AbeFroman

Hmmm... I stole this from Thomas Friedman... but here it is: I wonder how a Congressional vote would go on this proposed amendment: All burning of the American Flag shall be illegal as it is a sign of great defiance against our traditional American values and history. Furthermore, the displaying of the Confederate Flag shall also be banned, as it is a symbol the past defiance against our traditional American values and history. I bet it would fail 0-100

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) This is where a phone database comes in handy. I disagree with this statement.... however, i do like your avatar.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Why do we bother with state borders and governments then? We are the United STATES of America after all. Historically the only reason some states joined the union was because of the protections afforded the states under our consititution, and the way elections and representations were decided was a huge one. If we are going to start ridding ourselves of states rights, we might as well just get rid of the borders and governments and balance out the inequities that result because of them. Wait... your argument in favor of state's rights is that the Federal government should control how State's assign their electoral votes?! So it should be the Federal Government's job to make sure state's rights are maintained by forcing them into a voting scheme they disapprove of? I don't mean to offend you, but the "State's Rights" argument actually supports California's Popular vote plan more than it attacks it. Effectively, you are taking the power OUT of local government and placing it with the Feds. Your post actually advances a strong Federally Controlled electoral college while abrogating the rights of each state to determine the course of its own voting procedure. There is NOTHING unconsitutional about california's proposal. It just strikes me that if you are a "State's Rights" guy, then you ought to permit each state to assign its electoral votes as it sees fit... The purpose of Federalism is to allow each state to govern itself based on the will of its citizens. States presently everything from speed limits to marriage laws; I don't see any reason why electoral voting should be different. Doesn't a "State's Rights" advocate trust the local citizenry to govern themselves?

Sat next to him a cubs/sox brawl game. He was going nuts. Go soxman

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 2, 2006 -> 03:38 AM) This bill would totally nullify the will of the voters in the state. I can't believe anyone is endorsing this. Considering that California is almost always a guarenteed huge chunk of blue EC votes why aren't the Dems howling about this? Am I missing something here? The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast. I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office. Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president. I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 09:27 PM) I called the sweep in the series preview. And it's happening. i hope you are right.... we haven't had our swagger in a week or so

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Gload? As in "Ross" Gload? He's still on the team? Actually, I'm surprised he isn't DH'ing and Thome playing first so he can get some practice before they hit NL parks next week. I agree... I sorta doubted that Ozzie would give thome any time in the field. Its not really a decision I totally agree with, but I lean toward giving Oz the benefit of the doubt after 2005

I could b**** and yell about this... but how can I? If I was mayor, I'd do the same damn thing

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ May 31, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) note to anyone in a fantasy league... pick up Jason Botts right the f*** now. well... the kid is striking out at almost a 50% clip in his career (17ks in 39 abs). Thats reggie jackson-esque

How bad are the cubs? Well, yesterday, the cubs actually managed to walk Jeff Francoeur... thats bad

Thanks hi8is.... its my first game thread.... actually, I'm not even sure if I did it right

lets get a W....

I dont know how justin speier's day job is the third base coah for the cubs and moonlights as a rp for the jays... seems like a lot of travel

thank god... they are pulling lilly

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 26, 2006 -> 08:05 PM) We going to go through Griffey rumors again in July? no... the reds will still be reasonably close in that division

anderson should have let that pitch hit him.... he he gets hurt, he's already got five games in front of him

and here come the yankees

QUOTE(daa84 @ May 26, 2006 -> 07:47 PM) better check your math greg....32 my bad... i read it on an other cub-related message board.... it seemed high, i should have checked it out

well, we have one guy who can hit lefties

i know its the wrong forum, but the cubs pitchers have walked 45 batter in the last five games...

QUOTE(aboz56 @ May 26, 2006 -> 07:42 PM) If Hawk says he hasn't gotten hit, how does he justify the 11 hits including 3 home runs? including on home run that is just about to land..... .....now

QUOTE(striker62704 @ May 26, 2006 -> 07:33 PM) Overbay stole a base? It's a sad sad day he stole third.... nice avatar by the way

thats a big home run

comcast needs to hire a better looking ho than gail fisher for its in game commercial reports...