southsider2k5

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) We could be number one but our cheap ass owner won't pay for better posters. Poor Southsider been carrying this place on his back for years. I heard he was on HGH to pump up his post count...

Damn I miss the old lady, there was nothing like baseball there. The new park is nice, but the feeling just isn't the same.

Man I beat Balta to bad GOP news! Sam Brownback is reportedly dropping out of the Presidental race. Rumor is that he is going to concentrate on running for Gov of KS.

Pushing Daisies is the best of the new shows that I have seen so far. The show is casted and narrated in an odd Dr Suess type fashion. It is quirky and very different. If you are bored with what is on TV, check it out!

Denny Hastert is not going to finish out his term, and is going to be stepping down soon. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/hastert/index.html

So what does a guy like Wasserman work on in winter ball? Are they going to try to get him innings, or work on a new pitch?

No wonder Mitt is rich as hell... He likes to "forget" his wallet! http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...y-returns-.html

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) SS2k, To me thats simple: The govt can not control a persons actions. They can not stop people from murdering out in the streets, they can not stop people from murdering in prison. But what they can control is the govt not wrongfully murdering anyone. As for sending innocents to jail, Ive already covered that. There is a bail out provision, the going rate is about $1mil a year for each year wrongfully in jail. Sure some may die in jail before they ever get the chance to be freed, but if they were on death row they would still have that chance of being murdered by a fellow prisoner, and they would be facing the govt killing them as well. When I was writing the scenario I thought of this situation, but I just left it out because I feel that a prisoners chances of being killed by another prisoner do not change if they are there for life imprisonment or for death penalty, atleast they dont change prior to the time the govt would have put them to death. After that (as in if they would have been put to death in 30 years by state but because there is no death penalty a fellow inmate kills them on their 31st year) then yes the chances of being killed rise exponentially. But once again, the govt's responsibility first is to control that it can control. It can control whether or not it pulls the switch, it will never be able to take away free choice. Otherwise we could just stop murder altogether Well you obviously know the field better than I do, but aren't the general population and the death row prisioners segregated and guarded differently? Maybe it is too much TV, but I was under the impression that death row inmates were in a section by themselves, which was much less populated, and much better watched. I always understood there were many less opportunities for something to happen on death row, than in the regular population, where the lifers are located. Also the government does control bad convictions to some point. They control all the mechanisms of law after a crime has been convicted. They decide who to try, how to try them, and what happens to them after they are convicted. They just as responsible for setting someone up to be murdered, as if they did it themselves. Both people are just as dead, and it is because of the government. I just don't see how the potential of a mistake is grounds for scrapping an entire system. I guess that is just how I see it, whatever that is worth.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) Jenks, Well Ive clearly argued that life imprisonment should be used instead. Therefore they are never getting out of jail afterwards, and can never kill again. So the amount of lifes lost from life imprisonment: 0 Amount of lifes potentially saved: All those wrongfully convicted, as of this time in the 100s, perhaps as science develops (less than 20 years ago DNA evidence was very raw) we will find out that we made even more mistakes. Mistakes that could be prevented. That is my position, if you can prevent an innocent death you should try to. I guess thats why I became a lawyer. Well I don't know about that... What are the odds that some gets killed in prision? I doubt other prisioners wait to find out if a fellow inmate is guilty or innocent "for real" before shanking them. Without knowing the statistics, I would imagine that some people who are actually innocent and in prision do get killed. If they hadn't have been wrongly convicted, you could argue they wouldn't have been murdered. I have a hard time with the arguement that you can't punish someone because of factors like that, because how far do you go? Do you quit sending people to jail because innocent people get convicted, and they might get murdered in prision? They are just as dead as if you executed them right? I would imagine the odds of being killed in prision are better than being executed, right? I wonder how the numbers would actually work out???

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) San Diego County bills Fed for costs from impact of Illegal Immigration Hmmm Maybe he could CC that bill to his own governor while he was at it...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) The Christian groups right now are sitting on several hundred million dollars that will enter this race at some point. There isn't a clear "Jesus in the White House" guy for them so far yet as there was last year, so that money really hasn't been felt yet. Well that is interesting, I wonder why that was left out of every article talking about the campaign fund raising totals, and references to the $3:1 ratio played prominently in them...

