StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) Red Eye wasn't a news show, it was satire. Sometimes when you overhear a conversation and someone says something so wrong, you just have to stop and correct it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Eye_w/_Greg_Gutfeld It was a late night show with comedy, but it wasn't satire. Contrast with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:51 AM) I've heard liberals/dems say what that other guy said before -- that the tv media is dominated by the right, because it's exactly what he said, and it's just a ridiculous notion. That's all I interjected into this conversation to straighten out...because it needed to be straightened out. Sometimes when you overhear a conversation and someone says something so wrong, you just have to stop and correct it. For an actual liberal, for someone who is actually a socialist or a communist and legitimately dislikes capitalism, for someone who thinks the US has built an imperialist empire, who thinks the government is entirely run by and beholden to big businesses, who thinks that racism and sexism are still pervasive in our society, that the poor and minorities get ignored, that environmentalism is typically ignored and mocked by Democrats, centrists and Republicans, yeah, it's completely dominated by the right. Because, to them, plenty of centrist democrats hold views that would be considered moderate-hard right in a lot of Europe. And Republicans would be raving right-wing loonies. It's all about political perspective. There is no well-defined middle.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:52 AM) I think that was called red-something or other, and yes, it was stupid. No not Red Eye, that was their attempt at a "hip" late night news show. It was just a bunch of douchebags. It was "half hour news hour". It was like 30 minutes of painfully bad, incredibly slanted Weekend Update/ TDS. WTF was a 'legitimate' news network doing promoting that garbage?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) The right has done a great job of taking moderates and making them into the left. Chris Matthews is not the left. When someone like Amy Goodman or Thom Hartmann get a prime time show, than we can talk about the left getting TV time. Yes, the right is on the radio and TV and in print whining about liberal domination pretty much 24/7. Talk radio is absolutely dominated by conservatives. Savage, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Medved, Miller and dozens of Christian radio hosts vs. what on the left? A few shows on NPR that air several times a week? The most pro-liberal/ anti-conservative talk I hear on the radio comes from Bernstein.

Remember Fox's awful attempt at a Daily Show-like news satire? Man that was awful.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) I really hope more people in the campaign this fall take up that mantra. Honestly, you're bolstering kap's point here. So many of these programs have become untouchable in our political landscape, but so has raising taxes. Just look at what's happened with Cali's ridiculous prop system. Unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:24 AM) Oh, so now you're in favor of the government cutting the bills that it pays to doctors and hospitals? Gosh, where have I been attacked repeatedly over that. I think the argument might be cutting the government program all together.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:25 AM) I think an accurate description of Roberts is that he's scalia but much smarter. He holds most of the same beliefs, but he's able to maneuver the court much more effectively (and he's helped by having the Chief Justice spot). That's why I have more respect for Roberts, even if I disagree with him. People uneducated in the law can often see how bad Alito, Scalia and tag-along Thomas' arguments are. Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized?

But all of the rest are still pro-business, pro-establishment, so they're not exactly left wing, either. Don't conflate Democrats with liberals.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) And way to dismiss and gloss over the fact you said "TV is dominated by the right", which is the biggest joke I've EVER read on this website. Neither NSS nor I said that, and Rex hasn't responded to your post. I don't know who you're addressing. I think it shows you're being sloppy and reckless with what you label as liberal. I might be willing to give you a general pro-Democrat slant for CBS, NBC, ABC. I'll give a pro-liberal lean for MSNBC. But Democrat doesn't mean liberal.

Wait, did you seriously just say that the Trib is liberal? And conservatives absolutely dominate talk radio.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) Of course it serves a purpose. Those guys are aware of whether their manager thinks they're any good or not and they're aware of what he says publicly. There is really no reason to overreact to this. If they're aware of how he really feels, and the fan base is smart enough to know Ozzie is talking out of his butt and really would like a good LH bat, what purpose does it serve? Again, assuming Oz doesn't actually believe what he said.

another f***ing hanging pitch and can't do a damn thing with it.

kotsay you worthless piece of s***. Let's go Alexi!

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:28 PM) at the same time? then im impressed He means he went to Brookfield.

How many awful hanging pitches did the Sox miss tonight? 10?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:24 PM) In Alexei's last 26 games, he's put up a .316/.353/.474/.827 line. Why would you consistently waste solid production at the 8th spot when no one is getting on in front of him, and no one is driving him in? Because Guillen can't manage a lineup at all?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 07:35 PM) It's dumb from the first paragraph. How is this case about political correctness at all? The club's policy was discriminatory and exclusionary, not offensive. Alito's (and often Scalia's) legal opinions are offensive in that they're so bad.

back to frustrating baseball. At least we got a decent performance out of Mark, even if it looked really bad in the process.

Wow, now that's getting robbed.

Hey don't try to steal when your guy hitting a bunch of HR's is coming up.

It's all about the 10th amendment--powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states. But then came the Civil War and the 14th and that sort of lost its power.

In another big SC decision today, a 5-4 decision came down in favor of UCLA-Hastings School of Law over a Christian Lawyer group. The group lost official school recognition (read: funding) after enacting a policy that required members to sign a pledge swearing that they were Christians, not homosexuals, etc.. The school removed them from official recognition based on their non-discriminatory policy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf I'll give you one guess who the dissenters were. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628 They make some tortured arguments in the dissent. edit: basically, Alito's argument is "you're discriminating against discrimination!" over and over and over again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 04:25 PM) Of course none of it is "universally" true. But the difference with that issue is...if you overturn Roe v. Wade, you simultaneously pacify 25% of the regular voters, and you suddenly wake up a chunk of the non-voters while at the same time motivating 25% of the regular voters. I meant the second part.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 04:29 PM) That's definitely opening up a Pandora's Box. How about we go through that old document and find everything in it that seems dated and change it then, seems fair enough. Even if I were to just give you that it's an old document with some dated things in it though, it's not all that hard to make a case that the handgun ban didn't do anything for safety in Chicago. That's essentially my view. There's no reason we have to strive to meet late-18th century philosophy and politics forever, but I don't see a good reason for enacting a ban. In general, the effects of bans are mixed at best.