YASNY

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 04:22 AM) The only way we will see him is if either Konerko or Thome get hurt. Let's hope that doesn't happen. But I think YASNY is right though. We now have a decent 1B/DH option at Charlotte. I think Gload is as good as gone and Borchard will get the last outfield spot. Also, on Feb 20 the Sox signed first baseman Matt Dugan.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Yet if you wait a few years and lethally inject him just to get rid of the person, it is "justice". Funny how that works. I refer you back to post #19 of this thread.

Yes it is.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:47 AM) THUNDER.... No way am I going to call Paul Konerko "Lightning"!

Ross Gload, your ticket is punched.

I'm not making the connection between Crede's status and Gload making the team.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 12:04 AM) And for some reason, Crede is the god of the #9 spot. Small sample size but... Joe Crede (career stats batting 9th) 177 AB .305 AVG .374 OBP .571 SLG .944 OPS 13 HR 34 RBI I hope he can hit at that pace from the 9 hole all season. 177 ab's is roughly 1/3 of a season. Triple those HR-RBI numbers and you've got an allstar 3B.

Caption: "Which one of you jokers stole my teeth?"

This is going to get good, and I have sign off soon and get some sleep. Damn!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Abortion, yes. Although I'd like to see a federal legalization of it. Gay Marriage, no. It's a constitutional question regarding equal rights and protections under the law as far as I'm concerned. Of course you'd like to see federal legislation of it, unless it ended up being pro-life legislation. Then you'd be all up in arms about states rights. I won't argue with you on the gay marriage issue other than to say marriage, in itself, is a religious union and based on religion, that in itself is contradictory. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union type of arrangement to where a gay couple would be eligible for equal benefits and/or penalties under the law.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) Leases, not owns. Okay ... maybe so. Does that change much? We 'lease' Gitmo for a dollar a year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) Not when a Republican is in power. Or at least a big-government Republican. That's one of my major objections with Bush. But, traditionally, the Democrats have been the big government party.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) I don't think that Democrats are far off from you when it comes to states rights issues. Then your saying the states should be able to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed in their states ... or gay marriage?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) From your site....About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total. Some are performed because the woman simply does not wish to remain pregnant. That's way to many for me...I don't care if it's like only 9%. The 1.2 million/year number is too dam high. Abortion is not a form of birth control. But isn't that what 'choice' is all about?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) I'm still looking for when they first started, but it appears that they were trying to buy territory at the port as early as '98. WND, of all places. Another interesting fact, unless I've been totally misinformed, is that China owns all land adjacent to both sides of the Panama Canal.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) It sadly went unnoticed. I'm curious as to when China actually got the contract on the LA port.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Honestly, I think they ought to get booted out of control. I think the Federal government's role is to keep its borders secure - which would mean Port Administration in my book. Now, again, if I'm not mistaken, the only other bid offered in this particular deal involving the UAE came out of a company in Singapor. Referencing Balta's post about LA, and asking the question again, where was the indignation when this deal occured?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) It can in the medical sense. That is my frame of reference here. Noted.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Some pro-choice people believe that its immoral to jeopardize the health of someone already living outside of the womb to possibly save the life of someone living inside the womb because of law. Some pro-choice people believe that this is primarily a public health issue and not a political one and feels that decisions should be left up to patients and doctors. Some pro-choice people can't imagine having to be in the position of ever having to make that decision and sure as hell wouldn't feel right making that decision for them. Some pro-life people agree with your first point. In fact, I believe most would. Some pro-life people believe this is a contraception issue, not a public health issue. As for your third point, I don't have a clue what you are saying.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) I am pro-choice, and pro-child. That is not cowardice or supporting the killing of babies. It means two things. One, I think life begins when the fetus has reached a point where it could live on its own - thus, an independent life form. The other thing it means to me is that, knowing the horrors of an abortion, I would never, ever recommend it or endorse it to anyone close to me. But ultimately, its not my choice. Just to make a point here, a full term baby could not survive on it's own.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) I'm opposed to this. But it's not because they're Arab, not because its a Bush administration decision, or anything like that. It's because I'm not comfortable with private industry controlling our entry/exit points for cargo and people. I'm definitely not comfortable with firms owned by foreign governments controlling the same. Don't we have ports where China is basically supplying the same services the UAE are supposed to provide? I believe I read that somewhere. If so, do you think the Chinese government has no input on policy? If so, why was there no groundswell of objection to that scenario. In my opinion, that is much more disturbing than the UAE in the same position.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) I think you're almost certainly right that this is going to wind up being much ado about nothing, I just can't figure out why the Administration seemed so unwilling to at least sit down with Congress and explain their reasoning & why they were so staunchly supportive of it. See, you're beginning to be swayed! You capitalized Administration.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) There's a difference and you know it. Elaborate, please.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) There must be plenty outhere because if not Abortion would not be legal They are pro choice! What's the matter with ya?

If you guys peruse this thread, I've been pretty damn quiet on this issue as I wasn't sure where I stood. I did make an initial post stating that this didn't make any sense to me. But, as time has passed and I've weighed the pros and cons, I'm leaning toward thinking that based on the trends of the recent past with the selling of our infrastructure, the fact that most of our ports are managed by foriegn companies, etc ... I'm beginning to think that is much ado about nothing ... speaking in relative terms.