YASNY

Enough! Stop this racist bulls*** that goes on in here. It's ignorant. It makes Soxtalk look bad. It's not funny at all. In fact, it's disgusting.

That's right people. Show your ignorance. :headshake

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 15, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Fienstien says dont filibuster. One liberal Democrat with some sense anyhow. She knows the "gang of 14" won't let the filibuster work. If she tthought she could knock down Bush's nominee, she'd do it in a heartbeat.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) YASNY, I've seen you make a lot of great points on here, many I agree with. This, however, is an absurd statement. Read the entire post, as I qualified that statement in subsequent sentences. You are taking the sentence of of it's context. Edit: In fact, I qualified even further in the next post when I said that it 'my perception' of things.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) I lived in Memphis for a few years. The whole Ford family is just chock full of losers and criminals. And they win offices all the time. Being in Memphis, I came to appreciate how well-run a city Chicago is (corrupt it may be, but it works). Memphis city government is corrupt AND ineffective. That's one thing that both Daleys have been able to do, is make the city work.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) In this century, I believe there have been 2 Presidents elected to office by electoral college who did not carry the popular vote: one Republican (Bush II), and one Democrat (Kennedy). The fact that there have been more GOP Presidents in the last 25 years is not relevant to discussion of the electoral college, since Reagan, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II II all won the popular vote (most by a large margin). The electoral college has no logical reason for existence at this point in time. President is a national office, and should be voted on nationally. Like I said earlier, I hope we have another election soon where that duality occurs, so that we can get this thing knocked out. And I could care less which party does the complaining. Let's have some objectivity in this discussion (instead of just flinging stuff from the wings). For the record, I wasn't trying to fling anything from the wings. I was trying to look at an angle from a younger person's perspective and threw it out there to see if it was part of the equation. It wasn't. Fine. Just say so.

It's about time the Democrats had a plan on something. They really need to put forth some plans and ideas over the next couple of years or so. Also, knowing how the game is played, there has to be a hidden agenda here. There has to be something in the plan that would be advantageous to the Democrats beyond just the politics of it. I'm not being overly critical of the Democrats here, as I know the Republicans would look to legislate themselves an advantage as well.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) I doubt it. Most stadiums don't even use an organ. I think the Sox will only have an organ until Nancy doesn't want to do it anymore. I think you're correct. If she wasn't such a popular 'fixture' around the park, they probably would have phased her out by now. That would have been a PR nightmare though, and they knew it.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 08:02 AM) Oh, I understand what you meant. I was just adding my perception of things to show that I guess it's all how you look at it. And I don't know who's right or wrong, if there even IS a "right and wrong" with it. In total agreement with you on that one. Who's right and/or wrong depends on what day it is.

QUOTE(Harry&JimmyRocked @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 01:44 AM) i didn't see lisa dergan's name on that list A huge, huge omission.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 12:13 AM) Actually Kap in the long run, Option 2 will save you time. Just imagine the time and effort trying to clean up that database. Plus you guys can set it up with all that you have learned in the last few years as far as feature sets and such. s*** I wish we could do this with a bunch of systems at my work, but then again Soxtalkers are a bit more reasonable than my facist users. So how long before SS2k5 goes over 30k in posts on the new board. Considering he'll be bumped back to zero, figure on ... oh ... 3 weeks.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 07:31 AM) It's weird that you say the radical left overly influences the Dems, because I've always felt the religious right has an unduly strong influence on the Reps. I guess it's at least partly just perception, and probably partly true, but I don't think either side is as influenced by their radical factions as the other side believes. I can't back my point up, because it's my perception. Maybe it's better if I say the DNC is farther left of center than the RNC is farther right of center. Either way, it's part of the equation.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 01:57 AM) I hate the electoral college. Always have. I'm a big one person-one vote guy. Considering that you are young guy (right?) and basically a Democrat, that is understandable. Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. The EC hasn't been to kind to you in your lifetime.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 02:00 AM) No offense, but that's like saying that I'll never vote for a Republican because of Pat Robertson, or Tom Coburn, or Mullah Dobson. I may be a Democrat, but I don't let someone else in the party change my vote for who I think is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and the only time I ever voted straight party line, it was GOP. No offense, but it seems to me that most of the Dems are closer to the radical left than Reps are to the radical right. Then, it's might be the influence that radical left has over the party. Whatever it is, it's what keeps me from voting Democrat unless the candidate stands head and shoulders above the other choices. On a national stage, I generally vote Republican because I am more inclined to hold conservative views, so the overall Republican agenda touches home with me more than the Democrat agenda.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) But what exactly makes it a contender for Best Picture if it doesn't actually address the subject of homosexuality? It would be similar to Clint Eastwood not presenting the conflicting views of mercy killings within Million Dollar Baby. I don't understand how a film about two gay cowboys can't include any of the troubles one may experience, and yet is considered "revolutionary." I've already heard three news segments use a variation of the term when highlighting the film. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the film. Maybe, the fact that it's a film about two gay cowboys that doesn't include any of the troubles one may experience is what makes it revolutionary. Think about it.

I can believe some cops out there would pull s*** like this. Most cops are good people, but some do tend to think with their badge instead of their brain.

Bin Ladin won't be captured alive, just because of that humiliation factor.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) I consider myself an environmentalist. One way to look at it is if we screw up the environment we are mistreating all people. The concerns of the many over the concerns of the few. I can see that point of view.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) Personally, I really don't care all that much for George W. Bush as president, but he was the far better choice in the last two elections, IMO. But I will certainly defend him from all the stupidity that seems to be rampant across many areas of the media now. That is so very well said. Bush leaves a lot to be desired, but the Bush bashing is almost laughable.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) Cross reference from the Ozzy Jr thread. Sorry for the confusion. I'll dumb it down a bit.. LOL

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection. So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back.... What do you care about more, people (the employees they traet like s***) or the environmental issues? That's how to solve your dilemma.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) f*** off. Well put.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) This thread = entertainment at work, and playing with immature minds (aka Anthramoron). Nothing more, nothing less. Edit: oh, except Wong... I do still want to sit down and read closer to where you're coming from. Haven't been able to do that yet. s***. You are giving him too much credit.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Well I can't name the 12 Apostles but from memory, here are the 12 actors who played jurors in 12 Angry Men (1957): Henry Fonda Joseph Sweeney Ed Begley George Voskovec (he played an immigrant, his character corrected Begley's character when he said "He don't even speak good English") Robert Webber Martin Balsam John Fiedler Lee J. Cobb Jack Klugman Jack Warden E.G. Marshall Edward Binns Neither Fonda or Lee J. Cobb won an Academy Award for their roles, although one or the other should have IMO. Great movie. One of my all time favorites.

Anthrax is never wrong until he is proven wrong without any squirming room whatsoever. It is a recurring pattern with him. Go back and look at his man-love of Orlando Cabrera or his anti Kennny Williams stance. It's the same bulls*** here ... and in the other thread about God. I gave him credit for admitting he was wrong on Cabrera anf Williams. But now I know he did so because he didn't have a choice. If you kicked him in the nuts, he wouldn't admit it until he realized he was laying on the ground holding them. That is the type of person you are dealing with here. He's not worth the time or effort to 'discuss' anything with him.