southsider2k5

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 06:57 PM) Game 1 of the ALDS this year I was sitting in the UD with a buddy...he went to the bathroom and came back laughing...he told me that while he was waiting in line for the stall in the mens room that he thought he heard two people in the stall, then all of a sudden he heard a girl moaning, and the smacking of skin together....he said everyone in line just started laughing...seems like the UD is the place to enjoy some adult activities Some of you youngins would have loved what went on at the old ballpark. it was CRAZY.

Turns out there was a coordinated effort by the Presidents administration to "first block and then limit the probe as a way of taking pressure off an administration that was already beset by scandals." Not surprised? The investigation was of former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cicsneros. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9277 Also the White House is alledging specifically that the Clinton/Gore administration executed warrentless searches. Also they stated that the Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick had testified that the President did have authority to engage in physical searches without warrents. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6GR08O.html

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) How bout this one. Bearsssssssssss versus Chuck Norris Including Ditka? BEARS!

Did somebody just say something?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:55 AM) Mayor Nagin and the Chocolate factory. Nice. Apparently you can be racist on MLK day. Good point. If Chesterton Indiana had been wiped off of the map by a tornado, and the mayor got up after words and said I want to restore my "Vanilla City", you can bet your sweet ass that there would be an uproar. Instead in this case, people are just rolling their eyes. Where is the uproar for diversity here? I don't understand how this is not racist?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) thats good to know ^^^ Winger Nice well thought out contribution...

There is no positive for small states here. Due to the fact that their population densities there is no way that you can convince me that a canditate will listen MORE to people whose votes would be more expensive to gather, vs somewhere they can raise both cash and campaign issues to a much larger group of people. I don't understand how you can dismiss the small amount of electoral votes from a state, but then try to honestly tell me that they will be MORE important, with statistically LESS influence per capita? That makes zero sense to me. You are honestly trying to tell me that if Wyoming had 1/3 the influence of a national election that canditates would make more of an effort to win their votes? With limited resources and more limited by time, canditates are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. Dilluding the influence of someone isn't going to help them at all. Plus like I said earlier, these kinds of checks against majority power are present all over our government. We have the filibuster to give the minority a chance to be heard. On budget bills they need a 60% majority for passage, and have to start in a certian house of congress. We have a complex system for updating the constitution to insure that one party getting into power can't rewrite whatever rules for society that they want. Our forefathers were enlightened enough in many respects to know that 50% +1 might not always be the best thing. I don't see this being any different.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) I just don't think that removing the electoral college will curtail states' rights at all, nor do I think that small states would be marginalized. First, regarding small states being marginalized, let's give this some thought. Right now, if Wyoming goes to a candidate, they get a whole 3 electoral votes (making all WY votes fairly meaningless). On the other hand, if we have an actual national vote (since the Presidency is a NATIONAL office, not a state office), then every vote in Wyoming has the same value as every vote in California. That's the idea, isn't it? The electoral ration between CA and WY is what, 53 to 3? Roughly the same as the population ratio? Except that ultimately, the votes in CA are overvalued in the electoral system because of the bulking of all those votes. Remove the electoral college, and the system becomes MORE fair for smaller states. Second, regarding the curtailing of states' rights, the state doesn't execute a right in the election anyway. The popular vote in each state decides the electoral college vote, so what rights exactly are being lost? Finally, as far as large urban areas becoming more dominant, that's also not the case. Why? Because large urban areas themselves have a specific bias in most cases (generally to the left, as it happens). Candidates won't be campaigning by state anymore - they'll be campaigning to a certain set of political views, which might be urban, or rural. Either way, they are forced to go to those areas all over the country, in either case. Again, removing the electoral college makes the system more fair, and as far as I can tell, increases the importance of votes in the states which are currently considered gimmes for one party or the other (like, say, WY and other small states, as well as some big ones). Actually that is completely wrong. Because of the guarentee of a certian number of electoral votes, the states at the bottom of the population ladder actually are over represented when it comes to people per electoral vote. California had almost 34 million people as of the last election. Wyoming had just under 500,000. So in other words it takes about 650,000 people to equal one electoral vote in Cali, where as it is about 166,000 in Wyoming. Wyoming wouldn't even have one electoral vote if they were a part of California. And please spare me the ideal that people will travel all over the country for votes. In a system where cash is king, canditates are looking for places they can raise the largest amount of cash the quickest. The system is already geared towards the big states as is. Canditates know that they can gather a large amount of people quickly and make a buck. They stop in small states now only to put on a dog and pony show. If you reduce the value of small states even further, why would they stop there at all now. At least the system we have overvalues them in the electoral college to provide some inducement, get rid of that and you water them down even more.

