YASNY

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) Ok Col. Nathan R. Jessup. For what party is he running for POTUS?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) Well, my apologies then, YASNY. I guess it is a minor point to you. I'm not sure if that is the case with DrunkBomber. But to me, it's not a minor point to accuse people of racism because they are outspoken about race relations or their country. Apologies accepted. And to me, it's not a minor point when someone who is trying to become POTUS joins an organization (church or otherwise) to where the leader of said organization spews anti_American and racially tinged hatred.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) Why don't we bring this issue into EVERY thread in Soxtalk. I can't wait to discuss Obama's pastor in today's game thread. Don't call me out on distorting the truth if you don't want to hear the truth.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:36 AM) Honest question here... Has there been a President since Nixon who actually owned up to doing something (big) stupid or illegal? It certainly wasn't Bill Clinton.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Clinton has stuff that hasnt been "public" in a long time. I heard an interview with Dick Morris the other day about all her skeletons they have tried to hide int he past and are most likely hiding today. Namely Bill CLinton's conections to a group in Dubai. The Clinton's have a s***load of skeletons in their collective closet. They go way beyond the Dubai connection. My point is that Obama is relatively new on the scene. There very well could be some more skeletons spill out of his closet. Time will tell. You have to remember he has a very vicious opponent in Mrs. Clinton and she may be waiting for her moment to go nuclear on him, if she has anything. We'll see how this plays out and Obama may very well come up smelling like roses. I don't deny that is a possibility at this point.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) That's a distortion of the truth. If you don't like him you don't like him but you don't have to do that. It's not a distortion. The man was a member of that church for over 20 years. Personally, when he says never heard that anti-American rhetoric, I think he's lying through his pearly whites. If he did hear it, he should have instantly walked out and disassociated himself. This is an issue that needs much more scrutiny, not just an "oh well". Sorry, but this man is trying to become POTUS. If he can't stand the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) I am going to predict there will be a few things in there that aren't "good". But this will be shadowed by anything the Clintons finally get around to releasing. SHe has some MAJOR skeletons in the closet. No doubt about that. But the Clinton's have been in spotlight for a long time. Who knows if Obama can stand up to the same, extended scrutiny? I hear the bones of Rev. Wright quite loudly.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:15 AM) MANATEE COUNTY - Prosecutors are moving ahead with a case against one of two 93-year-old men picked up during undercover prostitution stings. In the case of Frank Milio, prosecutors have issued subpoenas and plan to take him to trial in April. Milio, according to police records, tried to pay $20 in November to an undercover officer on 14th Street West. Milio recently told the Herald-Tribune he was only flirting with the woman. "I haven't had that in years," he said. "Ninety-three is kind of old." Carlos Underhill, 93, will not be charged, although he does not deny stopping to chat with the "good-looking girl" who made eyes at him and turned out to be an undercover officer. Police say Underhill was willing to pay $30 for sex and that he promised to come back a few hours later to consummate the deal. Prosecutors say that they cannot move ahead with the criminal case because there is no way to prove Underhill planned to come back. Underhill was fined $150 for trying to pick up a prostitute in 1990, when he was 75. In the latest case, he says, he was not cruising Tamiami Trail for sex: He just wanted to chat with the buxom woman who smiled at him as he drove past. "All I was going to do was talk," he said Monday. "It wasn't for sex. I am 93, you know." Too bad he's not a Democratic Governor. Then he'd not have charges pressed against him.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) How do you misspeak about something that never happened. I can see if this had happened to her some other flight to some other place...and she was saying I misspoke, I was thinking of such and such. But when you just fabricate something out of thin air...how can you use misspeaking as an excuse. You weren't misrembering or misspeaking..you were bulls***ting... I agree. Just like Obama was bulls***ting when he said he never heard Wright spew his anti-America hatred in 20 years of being a member of his church. Neither one is credilble.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:08 AM) I've asked both you and DrunkBomber now several times to explain to me how Michelle Obama's senior thesis, her possibly being the benefactor of Affirmative Action, and her not being proud of her country make her a racist. Neither of you have yet to attempt to logically claim how you've come to that conclusion. Rather, you're basing it entirely on the Obama's involvement in their church and with their Pastor, which I have not challenged. But if that's the case, this entire thread is nonsense. Neither of you have addressed that point, or my plea for a logical explanation. So it isn't me who is "stooping" to anything. It's you and DrunkBomber who are "stooping" to accusing Michelle Obama of being a racist because of the aforementioned reasons in this thread without logically explaining how that is the case. One last time. I have said that in my opinion the thesis, AA thing is a MINOR issue and not the basis to the crux of my opinion. I have also said that I'd be willing to drop that part of the argument because it is such a minor issue. However, you seem to have your claws in this issue because nobody will elaborate on the point. OK dude! I don't care. I concede that damn point to you. Now, as for your remark about this should be an extension of whatever thread you mentioned and not a separate thread, it wasn't a seprate thread when it started. It was part of one of the Democrat threads ... Dems only or Dem candidates, I don't recall. However, if you go to my first post in this thread, you'll where I started and have not swayed from that point. Every post I've made on this topic has been supporting the fact that if McCain would have had the history Obama had, he'd be fileted and grilled by now ... and/or parrying off the ridiculous posts that attempt to pick and choose minor issues and won't accept the overall crux of my point. I still insist that the overall body of evidence raises many red flags as to Obama's stance on race. This nitpicking on your part is no longer necessary and I gladly yeild and concede the relatively, in comparison, minor point to you. I give. You win! Now go pat yourself on the back and feel good about winning the point. Congrats.