Texsox

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 06:58 PM) I know its a great example of h ow black and white your arguments are. If you thought of guns the same way as weed, guns have the potential to cause harm to someone but its the person who causes harm, not the gun itself. Your argument would be the simple use of a gun is wrong because it may have the possibility of hurting someone in a bad situation. Any way you slice it there have been zero reported deaths in the history of the US directly related to marijuana use, it may have contributed in a bad situation, but you cannot die simply from the use of it. Again, if someone is so drunk they can barely get behind the wheel of a car and dies in an accident, I say alcohol was the cause, not a neck fracture from hitting the windshield, not a stupid decision they made. If someone is baked and gets in a car accident, you claim that pot did not cause it. You claim someone can die from drinking. If they are really drunk and aspirate their own vomit, choking to death, you would claim they died from vomiting, not drinking. It makes no sense. You can be high, but if something bad happens, never ever blame it on the pot. Pot is the perfect drug, and nothing has ever happened to anyone because of pot. If that really makes sense to you, great. And once again, I am in favor of decriminalizing pot, I've never said it was more dangerous that anything, or was so terribly bad for you. But I am realistic to know you shouldn't be driving or operating machinery when you are high. Your reflexes are much slower and accidents are more likely to occur. If you are high and get in an accident you would have avoided if sober, then common sense tells us that the cause of your reaction time slowing is the cause of the accident.

And to be fair, it cuts both ways. I have known a few guys were are mean, nasty, stupid, and dangerous drunks, who are mellow and funny when stoned.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) I sent you a PM already regarding your list. Got it, Isiah and Joyner are off. A Cub and a Bear are on. And I'm guessing that Sox player you were unfamiliar with will get at least three votes

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) ITALIAN. BEEF. SANDWICHES. /homesick the only place I could get a good one closed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) Yes, that is true, but for some reason, you only typically hear about the Democrat problems. I wonder why that is? Depends on where you live and which party is dominate. Down here it's usually the GOP trying to get a toe hold. All the Dems are related, so they behave. Or perhaps it is that media bias . . .

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) In order to reduce confusion, I'm limiting it to the big 5 sports. Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey, and Soccer. Fair enough and I think will make for a great list! I will replae jackie Joyner from my list.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) Are you a gun owner by any chance? Or a gun advocate? Yes to both. Great example, imagine if I argued that guns do not kill anyone. People bleed to death, but the gun didn't cause them to bleed. And if they make a decision to shoot themselves, it isn't the gun that killed them.

Some of the cornerstones of our society is we believe (correctly I believe) that the vast majority of people are honest and we value the rights of the people who are honest over the possible law breakers. Innocent until proven guilty. Freedom from unusual search and seizure. It is often times said we would rather 10 guilty men go free then one innocent person convicted. When someone has registered to vote and proven at that time they are eligible to vote, we then need a reasonable way to determine of that same person votes. Matching signatures seems like it should be good enough. Also, using Kap's theory, which I like, that all politicians are the same, what little fraud there may be, is balanced between the parties.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) So, I adjusted it. rangercal, chwrock, you'll have to change your lists.. sorry. GREATEST SPORTS PLAYERS WHO PLAYED FOR A CHICAGO AREA PRO TEAM Deadline is still May 18 for your lists. PM them to me. Thanks! I'm not trying to be a problem, high school and college teams count as well correct? But individual sports like Track, Boxing, NASCAR, etc. are out.?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) UPDATE... DNA tests show that the cougar killed in Chicago was indeed the same animal as the one who leapt over a farmer in southern Wisconsin (I was right on that one). And further, it is apparently originally from a population in the Black Hills of western South Dakota (I was wrong on that one - my guess was the closer population in northern Minnesota). Probably, it was also the one spotted in North Chicago and then Wilmette. That cougar travelled a thousand miles or so to get to where it died. That's interesting in itself, but its also important in that the appearance in WI and IL does not appear to signal a significant range expansion of the species south from Canada and Minnesota, but instead appeared to be a single aberrant animal. Linky. Wow! I didn't see that one coming. Thanks for updating.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) You are right, it could be a contributor to a death, as well as many other factors, cell phone talking, radio changing, being a woman. This is all very true, but its not the drug that killed the person, its their decision to perform an activity while impaired, its their own decision and their own stupidity, not the drug itself. But you can also die from alcohol alone, you can literally drink until you die, which is what separates it from Marijuana. I see you added. If the substance you take alters your judgment or mood, thereby affecting the decision, I don't see how you could give the substance a pass. XYZ drug makes you hallucinate, you make a decision while hallucinating to fly, you die while jumping off the roof. I would have to blame the drug. Now if you made the same decision while on a drug that does not impair your judgment, then I would agree.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) You are right, it could be a contributor to a death, as well as many other factors, cell phone talking, radio changing, being a woman. This is all very true. But you can also die from alcohol, you can literally drink until you die, which is what separates it from Marijuana. I agree. There are a lot more dangerous activities. You can't smoke cigarettes until you die, but there are a few lung cancer victims that would probably agree that cigarettes caused their cancer and death.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) Nobody said zero health risks, not everything is black and white buddy. There are medical risks with certain baby bottles, driving in heavy traffic, living in a city, driving your car, riding the bus, touching anything on the subway, McDonalds, Wendy's, cold medicine, you name it. And NOBODY has died from Marijuana. Maybe they smoked and jumped off a balcony, well they died from stupidity and most likely hitting their head on the ground. If you can clearly find a case of someone smoking so much weed that they died, then you can build a case, until that happens you dont really have a case. That would be the same as saying that you can die from using a cell phone since people die from driving, walking, operating boats, skiing, etc while talking on their cell phone. So there are no drunk driving fatalities? Drunk drivng never caused a fatality? Because based on your defintion, that is what you believe. The rest of society understands when you are impaired and die in an accident, that impairment, caused the accident.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) I've been to the hospital due to pain killers, but never marijuana. Just my 2 cents. most painkillers are much stronger, more serious, drugs. Relatively speakers, most marijuana is a very mild drug.

