StrangeSox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 19, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) Re: abortion, if it is so hard of a decision, and we need to educate those who are having one, and we need to preach abstinance, isn't that a clue that abortion itself is wrong, if we have to have all these issues dealt with BEFORE it ever takes place? Just a thought. That's a bit of circular reasoning, no? It's wrong because its a difficult decision that one has to think about?

Surprise, Obama isn't the far-left radical he's constantly painted as. In fact, the far-left is pretty pissed off at Obama and just sees him as "new boss, same as the old boss."

I've reached stage 5.

Alexi with a rare walk. Hopefully this gets something started.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Interesting stat...coming in to today the Sox had the 4th worst BABIP in baseball. Only teams worse are San Diego, Arizona, and Oakland. Sox are at .284. That says something. I'm not sure what it says yet. It says that they've been hitting a ton of weak grounders and pop-ups, not that they've been "unlucky"

Jim Thome!

7 innings of 2 run (1 ER) ball for Richard. I hope he'll become reliable enough to be a 5th starter in the future.

at least they're getting shut down by a pitcher with a sub-4 ERA.

Richard can complain, as his team gave him no chance to win today.

Thanks for the info rock. I've heard from other people that this program really kicks your ass. My goal isn't to lose weight (6'3" 160 lbs, I could stand to gain a few pounds on my lanky frame) but to get stronger and just in better overall shape.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) GMAFB, where did anyone in America hear about this conflict? It was probably the biggest victory in the entire Global War on Terror and barely anybody knew it ever happened. Was there even a post on ST regarding this war? If there was did anybody even respond? You can call me an elitist/stuck-up college kid/whatever but the very thing I'm accusing this board, and on a broader level the entire country, of couldn't be more true. -There is no 'y' in the word political. I heard about it on NPR probably a dozen times in the past two weeks, so there! Actually, bmags started a thread about Sri Lanka early this year. You participated in that thread. But I guess we don't care about brown people. And then they came for me.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 18, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) What's going on? Gameday has most of Richards pitches in the box but are called balls. Yeah, does anyone watching/ listening know if he's getting squeezed?

Gameday had Richard's first pitch about 3" over the plate and well above the knees and it was called a ball

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 18, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) Oh I know. Our country sucks, doesn't it? No, but corporatism sure does.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) "In God We Trust" was actually put on the money in the 1950's during the Red Scare years. And I beg to differ re: "establishing an official religion" part of the Constitution. Every one of you are confusing the "stupidity" of doing this in briefings and whether or not it is constitutional. I have never once said I thought it was "ok" but only from a LEGAL standpoint. It looks like we're both right--"In god we trust" was first on money during the Civil War (1864), but it did not become our national motto until 1956. "under God" was added to the pledge during the Red Scare (godless commies!). But I do think you're correct on this topic. This isn't a Constitutional issue. Just a stupidity one. And we all know Rumsfeld had ample amounts of that.

Tex, you're mixing up secularism and atheism again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:49 AM) Thank you. The arrogance here pisses me off because I know in this very company we have all had some very excellent discussions about Africa specifically before. Of all places to make an ignorant statement like that, this is not one of them. But he's a poly-sci major! He's so much more enlightened than us drooling slobs.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 16, 2009 -> 07:49 PM) 100 billion is being very conservative actually, there could be as many as 400 billion stars in the galaxy, we don't really know. And as far as the other galaxies out there keep in mind the word "observable," we can't even see most of them from Earth because they're outside of the visible light spectrum because of their position/speed/whatever, or their light is so far away that it's too weak/hasn't even reached yet. But yeah, bottom line, the universe is almost incomprehensibly big. Our observable space is about 13.8 billion light years across. Beyond that, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so we'll never be able to see parts of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume Like you said, large numbers and scales like this are almost incomprehensible. Just a scale model of the solar system is gigantic: http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/sol...stem/index.html With the sun that size, the page is over half a mile long. That's just a tiny little backwater star in an insignificant galaxy floating through space.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 17, 2009 -> 07:53 PM) It would seem that being tolerant of others practicing their religion would be better than denouncing against all religions. Instead of portraying a Christian justification, we would portray an atheistic justification for war. I'm not certain that those that we bomb will feel any better. The best course of action is respecting everyone's philosophy or religion. I have no problem sitting respectfully while someone quotes from the Koran or other teachings. I find inspiration in other people's faith as well. We may not be praying by name to the same deity or deities, but we may. People, fight wars. Some people are men and women of faith, others are not. We do not allow the government to dictate one religion like some countries. Showing the world that we embrace a wide variety of faiths is more powerful than rejecting all religion. I believe the word you're looking for is "secular". QUOTE (Texsox @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) It does not create an official religion like the Church of England. It does not ban any other religions. Most of our Presidents have regularly attended services while in office, your thinking would stop that as well. That is far more of an endorsement than a cabinet member quoting scripture. The fact we have never elected an atheist President says something about America's leaning. QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 17, 2009 -> 11:42 PM) Do you spend money? That's an official government document. Of course, all the athiests think "In God We Trust" should be removed, but I digress. This is not the establishment of any religion (church), this is merely a quotation from a book, if you so choose to view the Bible as such. The first amendment is dealing with the establishment of a church or religion and the government cannot establish such. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the 1st means "establishing an official religion" ever. It's always taken a much broader (and more accurate, if you read the revisions of the 1st and the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) interpretation. Also, fwiw, "In God We Trust" was tacked on to money in the late 1800's.

I don't know how much of a role he can play. The actor who plays Walt was pretty bad the last few times we've seen him.

Not good to see Danks sucking it up.

The courts are ordering the parents to follow the doctor's advice, so, no. Give me a non-arbitrary explanation for the courts stepping in for nutritional neglect but not stepping in for medical neglect.

Now that's an interesting question that requires some thought.

Well, homeopathy (infinitely dilute solutions or "water has memory") is completely bunk, but its often used interchangeably with alternative medicine in general. But anything that's being given to patients has undergone rigorous non-human testing and has shown potential. Alternative medicine 'treatments' get made up on the fly and pushed on to susceptible people. There is never any testing or research. However, I highly doubt that the courts would ever mandate in-trial treatment options, especially if there are existing (medically approved) treatments. He ordered treatment only, not a specific type of treatment. It just so happens that the way to treat this is chemo. He also did not forbid doing any sort of alternative treatment in tandem with more traditional treatments; the doctors may or may not encourage it, but the government is indifferent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Huge difference for a child, I agree. I feel the same way about seatbelt laws. For adults, the argument for seatbelt laws is about reducing insurance, rescye and medical costs. Those are valid arguments to make, but I personally don't think they "weigh" enough to offset the fact that its a paternal law, which is a slippery slope as Kap said. Now kids, that is different. A parent throws their 5 year old in the car, no seat belt or kid seat or anything, and the kid is injured or killed in a car accident... that kid didn't make a choice. Can't make a choice, legally, he or she is a minor. Not only am I OK with seat belt laws for kids, but further, I've suggeted before that parents in that scenario should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. In this case? You have to be careful. If they are just refusing treatment at all, preferring to hope for help on high, then the courts should step in on behalf of the child. If its an alternative treatment though, that's awfully fuzzy - when is the alternative a real, possibly viable alternative, and when is it something crazy that isn't really a treatment at all? Tough choice to make. When it passes clinical trials. "Alternative medicine" that works becomes medicine.