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) Sinbad/Sheryl Crow in '08! That's an awfully sexist thing to say. Crow is more popular and should be on top of the ticket. Besides, she's better looking.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:58 AM) Why is it that people constantly let Mr. Bush off the hook. "Oh, it was just Cheney and Rumsfeld, if Bush had it to do over again he'd know better". The dude still to this day defends the Iraq war as practically the greatest decision he ever made, at every opportunity to pull back he chooses to escalate the conflict, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that would convince me that if Bush had it to do over again, he'd be more open, more practical, or more dovish. He got the war he wanted with the people he wanted leading it. Agreed.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) It simply comes down to who gives this team a better chance to win. And with three questionable arms at the back of the rotation, I tend to think that BA's defense + extra base ability negates Owens' speed. Nothing against Owens because he might perform better that I expect, but I agree with you.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) Its karma, and the pouting about it is hilarious. The democrats suggested and failed at doing the samething in Michigan, and no one seemed to think it was a bad idea then. Now because someone might have been successful at it, now it is a crime? That is too rich. Imagine that.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:11 AM) Could the play have been made, probably. But running full speed and trying to stop all your momentum and catch that ball (which the wind effected as well) is not an easy play at all. So, I do not blame Ramirez for those 2 runs, nor would I blame any other 2B for those two runs if they couldn't come up with the ball. What if it would have been one of your whipping boys? Would you have been so understanding? I am very pleased with what Ramirez has shown so far, but defensively he leaves a lot to be desired. The play should have been made.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) then let's get ride of the law in Ohio and it wont matter anymore. Let me be clear, I am on YOUR side on this. While i dont think you should be voting "against" someone, it is your right to do so. I am just arguing leagally, they may have a case in Ohio. I agree with whoever posted earlier that there is almost NO chance this gets prosecuted. but they can. They CAN'T. If they do, the whole system is exposed as a sham.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) I dont think what they did is right. Elections are supposed to be where you vote for people you like, not against people you dont like. but in Michigan it isnt ILLEGAL there. It IS in Ohio. I can vote for or against anyone I choose for whatever reason I choose.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) In Ohio, yes. It's tampering and fraud. We can argue if it should be a law or not. but in Ohio it IS. It cannot be proven! Period. No way can they convict anyone for saying anything before they step into the voting booth.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) I'm not registered with either party, but I have said publicly that I was going to "vote for Obama before I vote against him"... So what? That's *FRAUD* now? Wow, you're drinking some major kool aid. I guess it was ok when the Democrats did it in Michigan, isn't it? It cracks me up how people get their panties in a wad and start running around with the lawsuits and all that s***, but in Michigan, it's "just part of the process". People like this are hypocritical douchebags. I better stop now. Oh, you are doing just fine. They walked out on the plank. Keep sawing.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) In the case where I stated the guy made a post on a message board, he stated he was a Republican (well, insinuated) and then was given a Democratic ballot. Yes there needs to be some more data collected to fully prove, but the intention is pretty obvious. Someone can say whatever they want in public or on a message board. They cannot prove how he voted in the booth. If they can do so, then the whole damn process will be exposed as a scam.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) Well yes, they couldn't possibly prosecute on vote. What they COULD do, but won't and shouldn't, is fine people for changing their registration for fraudlent purpose. For example, someone dumb enough to write "FOR ONE DAY ONLY" on the registration change card could be fined or cited. But again, they won't. Even then, someone could say I felt strongly enough in favor of X candidate that I wanted to make my voice heard but I didn't want a permanent party switch. There is no way in hell they could prosecute this.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) Getting ready for softball season. Starting to lob them early. LOL ... Nice response. *salute*

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:00 AM) Well you and I both know that a large part of the voting populace does not have half a brain. Don't set me up like that ... it's too damn tempting.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:59 AM) Very Olbermannesque of you.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) Hell, *I* publicly said that I was going to vote for Obama even though I'm not a "registered Democrat". BUT, much like exit polls, I could *say publicly* I was going to do something, but how the hell are you ever going to see MY ballot to know how I voted? I pick ANY ballot and no one knows how I *really* voted. DING DING DING. We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!