With all of the great work the Sox do in the communities, I expected nothing less from them

I know my first CD purchase was Cloud 9 by George Harrison was back in Nine Teen hundred and Eighty Eight. As for cassette it was either Fore or Sports by Huey Lewis and the News in 1983, whichever one was released first.

And people wonder why we have a savings rate nationally of 0.2 when you subtract out forced and involuntary savings. Yes that's right. $99.80 of every $100 is spent.

Doesn't anyone remember their history? Remember the Great Compromise? Small states rights? The system was set up this way to ensure that large states didn't completely dominate this new union. In today's world, it wouldn't necesarily be large states, but large urban areas would become the only thing that matters. I know someone already alluded to this, but the United States wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for this system that recognized the power of majority rule on one hand, yet gave a nod to the minority rights on the other hand. Also remember that it isn't JUST the electoral college that gives this kind of credence to minority rights... ahem filibuster anyone? Think about it, if you were trying to win only popular votes, why would you ever leave the 6 county area around Chicago? How many rural issues would ever get heard when urban areas would be the only ones that mattered?

I offered a question on premenient domain.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) What would you guys pay to see what happens if we put this guy, Jesus, and Pat Robertson in a room together? Throw in the President of Iran and Flava Flave and we have a reality show for VH1

Yeah!!!

Fun thread. Count me in. This is me at the ballpark 3 1/2 years old during the summer of the southside hitmen.

We were considering Prior for Contreras I guarentee you. We wanted Prior for 3 years instead of Contreras for one. This isn't a shock at all.

And this guy could own a nuclear weapon in as little as months...

I would much rather of seen him brought to justice for his crimes, but the fact he won't be able to kill anyone else, is comforting in a shallow kind of way.

Looks very nice.

That's all I have to say about this one. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc.../601130327/1071

I do really like the ones that have the ST logo in them somewhere. That way we could use the ST even without the full logo and it would still look very nice.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) PLease explain what you think my views Cause persona I feel that everyone should be equally treated.. NOOOOOO the humaity.. Why would we want that? Except for obviously the Mexicans like you said earlier. The funny thing is that the the God you keep denying demands that all peoples be treated as you would treat yourself, that no one is any better in his eyes than anywhere else. But I am sure the bible got that from Goebles or something...

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) Just cause Hitler was bad doesn't make the group bad.. Isn't that your logic of priests? So you are telling me that Goebles was a good guy? Besides I thought it was your logic that one bad apple makes the whole bunch bad? Hmmm, maybe you are waking up? Nah, after seeing your views on minorities, it makes much more sense that you would be able to quote Nazi leadership so easily.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) I was waiting for you to come up with the statement of " you can not define a day" I laugh at that statement, for the simple reason it is an easy cop out. Now you can make-up any claim you want and of course you are right. Which then makes your arguement to you correct. When in fact it is nothing further from the truth. Thank you for showing your true colors. So asking a priest why Dinosaurs are nowhere to be mentioned in the bible is a question they can't answer.. Other than the obvious answer (which it is not to ou) Why can't they answer this? I have lived on the otherside.. What makes me need to look at the lies and decent that are religion? I know them, I was like you in my youth. Man created God..I have given you evidence on the turnside, on how God- created man is untrue, that we have evolved. If that is true.. Then one can use that muscle in between your ears and state, if god never created man.. Then one had to create the other. Why would dinosaurs be in the bible? Baseball isn't in the bible, yet here we are all talking about it. And you want to use that to prove something? Thank you Carl Everett for that great piece of logic. Call it an easy cop out if you like, but it is the truth. A day is never defined as 24 hours. Do you really think that God who created the heaven and the universe would be subject to a man made calendar millenia after the fact? Now that is laughable all by itself. It also AGAIN goes back to the imperfections of man trying to understand the universe he lives in with their relative level of understanding. That STILL DOES NOT PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXSIST. All that proves is what we are told repeatedly in the bible that man cannot possibly understand. And again, you still have not proven that man created God. All you have proven is that you built your house on a sand foundation as usual, and like every single other arguement you have been in, that house has been washed away.