They are completely trumped, and thank God, or else who knows what would still be going on in Mississippi right now.

The daubster? He was the man.

i always hated jeff liefer.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 04:22 AM) I think they can move a little with Q getting better and hopefully Gordon and Alexi adding something on a consistent basis, but to truly contend, not just hang around, they need another bat, lefty would be best but I would take a righty That was referring to the royals. Seems to mean to me that despite getting a good amt. of men on base, many probably don't get into scoring position, and they have trouble getting them in. So sox starters getting out of a lot of jams against the royals doesn't seem that cray cray.

17th in runs scored.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) That dude's dead, bro. Could you be referring to his Cup? Are you insane? Everyone knows if you rub the stanley cup lord stanley appears and gives you three demands in funny canadian speak. Expiry date...lol.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 04:47 AM) It would be inconsistent because generally the State Constitution is the final interpretation of law when it comes to state matters. This ruling makes it clear that the Federal govt does not need to respect state Constitutions or state Amendments. The Supreme court could have easily reasoned that the Illinois Supreme Court is the final statement on the rights of Illinois citizens and therefore it is up to individual states to reasonably interpret their own constitutions. It should be also noted that the Illinois Constitution has been accepted for over 100 years and the Supreme Court never ruled its Amendment on the right to Bear Arms was unconstitutional. When Illinois was accepted the Supreme Court of the US could have very easily stated that they needed to have the 2nd Amendment verbatim in its Constitution, but its clear that US allowed Illinois with the Constitution as is. So it only stands to reason that at some point, Illinois had the right to interpret the 2nd Amendment as it liked. The ultimate paragraph is true. But regarding the conservative-nature of the modern court it isn't surprising they took this up so quickly. But, state constitutions cannot infringe on rights guaranteed in the federal bill of rights. So I disagree that this ruling is saying that state laws don't matter, rather that this state law infringed on a "right" guaranteed to all US citizens, and the state cannot infringe on that law. But yes, I do see specifically banning handguns could totally be argued as a "reasonable limitation", but considering how i disagree with a lot of the limitations on free press and speech, i'd rather err on the side of more liberal readings of both.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) One of my favorite places in Chicago for music and drinks. great brunch too. lol http://www3.timeoutny.com/chicago/blog/out...-photo-gallery/ i'm so famous

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 02:53 AM) While not a fan of handgun bans, I believe the logic to how this helps law enforcement and perhaps lowers the crime rate is anytime they catch someone with a handgun, they have caught a criminal and have the opportunity to punish them however the law allows. Additionally, if they use a handgun while committing a crime, there can be additional penalties. I decided that while my kids were growing up the dangers of having a handgun ready for protection were worse than the potential for someone breaking into my home and threatening bodily harm. People who live in different areas or think having the gun in less of a ready state are free to differ. These are good points Tex. I'm torn on this issue, I can't really form a coherent thought right now of what my dissent is against it but...if i was in person i could probably relay it better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 06:42 PM) Question for some of the states-rights people here: how do you view this issue? Most (all?) states-rights advocates are right-leaning and I would assume support gun ownership rights, but this ruling makes federal law trump state and local law. meh, it's a constitutional amendment, for the past century and a half it's been pretty clear that the federal bill of rights applies to states. They wouldn't be inconsistent at all to be pro states rights and anti-gun control.

you know, were'nt people more pissed at ozzie in 2006 for playing mack in CF? I probably could misremember a lot of posts from 4 years ago, but it's like hating...i guess vizquel...they were great if you played them as the super utility bench guy, but not when you play them every day, especially mack in his worst position probably, you expose why they are utility guys. SOXTALK OVERLOVED GUYS: SEE ROSS GLOAD

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 03:13 AM) Gavin Floyd and Mark Buehrle both picked up quality starts the past 2 nights. Not entirely sure how. We're playing the royals.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 03:24 AM) 2008- Juan Uribe Not after Crede got hurt. Uribe got a lot of love for that turn around and his great play at 3b. I was sad to see him go after realizing his versatility, but not that sad.

Google stands up for what's right!!!

they would also probably be officially recognized if they stated they didn't believe in homosexuality, but still allowed gay members in their group.

just an fyi, any argument that begins with a definition is usually an awful one.

I went to blue ribbon glee club last night at schubas. I am hungover.

i remember at one point the mariners were like...90-40 and I couldn't believe my eyes. Ah, when Brett Boone was a world beater.

does byrd passing help climate bill at all? Not like a new WV sen. would not try and hurt it...but he wouldn't have near the seniority (OBVZ)

If anyone grabbed those free tickets i put on here for last night's matt and kim show I know you enjoyed yourselves. Free beer, free food, awesome venue. Last night was f***ing great.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 10:33 PM) He was an OK last man on the roster. Why not hate daily on this year's last man on the roster, Lilly? Wise did not deserve the booing. Wise was a decent last man on the roster. He had speed and made the best catch you will ever see to save a perfect game. have you not realized people hate lillibridge?