YASNY

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:55 AM) The simple fact that is being looked at in the the most recent primaries might be enough to dissuade some voters from doing it in the upcoming ones. Any voter with half a brain will know that they can't do jacks*** about it.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:45 AM) if you lived in Ohio, yes. It's voter fraud. Prove your case, man.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:53 AM) No way they prosecute this. That would be a nightmare for all involved. Its a huge stretch to call it fraud anyway. There is no way in hell they COULD prosecute this.

I guess the flaw is so obvious, that I don't have to elaborate.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) What's interesting is the video at the bottom of the article quotes a message board post bragging about how a guy commented out loud at polling place that he was switching to mess with the democrats. Track down the user name, and who it is registered to and you have a case. Track it to him listening to the pill pusher and you have aiding criminal activity. Ah but there is one major flaw in what you state.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:42 AM) I doubt it would ever happen but if voter fraud could somehow be proved the voters could be fined and given jail time. Chance of this occurring is approximately .00001% So, you are saying that if I lived in Texas and was a registered Republican and voted for Hillary in the primary even though I have publically stated that I think she's lower than pond scum, that I could be fined for such a dispicable act?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:36 AM) The voters can be fined for this. Could prevent voters in future voting states to think twice. Oh please elaborate.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:22 AM) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ Did anyone have a chance to watch this? It was VERY interesting. I was probably watching Fox News.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) Limbaugh's Dem primary 'dirty tricks' being investigated No legs to this. Limbaugh has 1st amendment rights, even if he is a conservative. All he did was talk.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 01:32 AM) oh come on, are you being serious about that pop up? That ball was in no-man's land. You can't blame anyone for that. Oh come on. Ramirez should have made that play. He overran the ball. It should have been caught and he never even got leather on it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:07 AM) A think a lot of independents like myself will be voting for McCain, should that happen. I'm not going to comment or make any predictions ... but it would fun to watch.

It's going to be very interesting around here if Hillary actually is able to manipulate the nomination.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 06:35 AM) You know, every politician lies, or at the very least makes exaggerations. It really depends what's being lied about that makes it so bad. Kilpatrick messing around with someone other than his wife I really don't care about that much and it's different from Spitzer's problems but even still Kilpatrick created his own situation so he doesn't have much to complain about. It's different in the fact that Spitzer broke one law, and Kilpatrick broke another.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:42 PM) Well, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on anything, so that's entirely a personal decision of your own. I'm just looking for some logic. If you are going to stoop to the point of implying that I'm not using logic, then okay. You win. I quit. End of discussion.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:23 PM) If that's the case, then this entire thread is duplicative of the "Obama's Pastor" thread and therefore, should be merged. If you or DrunkBomber cannot point out to me how the senior thesis, her possible benefactor status of Affirmative Action, and her comments about not being proud of her country have anything to do with her being racist, than those issues have no business even being part of the equation. As I said earlier, I will not criticize anyone for being leery of the Obama's being part of that church. It doesn't particularly bother me, because people do all sorts of weird s*** when it comes to religion, but I can understand how some people would be somewhat concerned about it. I guess I agree with NSS- it doesn't change my opinion, and most of those making the biggest fuss about it probably weren't going to vote for Obama anyways. I have to go to work, but I'll say this real quick. At one point in this campaign season, Obama was a viable option. No longer the case, however.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:09 PM) No, it is not clear enough for me. For one moment, take the participation in the church out of the equation. Now explain to me, using the other things you use in your post, that there is a strong possibility that there is some racist sentiments. I don't see the connection between not being proud of your country and being a racist. I also don't see why simply because one was a benefactor of a system put in place by our federal government that they therefore must be proud of this country. I also don't see why being a benefactor of such a system therefore precludes one from discussing how one felt at an institution, even if the mere fact that that person was at that institution at all may have been because they were a benefactor of the aforementioned system. Please, someone, explain this to me. I'm not taking the church participation out of the equation because that IS part of the equation. That's a big part of the equation. You keep harping on the one minor point and ask how that makes her a racist. It's a small part of the equation, one that I would be more willing to disregard than the church issue. I'm not going to get into a pissing match over this relatively minor issue. It's whole body of the equation that makes me jadedly look at the what comes out on the other side of the equal sign.

I

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 09:56 PM) I'm saying that there have been racists there before and somehow the country survived. I'm not promoting it by any means. I'm just saying that for all we know, Clinton and McCain are racist as well. There's more secret racism today than there used to be. Years ago, people were more bold and overt. Sure, there is that possibility. As opposed to the probabilty of racism in the Obama household.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 09:52 PM) Well, I, for one, don't understand alot of things that people do for religion, so I can't speak for them in that regard. I can see how their affiliation with that church could be interpreted, and so I won't jump into that argument. And we do have a 25 page thread on that, so I'll save that discussion for that thread. But as for the Affirmative Action issue, her senior thesis, her comment about being proud of her country, I ask you to respond to this post I made a few hours ago and connect the dots for me, because I'm just not able to make or even see the logical leap some of you are making in suggesting she is racist. That single issue does not connect the dots to make her a racist. The whole body of my post that you quoted does indicate that there is a strong possibility that there is some racist sentiments. Clear enough?

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 09:48 PM) Like there's never been a racist in the White House before. So you think it's fine to have a racist in the White house?

Whether or not Michelle Obama can be slam dunk proven to be a racist is not the point. Jeremiah Wright is on the record as saying some very hateful things with racial overtones to them. That is a fact. The Obamas were members of his church. That's an established fact. Wright performed the Obamas' marriage ceremony. That's a fact. Wright performed the Obama children's bartismal ceremonies. That's a fact. He was also named godfather to those children. Another fact. Michelle Obama recently stated that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Again, fact. She stated so after probably getting into Princeton due to AA, based on the posted Newsweek story. That is a logical conclusion at this point, but has not been established as hard fact. Based on all of the above, there is plenty there to raise a red flag to the possibly that this lady may very well harbor some racist pov's and by logical extension, her husband as well. There is too much smoke for there not to be some fire, imho, and I do not want this couple in the White House. Of course, even with all of the above, they aren't being called racist in every venue of the national media. They'd have to do something like jokingly calling someone a nappy headed ho for that to happen. One incident like that will get you labeled a racist. An entire adult lifetime of actions affiliated with a proven racist doesn't 'prove' anything.

The previous article was from CNN. This one is from the the NY Times. I still don't know his party affiliations. Oh, I stand corrected. This article does eventually mention that he's a Democrat. 7th paragraph.

Hmmm ... I wonder what party this guy is from.

QUOTE(almagest @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) We won 95 games in 2000. From '01 - '04 the problem wasn't defense, it was a bad rotation and a bad bullpen. I think you're overrating defense a bit, especially at third base. Up the middle defense matters far more than the corners. A defensive play that prevents a 2 out bases loaded double is just as effective as a 2 out bases loaded double with the stick. Never realized that defense could be overrated.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 12:14 PM) I disagree. I'm not saying that substantial behavioral change will occur quickly, but we are not as dependent on our current transportation practices as one might think. Necessity is the mother of invention. That's under the assumption that invention is not surpressed.