Texsox

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:16 PM) If using scripture on an official government document doesn't constitute an endorsement of that religion by our government, whether intended or not, I'm not sure what does. 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 (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) Please explain how this quote would be valuable in any way to a U.S. soldier who happens to be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, etc: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." Perhaps not valuable at all. Not certain why they would be harmed either while the 60 or 70% who profess faith may find encouragement. I have no problem sitting respectfully by while other people profess their faith, I enjoy finding commonalities. I'll even enjoy a good atheist inspiration speech about evolving from slime and becoming worm food in the end.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 17, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) On an official government document, there should never be a religious quote, piece of scripture, etc. used in that manner. It gives the portrayal that we have a Christian justification for this war, anyways. 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.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 17, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) I can't even begin to imagine the security this took. Honestly, I wish all presidents could do these types of things, but it isn't realistic, unfortunately. There are two ways of doing this, plan months in advance and try and control everything or spur of the moment and go. It might not have been as bad as originally it appears.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) You can personally pray to whichever deity you want but we shouldn't have military leaders quoting text from the bible to troops. Whether you believe in a deity nor not, the advice, counsel, and wisdom contained in religious texts, from all religions, is valuable. To ignore that, does more harm than allowing it. The quotes are, and among other things, wisdom and thoughts from previous generations. Would it be ok to quote other people's thoughts if they were atheists? Can we quote Plato but not Jesus? Quote Socrates but not the Buddha? Doesn't make sense. Any other speech you care to stop? Shall we eliminate Chaplains from our service? Shall we stop our soldiers from witnessing to each other? Only allow atheists into the military? I believe we should ban all atheist from ever speaking to balance this out.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) And meddling in their affairs. That to. Except for the part were we send them billions in aid to protect our interests. That sort of meddling at least rents us some love

Do you think some of the men and women who are getting shot at, and whose lives are being threatened everyday in war, pray? The old phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" comes to mind. Why anyone would think that people's belief systems would stop at some point up the military ladder is silly. And we have soldiers praying to a wide range of deities. We have reasonable freedoms of religion is this country. Our soldiers can practice almost any religion they freely choose. The fact that it is usually Christian is a reflection of our country and the men and women of our military. I would find it intolerable to stop those men and women, and their leaders, by restricting them from practicing their religion; especially in light of the life or death situation our country has placed them in.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) exactly. People hate us because we are KILLING them.

Glad to see he can have some degree of normalcy to his life. The jacket is sweet, I'm wondering if Sox merchandise will see an Obama bump in sales?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) Odd source, but this is from GQ- And we wonder why the middle east hates us. And why do we hate them? Do you really believe if we changed the rhetoric to "we are killing you because of a non-secular belief that you are evil and trying to destroy us" they will like us?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 17, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) Perhaps its the type of hitters that are on the roster is the problem. Orlando Cabrera is hitting .223 with Oakland. Maybe Walker wasn't so bad with him. Swisher is down to .239. The White Sox pretty much have had a line-up with sluggers during Walker's reign. There hasn't been real high on base, high contact guys on the roster. The Walker bashing has gone overboard, but it would reach heights that cannot be equalled if there are more than one or two posts blaming him for Josh Fields striking out. Although I am starting to see the light. Instead of being angry Linebrink gave up a couple of runs yesterday, one on a golf shot and another on a broken bat single, I just b****ed out Cooper. If the player doesn't get the job done, its definitely on the coach. Just like corporate America, it would be crazy to hold the guys making all the money accountable. I guess what I find so funny is the same guys who say Thome is done, his bat has slowed, Konerko needs to be released, Dye is done....then say if these players whose skills they have determined aren't major league quality anymore cannot put up huge numbers like they did when they were in the primes of their careers, its proof postive that Greg Walker sucks. Dick, you are the Walker expert on this board. I think everyone agrees, he's great with sluggers. Could you list a couple players that have blossomed into more high contact type hitters? Look at golf as an example, Dave Pelz made a career out of helping just the short game. It is not an insult to Walker to say he is not as effective with guys trying to develop into high contact, high average, type players.

QUOTE (Baines3 @ May 17, 2009 -> 02:26 AM) I don't blame Josh for all the strikeouts. If we only had a hitting coach. To be fair, if only we had a hitting coach that was successful with multiple approaches to hitting. Dick has posted several times that Walker has produced results. As long as we populate the roster with Thome and Konerko type hitters, Walker is probably da man. I just do not see him coaching a guy to a high average.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) But their choice is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it. But the court's choice (strangers with no prior connection with the child) is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it. If this was a situation where the parents wanted chemo and the hospital decided the chances were too low to offer it, should the government jump in?

How about where the child needs a transfusion of some sort and the only donor is another child. Would the courts mandate that treatment for both children? Whichever course this country follows, parents or judges (neither of which are usually medical experts) there will be mistakes made. I would prefer that the mistakes be made by parents who will have to live with the consequences to their flesh and blood creation, than mistakes made by a legal authority. And is this a state's right or could it be argued to the SCOTUS?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Per the White Sox Twitter, JD is appealing his suspension and will be in the lineup tonight. Good choice.

Naw.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) This will give us a couple of games to try Lillibridge in right field. Maybe they took that into account also and cut the suspension in half

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) I know, Im saying he is going to get a suspension no matter what. just like if you bounced your bat off the ground and it happened to hit the ump in the leg or foot, I dont think the suspension would be the same as something like Delmon Young got for intentionally throwing the bat at the umpire. Dye is definitely responsible for the helmet and where it goes, but it doesnt seem like he was really trying to hit the umpire. I thought we were both basically agreeing.

When he threw the helmet, he had to take responsibility for where it goes. There is no other reasonable way to write or adjudicate a rule. Intent is just to hard to determine with total certainty. You can factor in character by the number of previous fines and suspensions. But above all it should be objective evidence, not subjective, that trumps.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:39 PM) I don't think so. Maybe another game or two, but look at what Milton Bradley got. Which is why I was thinking longer. They don't want this to get out of hand. But you are probably right.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Heh. A little too easy maybe. As easy as shipps after a couple drinks . . .

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) That is a little ridiculous, considering there was no intent. This better get reduced to a game via appeal. Especially when you consider Dye's history (ie, being a classy ballplayer). I believe intent was factored in, imagine if he intended to hit the ump with a helmet. He'd be out a few weeks or longer, even as classy as he is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) No word on whether he will appeal the suspension or not. damn rookie you should always post a link http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/jermaine.dye....2.1010621.html

At what point should the probable success rate come into play? 25% successful? 50% successful? 75% successful? 99% successful? And what about the possible side effects? Shouldn't that also be balanced?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) http://thesportseconomist.com/2005/05/mone...win-fallacy.htm Things like this have been done many times before...the problem is that Oakland A's, Twins or Rays usually "win" this competition, but they're not necessarily successful in terms of winning playoff series or getting to the World Series. GM's like Epstein, Cashman, Minaya, Lynch, etc., will never have a chance because they HAVE to win and they have the budgets to be competitive every year, so they really could care less about cost per win, the only thing is the bottom line of winning the the World Series or not. Exactly, which is why for Sox fans the bottom line is not winning the World Series or not but the cost per player and how that will affect the chances of winning a World Series.