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) Boers claims to have a source in the organization. I remember one time towards the end of the season he was talking about 8 players that wouldn't be wearing a MLB Sox uni in 2008 for various reasons. I didn't get the whole list but here are some of the names he mentioned: Garland Aardsma Cintron Hall One of the other sucky relievers KW just traded for last winter, I forget the name We'll see if any of these guys will be back. Bob Seriously, you don't need a "source" for that list. That is about as common sense as you get. If he has mentioned someone like Bobby Jenks or Mark Buehrle for example I might be inclined to believe that, but every name on that list has an intelligent reason for not being here next year, and has been well talked about that they might be gone.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) So you would give up half of your income to charity if you were a millionaire? A lot of millionaires don't give anything close to what Edwards donates. Now see this is what I don't understand. When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner. When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *? Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't. Why the gigantic double standards today?

The sad thing is that all this stupid race is going to do is end up giving us a national primary day, and competely taking the candidates out of all of the small states and leaving them completely in the large states for the entire election cycle. You pretty much are going to have to live somewhere like California or a large city to have your vote matter. Places like New Hampshire and Iowa are going to be rendered pointless.

Anyways, getting us away from John Edwards and back onto task here, there are a couple of interesting things I noticed here. First of all I seemed to recall that the first estimates of this campaign were actually only one billion dollars, and that was supposed to scare the life out of us. Secondly with the Democrats outraising the Republicians at a 3 to 1 rate, it is actually the party who was previously championing campaign finance reform, who is actually milking the system most effectively in this election cycle. All those calls about changing the system have gone strangely quiet, lately.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 08:22 AM) The question is: how much worse can he do than most of the professional candidates will? For serial. Out of this group? Hell he might be the best thing this election has to offer.

A nice write up about the Hawks... http://www.talkbhawks.com/forums/index.php...3entry743

Did anyone else watch the History Channel Mega-Disasters show last night about the theory that lots of diseases are actually brought to the earth by comets and comet dust? The show was interesting, but I was curious what people with more study in these areas thought? Obviously my area of knowledge doesn't include interstellar borne illness, so I was wondering what the story was here...

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) Because you claimed that he didn't give a significant amount of the money he makes to charity. Which is an out and out untruth. You made up a number because apparently you dont want reality to cloud your perception about something. He's a big advocate of helping the less fortunate. And he gives away half of his income in 2006 to the less fortunate. I really don't know how much of a higher standard anyone can expect of him. The parable of the woman who gave her last two coins to the church versus the rich people who gave a lot more money, but really didn't give anything that meant anything comes to mind.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Oh, my God -- from one of the sites: Which is almost as good as her co-host saying Which begs the questions... Can a dog commit a hate crime?

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...s&fext=.jsp

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) For an example of how it matters, take John Edwards...who grew up in a decidedly middle class family but was able to go to college and become a highly successful attorney before entering politics. He now gets criticized for advocating anti-poverty programs because he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor, but he also is, as we've heard many times, the son of a mill worker. Well when your position is that you have to live a morally pure life to be able to say that other should live a morally pure life, I guess it makes sense that the same sort of standards are also going to be applied when you speak out about wealth. The left reeks of hypocrasy for taking delight in the downfalls of people like Larry Craig and Mark Foley, while living the same double standards when it comes to their pet issues such as the enviornment and wealth. For both parties and it is "Do as I say, and not as I do", and it would be nice if ANYONE could look past the letters behind their favorite party, and actually start looking for the two faces in front of the microphone. John Edwards might be the biggest hypocrite on the campaign trail today, and that is saying something. Don't worry if you don't like his morals, he's got others!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) Like a balanced budget? Like illegal immigration

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) I apologize for trying to have a conversation instead of an argument. I'm glad I was right, though. Yeah, you wanted a "conversation". That's pretty funny actually. It would be even funnier if you actually believed it. To be honest, I don't feel like wasting my time with a circular logic arguement with you today. As a matter of a fact I will just outline the arguement, and you can fill in the blanks if you really feel the need. Me-Opinion based on my interpretation of history GP-hyperbole, 20 questions Me-answers ad nausem GP-nitpicks at answers, completely ignoring mainpoint Me-replys to splitting hairs, by trying to bring back the main point. GP-Ignores mainpoint, going back to parsing words. Me-Tries again to explain mainpoint GP-more hyperbole, more questions Me-gives up and walks away from a pointless arguement. Now see how much time I just saved us?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) No, but what's a 'middle class President'? (I don't think Clinton had a ton of money when he ran for Prez., though.) Is it someone that came from the middle class or who remained in the middle class? How would you remain in the middle class and still be an effective President? How would you remain in a small income range and be a politician and win a Governor's chair and win a Senate seat? Hell, by taking those jobs you automatically lose a middle class "slotting," since you're making money now. Please define your terms. Nevermind... you were right. argue on.