WCSox

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) You really think there is no difference, huh? You don't see the difference between the right to PURCHASE alcohol (notice the key verb there) and the right to VOTE (again, key verb)? You see, one requires money. The other does not. if there was a Constitutional right to free, unabated access to alcohol, then they'd be the same thing. There's another Constitutional Ammendment that gives Americans the right to bear arms. And in many places, one needs a license to own a firearm. The fact that the government isn't giving out the licenses for free (or the guns, for that matter) is irrelevant.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 08:09 PM) Its clear you don't understand what constitutes a legal right. And if I'm of legal age to purchase alcohol but cannot produce proof of my age, I'm denied my Constitutional right to purchase alcohol. There's no difference.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) How cute. Not to mention true. :rolly That's called negligence. Uncle Sam isn't reponsible for that, either.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) It's legal to walk to the voting booth. That costs nothing. It's legal to wear old clothes to the voting booth (which you can obtain freely if you need it badly enough). It's not legal to ask someone to pay to exercise their right to vote. Is spending 20 bucks to get an ID going to make anyone who votes, not? Probably not. But its the principle of it. You don't make people pay to vote. You just don't. Everyone over the age of 20 has to pay to obtain some sort of photo ID necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages (which we have the Constitutional RIGHT to buy/sell/drink). Nobody complains about that. I completely agree that poll taxes are wrong. But if the problem is that poor people can't afford $30 for their voting cards, I'll gladly give them the money out of my own pocket... right after I take back the contribution that my taxes make towards their subsidized housing.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) OK. How about $20 to go to Church? You need clothing to go to church. It's the individual's job to pay for that, not the government. Uncle Sam won't fill the collection plate, either. It's not the government's job to supply one with a computer and internet connection for blogging. It's the individual's job to buy their own shoes as well. So, if these same people who can't afford a once-in-a-lifetime $30 payment for an ID card also need a free ride to the voting booth, is it the government's job to supply bus fare as well? Is it also the government's job to also supply them with clothing so that they don't break indecent exposure laws on their way to the voting booth?

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) couldnt agree more. some people dont have id's. plain and simple. to require them to go out and spend $ to get one, just so they can fulfill their constitutional right, is insane. Given that people need to pay money for food and shelter to fulfill their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't think that asking for $30 or $40 one-time processing charge for a national ID is a big deal.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 06:26 PM) The result of the meeting is Iran referring to the new Iraqi government as a friend in the region. Last time I checked, when we met the North Koreans, they didn't go around saying, "The U.S. is a trusted friend." As opposed to Iraq officially referring to Iran as a "friend in the region." You don't think that Iran's comments were meant to be a swipe at the U.S.? Like I said before, I'm sure that a large segment of Iraqis (particularly the Shiites) are going to be sympathetic to Iran for obvious reasons. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those sentiments will be reflected in official government policy. I like this quote: Iraq and Iran are talking because it's important for them to peacefully coexist. Unlike the U.S. and North Korea, who are halfway around the world from each other, peaceful coexistence between two countries that share borders is important.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:37 PM) The Iraqi government is meeting with the Iranian government. Funny, when our government meets with North Korea's, it doesn't mean that we support what they do. Iraqi "militas" are already attacking our troops. Oh no, we're doomed! :rolly Seriously, I'm sure that certain factions in the new Iraqi government are going to support Iran. Hell, a certain faction of our government wants us to fail miserably in Iraq. But I don't think that the new Iraqi government is going to be overwhelmingly anti-American. At the very least, I'm going to have to see evidence from somewhere less biased than Islamic news organizations or the blatantly anti-Bush NY Times.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) I find it really easy to distinguish one regime from another in this case. Iran and North Korea were threats. Iraq wasn't. We f**ked up. If Iraq was never a threat, why did the UN have weapons inspectors in there for years? And why did Saddam keep kicking them out? One only knows that Iraq "wasn't a threat" with 20/20 hindsight. And that would be fine with me. I don't want a full-scale invasion. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Um...first of all...Kuwait has recently allowed the U.S. to put an army on its territory. That's sort of how we got into Iraq. Do you think that the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait made them a little more hospitable to our presence? :rolly If Turkey didn't support an invasion of Iraq, there's a good chance that they won't support an invasion of Iran. We certainly can't assume that they will, given that it'll seriously destabilize that region and possibly result in a large influx of refugees.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) Iraq considers Iran an ally now. Cindy Sheehan probably considers Iran an ally as well. Likewise, I don't believe that Shiite extremists in Iraq represent the political views of the majority of Iraquis.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) Which is why it would have been nice to still have an army available which could at least make a credible threat towards Iran, in the way that our buildup in Kuwait forced Saddam to allow the UNMOVIC team into Iraq to verify that he was in fact WMD Disarmed in early 2003. And where would we put that army? Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons. I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy. Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something. Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other. It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees. The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves. And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point. The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well. Iran will be dealt with, one way or another.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) And yeah...those troops in Iraq aren't doing anything right now. They're just having a happy vacation sitting next to their tanks. All of their equipment is in prime condition, and they're very well rested. If needed to, they could easily jump across the border, conquer Iran, and have yet another nation throw flowers on us and give us oil. I have little doubt that building U.S.-friendly coalition in the bordering country to Iran was always part of the plan. The CIA has known about their nuclear ambitions for a long time. Say what you want about oil, but a nation that is CLEARLY trying to build nuclear weapons and has publically called for the destruction of Israel needs to be stopped. I'm hoping that sanctions will work and that it won't come to an armed conflict, but we're dealing with a head of state that's a complete lunatic.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) They are a bigger concern to us than Iraq ever dreamed of being. And perhaps that's part of the reason why we have so many troops next door in Iraq right now.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:16 PM) From Drudgereport.com Cindy's crime? Wearing an anti-war t-shirt I used to feel sorry for her loss, but it's clear now that she's just insane.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 05:25 AM) Illlegal. Wrong. Despicable. Not to mention poorly-written.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) Wow, I agree with Nuke. Nice. Price controls are particularly bad in this case as all that lowering the price of oil artificially through government action will do is give Americans less of an incentive to become more fuel efficient. Here's a hint...you think Exxon's profits are too high? Move closer to where you work. Don't drive to the grocery store for 1 little item if you could either wait or bike there. Bike or walk anywhere you possibly can. Turn down your thermostat a little bit more. Turn off the lights when you walk out of a room, or when you're sitting in a room not using that much light. Etc. I agree that we definitely have to be more fuel-efficient, but turning down the thermostat isn't going to help the tens-to-hundreds of thousands that have been laid off due to high energy prices. When one industry posts astronomically-high profits at the expense of the rest of the economy, it's time for the government to consider stepping in.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) And oil is never again going to be reasonably-priced energy. It won't go down in price significantly. It's a limited resource that we are slowly exhausting, and the region we get most of it from won't be peaceful for some time (if ever). I'm sure that people were saying the same thing back in the '70s. The political instability may go on forever (as it did back in the '80s and '90s), but that doesn't necessarily mean that oil will be super-high-priced forever. Growing demand from China and India concerns me more. At some point, though, I believe that the regime in Iran will be overthrown and that will drop the price significantly (i.e., American companies will be able to [legally] do business with them). I know first-hand that ExxonMobil doesn't give a rat's ass about alternative energy. Then again, it appears that some companies are finally coming around. But it'll take a while. If it took 15 years for HDTVs to become commercially-available in America, hydrogen fuel cells in a large percentage of commercial vehicles will take at least 50.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) Scary, innit? It's not about a hard price cap - but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the fed government could place a cap on profit margin... like for example, an oil company could not charge more than a 30% markup on necessary items like gas or home heating oil. I'm sure this is way more simplistic than what would really be necessary, but something along those lines. It would be a solution that would allow oil companies to profit and profit well... but also a solution to help protect taxpayers. Something along those lines might be appropriate. I'm all for the oil companies making money as the law allows them, but reasonably-priced energy is absolutely essential to all areas of our economy.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Defensively. Damn sure not offensively. I've given up on both of these guys becoming high-OBP hitters. If they weren't stellar defensive players with some power at the plate, they'd both be utility players.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) When I first read this thread, I thought this had to do with me eating too much falafel. I think these record profits and prices for consumers raise the specter of some form of control over cost and requirements to provide capacity. Whether we like it or not, American access to energy is a national security issue and we probably should have some protections in place to make sure that daily life for millions is not disrupted by oil shocks or jumps in pricing. Ordinarily, I wouldn't actually have a problem with free market - but the problem is that most of us live in communities designed to be accessed with $9 a barrel oil, not $70 a barrel. Wow, I actually agree with you! I'm generally a free-market guy, but the (small number of) oil corporations are working together to keep prices and it's at the expense of the rest of the economy. I wouldn't mind seeing the Fed put a price cap in place.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) I'd say the bullpen is in much bigger need of an upgrade than the left side of the infield. Yep. Defensively, the left side of our infield is one of the best in the majors.

