YASNY

Now that is one point that we agree on 100%.

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I'm not meaning to imply that point at all. I'm just saying that on a personal level, I am very cognizant of the predicaments a man can suddenly find himself thrust into.

Let's say it was the first encounter of an affair. It would still be her word against his. I'll think on it, but we have blackmail, revenge, marrital integrity and the teenage thing already.

You have made some valid points as well. However, I'm not so sure that the US was upset too much by Isreal taking out that dude. What was the word used in the official reaction .... "disturbing"? I also feel that US could not object too strongly because we attempting to do the same thing with Bin Laden. Though, capturing and not just killing Saddam did lend us some credibility. I think our official reaction to the assasination was just so much posturing.

Here's one for you, right of the top of my head. A woman's husband finds evidence that she's had sex that he wasn't a part of. To maintain her marriage, she claims she was raped. Revenge can be a motivation as well.

A little note from the Sun Times regarding Shoney's performance yesterday:

Clinton had over 5 years to address this situation. Bush had less than 9 months. Why doesn't this panel drag Clinton's sorry ass in to testify? Why hasn't it been demanded by the media. You them screaming about Conde Rice not testifying, but where's the man who had the opportunity to put Bin Ladin out of commision yet failed to take any action other than shooting a few meaningless missiles at abandoned al-Quida training camps?

That's all well and good in theory, cwsox. It's a shame that it can't or won't be used in actuality in the Palestinian/Isreali dispute.

I wish I would have read the whole post before clicking on the link. Oh well, my mistake.

Why is this the United States' fault?

This is a tricky area that has no easy answers. Do I want to see people guilty of sexual assualt punished for their crimes? Damn right I do. And it is a truamatic experience for a woman to report and follow through on the prosecution of the perpetrator, even in the best of situations. So I am not unsympathetic to the plight of victims of this hideous and demeaning crime. At the same time, being male, I can easily see where a man can be in a situation where assault is claimed, with enough evidence to prove sex occured between the two parties, yet the man be totally innocent of the accusation. It would not be difficult for any woman to claim assault after an entirely consensual encounter. There are all kinds of scenarios that can account for a woman's motivation to press charges after consensual sex. Basically, both genders are going to look at this as a "What if this happened to me?" scenario. Steff, you are looking at it from the point of view of a potential rape victim, and I can respect and understand that. However, I have to also look at from the point of as a potential victim of a false accusation. In either case, someone's rights are almost certainly going to be infringed upon. I can't see any way around it.

Thank you, sir.

Congrats on the first cars guys. It's a big thrill. Just please be careful out there.

Mark my words, if the election goes to Kerry, the terrorists will be dancing in the streets. If would most certainly be considered a victory for Bin Laden. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

That's pure spin on the part of that Oklahoma paper.

You are correct. If is wasn't for the US and UK, Isreal would not exist. Having said that, I also believe that Isreal has been the most maligned country in the world. From day one of their existance as a nation, the entire Muslim, Islamic, Arab world has been yearning for the annihilation, as proven by the 6 Day War. As for the results of that war, started by the world's Arab nations, the fact that Isreal expanded their borders on the field of battle, in a war they didn't start, well tough s***. That war in itself justifies Isreal's claim that they need that territory to maintain their survival as a nation. If they give "the occupied territories" back, it would be just plain stupid from a military standpoint. It would allow any future attempt to "push the Jews into the sea" much easier because it would be so much easier to divide the nation in half. Divide and conquer, as the saying goes. The Arab world didn't allow the Palistinians to settle in present day Isreal before there was an Isreal. They were, as today, a refugee people. So why, now, is it up to Isreal to give the Palastinians the territories claimed in the '67 War? Why is the plight of the Palisitinians so important to the Arab world now, when it wasn't important prior to the birth of the nation of Isrea? It's because it is militarily imperative that Isreal does not hold this land so that they can, in fact, be pushed into the sea.

I'll say this much about Arafat. If he did, in fact, try and bring about a peaceful settlement to this mess, then we would definitely get that bullet to the brain. But it wouldn't be an Isreali bullet.

Reading the above brought to mind a scene from "Braveheart". Longshanks had sent the princess to try and buy off William Wallace. Wallace turned it down and the princess donated the money to charity, in some form or another. When the king found out about it, he gagged. I can picture Wirtz having the exact same react when he hears about this.

You guys have to remember, in the NFL these are not guarenteed contracts. All the have to do is cut them and obsorb some of the signing bonus in the salary cap.

If Prior is out till late April, without any spring training, it's conceivable it's late May till he is back and pitch 7 innings or so. Losing Prior for possibly two months could actually put the Cubs down in the Pittsburg-Cincinatti area in the standings.

I read somewhere on this board that he was going to be an advance scout for the team, using DirectTV and his recliner as his basic tools.

Getting Griffey is one of those deals that could make or break this team. If they get him, and he stays healthy and productive, it could mean a World Series for this team. On the other hand, if he gets a debiltating injury and loses his bat speed in the near future, he could financially hamstring this franchise for years to come.

Sure. Give the closer's role to a freakin' rookie based on a grand total of 6 spring training innings pitched. Sounds like a plan to me.

I don't feel like picking the Sox makes someone look like a total ass. There are reasons for optimism and for pessimism. I consider Colon our only major loss, and he was barely .500 with us. I expect the following players to have better years, based on the fact they are more mature or had below par years: Rowand, Konerko, Ordonez, Wright, Koch, Garland. I can even see Frank increasing his average, since he's another year remove from the torn tricep. So before you go around everyone who has a different opinion than you "a total ass", stop and consider that opinions are like assholes. Evereyone's got one. Including you.