kevin57

I know we've all been waiting and longing for Joe Crede to be the offensive threat everyone said he would be. Looking at his final weeks of 2005, I think 2006 will be his "Jon Garland" be all you can be year.

A brilliant and beautiful move. Its genesis must have come from the Cub organization.

The emotional scarring from rape is complicated 100x over by a child as the "reminder" of that violation. Still, it seems pretty clear that all abortions also leave a scar on the mother's psyche. So, I don't see how a second scarring event heals the first one. I would therefore probably give the child up to adoption. This would remove the child as a constant reminder of the event from the family while giving it to a family where he/she can be loved and cherished. For all we know, that child could grow up and contribute enormously to the good of our earth.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) 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. I don't understand. What's racist?

I say we sick Ozzie on him. I'd love to see how El Presidente would handle the withering mouth of El Capitán.

Any southsider who dares say, "Go Cubs!" even as a "go" signal for some nefarious deal, deserves to be in the pen.

I agree that when she's gone, so is the organ. I dunno. A whole lot of the music that is played between innings is so loud and obnoxious that I do not find it one bit enjoyable.

This would be good news, indeed.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Again, I would disagree. There is nothing close to a consensus of archaeologists who claim to have found enough evidence to say that Jesus existed. They haven't said he didn't either, to be fair. I would like to see some type of comparison of the amount of evidence that we have for Caesar. and the amount we have for Jesus. I don't believe the piles would be the same size at all, but I'm open to hearing an argument on this. We'll have to agree to disagree It isn't always a question of "quantity" of evidence, rather "quality." Read the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived around the year 100, or the Roman historian Tacitus for a description of the early Christian Church. As far as archaeologists and Jesus, I would agree that with him personally, they haven't found much evidence, but many of the "myths" of the Old Testament have been shown to be at least credible. Heck, in 2000 years, there may be skeptics who doubt the veracity of the White Sox winning the WS in 2005. All depends how high you want to set the bar.

The Catholic Church has done more to help people in 3rd World Countries than any other organization. Can anyone say Mother Teresa, or Catholic schools in India (which are kicking the s*** out of our school system), or AIDS clinics in Africa, etc., etc., etc. As for the Judas re-reading, I don't think it will have much legs.

Option #2

Mrs. Alito's exit in tears guarantees her husband's confirmation...without a filibuster, and without a whole lot of acrimony. I'm not looking at her tears cynically. I would guess they're quite genuine. I'm just assessing the political implications.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 08:12 PM) Many scholars don't even agree on the IDENTITY of many of Jesus's followers, and some scholars dispute the existence of Jesus himself. I personally haven't decided on that. In any case, close followers of any religion have been known to die for their beliefs, and their deep love of anything doesn't mean it's not misguided. I'm sure the Heaven's Gate folks had a deep love of that Applewhite? guy, but I don't think it proves that the Heaven's Gate belief system has any more merit than anything else. From "deconstructionists" there's dispute about Jesus' existence and his followers, but deconstructionists get their Ph.D's from pushing these arguments. Archeologists have verified, or at least given credence, to a whole lot of things that the demythologizers thought they debunked a century ago. The truth is that there is as much historical evidence that Jesus existed as there is that Augustus Caesar existed. Using modern criteria of "evidence," the existence of either one could be placed in doubt. My argument about people dying for Jesus was meant to refute the single argument that the faith is a fabrication (a point that has been raised from time-to-time in this thread). To the point that people can be misguided in their faith, well, that's another topic, but Christianity was not concocted as some spiritual snake-oil formula.

I find it personally deeply offensive to go to the "all priests are pedophiles" argument on a thread that started about churches, then devolved into whether there is a God, and who knows where else this discussion will go. If someone were to post that all Blacks, or even most Blacks are this, that, or the other thing, they would likely get banned. When was the last time anyone saw a movie about how evil Imans are inciting all Muslims to kill Christians? None, right? Well, on TV and movies, it is commonplace to see priests slandered FAR worse than any other clergy. As to the "Bible is fiction" argument, what do you say to this? --It is a FACT that nearly every close follower of Jesus was martyred for their belief in Jesus. Now, it is one thing to make something up, but how many people would be willing to die for their lie? Only deep conviction and deep love for this person Jesus and his truth would give anyone to courage to do that.

If people have been following my posts, they'd have a pretty good idea about what church I attend.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 06:39 PM) I certainly wouldn't want to – if I had been a member of a campus anti-diversity organization, that is. :rolly If 30 years ago I was an active member of the KKK, you don't think that knowing this today would shed the tiniest bit of light on where my ideologies lie? KKK? You mean like Senator Robert Byrd (D. WVa.)?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) wait, wait, wait--you're a priest?!?!?! Yup, that's what I said.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) I would have figured priests were about even....just as catholics are about split as well. Yup, that's what I said.

Americans have never reacted well to court fiats. Roe v. Wade made a blanket rule for every State and in virtually every circumstance. We are a representative democracy. Policy should be set by elected bodies, not appointed jurists. It's the same mistake most liberal groups make. They figure they either can't get their proposals through legislatures, or they're too lazy to do the heavy lifting that those efforts require. Gay rights would be a current example. If it's handled through local and state laws, people will more willingly accept it, but for a judge to set the rules, that's going to backfire...and it has.

appears to have the same name as me.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) My Priest is exactly the opposite. His name is Kennedy. When my first daughter (Reagan) was being baptized, along with 5 other kids, as he said her name he added, "Who's name is a little too Republican for me." Mind you, he said this to the entire congregation. He also offered up an alternative Presidential name: Kennedy. As a priest, I can tell you that priests politically break down pretty much as society does, republican and democrat, liberal and conservative. Which I consider a shame. From the gospel and our respective traditions, we should have the privilege of critiquing the entire political spectrum, engage in value-oriented debates. Many, though, are in the hip pocket of one party or another. :headshake

Both Roberts and Alito "danced" to one degree or another in answering the questions. I would rather have a nominee be upfront to these arrogant "mini-kings" in the Senate, but when they get their little egos offended, they exact revenge (e.g., a filibuster). The bottom line is that the people have twice elected Bush as president. He gets to nominate judges. So long as they are competent and morally upright--and no one alleges that Alito is anything but--they should be confirmed. When the uber-liberal Ginsberg or Bryer was nominated, you didn't hear this sort of ideological talk.

Thanks for this thread. Great place where GOPers can chat (ignoring the immoral occupacion of foreigners here). I'm no troll. GOP here for a variety of reasons. We should criticize the Prez, and the Congress under our control on those points where they have sold out. I don't like the spending, which if it was being done by Carter and Tip would enrage us. Etc. At the same time, the Dems are offering nothing except cynicism, negativity, and back-stabbing. Not a way to "sell" any product, including politics.

Simple, and not terribly creative. Kevin is my middle name, and the name which my family calls me. I was born in '57.

I'm not a hater, but I'm not a homer, either. A couple of weeks ago, I thought the Bears could make the Super Bowl, but the AFC being so dominant, they would mop the floor with any competitor from the NFC. After watching last weekend's games, however, I'm thinking that the Bears may be outmatched before they ever get to the Superbowl.