The Cubs and their fans can have their Attendance Championship. I don't care how much more popular they are. I'll take our '05 World Series Championship and the pursuit of another this year.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:46 AM) Prospects are great. I love 'em. I want the Sox to have a lot of 'em. But when it comes down to it, the whole shebang, every player in the Sox system, all the managers and coaches up and down the minor league system, the whole existance of the organization is set up to do two things. Turns profits and win championships. That's it. That's what it's all about. Williams finally was able to achieve the championship after an 88 year 'slump'. He agressively went out and tried to make that World Championship team even better. He traded away a very good OF prospect to make the pitching staff stronger. It doesn't calculate that he would then trade a very good pitcher from the big league staff to replace the very good OF prospect with another one. He might consider it if a decent young pitcher capable of being in the rotation or bullpen is part of the deal. But to trade Jose Contreras for any AA player in baseball is counterproductive for the White Sox at this particular point in time. Flat out, it doesn't make sense. Agreed. Falling in love with prospects is a major reason why the Sox never won squat in the Schueler era.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:04 AM) I don't know if the number of child molesting priests merely reflects the percentage of child molesters in general or if, for some bizarre reason, the priesthood appeals to child molesters. I feel that some of them use the trust factor to their advantage - a "why would a priest do that????" sort of thing. I think that has to have faded with the number of cases brought to light, though. Since most child molesters typically aren't the type of people who are good candidates for long-lasting marriages, the "no marriage" downside of entering the priesthood isn't as significant. Being able to work around children is probably seen as a plus as well. In addition, I'm sure that they feel a heck of a lot of guilt for what they've done - and what better way to erase that guilt than to serve God? Allowing priests to marry isn't going to change the pedophilia problem (although I think that giving them that option would be a good idea). They're simply going to have to do a better job of screening their applicants coming out of seminary school.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) And the most interesting part, IMO, is she is saying that the current "leaders" of the Democratic party cannot and will not get it done. The current "leaders" of the Democratic party are nutcases like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Why they're putting such people in powerful, high-profile positions is beyond me. Despite what Dick Morris thinks, I don't see Hillary being able to win. She has waaay too many skeletons in her closet and too many moderates dislike her. They'd be better off with a moderate like Lieberman or Bayh.