Not certain where this thought goes, but did anyone honestly think the team would not have a three game losing streak? There will be a few more, and probably a few longer ones.

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) This coming from the guy who cited a person falling off a balcony deck as an anti-marijuana argument? That's awesome. I understand you gotta have an opinion on everything, though -- kind of par for the course type of thing. It appears as if my response confused you, it happens some times when people are reading quickly and only see what they want to see. I was not making an anti-marijuana argument. I disagree with Rock's argument that no one has ever died from marijuana. Obviously you agree with Rock that no one ever dies as a result of being high. That is your choice to believe. I think y'all have your heads in the sand. There are medical risks with every drug, including your beloved marijuana, if you think that is an anti-marijuana argument, so be it. But y'all crack me up believing there are zero health risks to marijuana. Happened last year on South Padre, all his buddies said he was high, he tested positive. Rock claims that no one has ever died from marijuana. Just pointing out one family that would disagree. And for the record, I have stated I think marijuana should be decriminalized. We spend way to much money on enforcing marijuana laws.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) you didn't show any ID to register to vote? They matched my signature

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) Could you have thrown a worse pitch to a guy with 2 outs, nobody on first and the RISP standing on 3rd base? Why didn't they go with the offspeed out of the strikezone and see if he'd chase it? Now they're IBB Cuddyer to get to JASON KUBEL, are you serious? Why not put Morneau on to get to a hitter that's less capable than Kubel, Cuddyer? Terrible managing. Something out of the strike zone is what he should have been looking for.

QUOTE (Kid Gleason @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) Give me your password. I've seen numerous Sandler films, and somehow I keep seeing more of them. I actually saw that Chuck And Larry crap last summer. It was part of a double bill at the drive-in, and I do like Kevin James, so I was hoping he would help counter-balance the Sandler factor. It helped, but the movie still sucked. I haven't seen Anger Management, but I have to admit to not being a fan of Jack. I should also say that Jim Caray has also made my list, but that may be as much burn out as the characters he seems to play. It just isn't my style of comedy anymore. Anger Management is worth a rental.

QUOTE (Kid Gleason @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) LOL! But there are only a couple on there I haven't seen. Which ones of the "haven't seen" do you recommend? My problem with South Park is that the TV show bugs me, so I sure won't see the movie. But the others I just might give into. Sandler flicks, well, I can't change that. If you're a Sandler fan, that's cool. I'm obviously in the minority when it comes to that guy. You can manage my netflix queue anytime. Anger Management was about the only film I could tolerate Sandler in. He is one of the few actors that I just will not watch anything he is in.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:57 AM) Did you just quote a women's christian group? And their sweet 1999 study which has no references. And some how say that there are marijuana overdoses? Maybe by sliding in that its "related" gave them some flexibility to write absolute lies. All I got from that study is that I shouldnt let a pregnant woman smoke, and let infants smoke pot. Ok, pregnant diet, no sushi, no dairy, no coffee, no pot, gotcha. Maybe that craptacular information works on younger kids, but its not gonna fly with me. Heres a website to counter your sisters of the christian cloth who hate weed source, and mine cites sources. http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html If marijuana was made legal, do you think it should carry warnings about operating equipment, driving, etc? Are you contending that no one has ever been in a fatal accident driving high? If you really believe that being high has never caused someone to have a fatal accident, that's wonderful. Keep posting, I crack up every time you start this rant.

Wow, The Hawks are all the way into the 1980s

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) I seem to remember the Dems wanting to not count a huge amount of military absentee ballots a few years back for some reason. There were problems with those ballots under the law. If the Dems now introduced a bill to make it more difficult for servicemen and women to vote, the situation would be the same. I think we all agree that current laws should be followed, whatever they may be.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:18 AM) The same people that are screaming about this scream about the electoral college as well but then see the "superdelegates" in the Dem primary as ok - that's where I see some hypocrisy. I think you hit the nail on the head, but didn't finish. Do you see a hypocsisy in all the other parties not even holding primaries? There will probably be six to ten other parties on the ballot as well, they will hold some form of convention and select someone for the ballot. I guess it's the same kind of hypocrisy in losing the popular vote, then producing maps with pretty colors, and calling it a landslide. The "we think every vote should matter and be equal, except when our candidate finishes with less."

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 06:50 AM) So how many people who are "disenfranchised" would have taken the time to give a s*** to vote anyway? This whole argument reeks of hypocrisy - but then again, if it "disenfranchises" Democrats it's wrong and if it "disenfranchises" Republicans it's ok. (loosely held). I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.