JUGGERNAUT

A group of friends & family last night were talking about this as the White Sox were running away with the game last night. What's happened so far is beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous. Up until now the nation has best known our franchise under the label "Black Sox". That infamous title referring to the 1919 team that was found innocent in a court of law but later found guilty by commissioner Landis. If winning in the post-season of 2005 had been boring & absent of controversy it would soon be forgotten & the "Black Sox" legacy would remain in vogue. But now we have more controversy than we ever could have imagined. That's made even bigger than life given that our new hero "AJ" is right at the center of it. Before we could not imagine many books or video's on our run outside of Chicago. Now we can. It's fitting because the one characteristic that drawfs all others on our team is how in less than one year the White Sox changed the mindframe of their team from one that rarely stole a base to one of the best stealing teams in the league. When you add controvery like "How the White Sox stole game 2 of the ALCS" to that story it becomes bigger than life. That's just what we need to get out from under the shadow of the Cubs & begin a new legacy. Thank you 2005 White Sox & most of all AJ for bringing Sox fans more joy than they ever could have imagined from MLB.

It is not what I want but rather what the market will bear. If that is the needed incentive to base manufacting of vaccines vital to national security interests in the USA then I think it should be on the table. Let's just say the need for the supply far outweighs the methods to produce the supply.

I doubt that very much. Again you are categorizing faith-borne persons in the same context as the oppposite group & they have little in common. Faith-borne are more likely to be loyal to their institution & the people who work their. If a faith-borne person is happy with the work the non faith-borne have done I'm confident they will retain these people. If they are not happy with their work then this simply gives them a legal right to say sayonara in favor of someone they have confidence in that will do a better job.

:rolly Smack in a thread like this. Three kids is enough. I don't know how my parents ever managed 5 natural & 4 foster kids .. but if we do take in foster kids it will be after the natural ones are living on their own.

It reads like something out of the movie Outbreak. Scary stuff: http://www.yahoo.com/s/247969

& tonight with a victory! Get that Steam track ready to roll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will respond to each one by item. 1) This thread was created in DIRECT response to another thread that took an opposing viewpoint & used language that was derogatory to those of us who choose to believe in both God & evolution. Thus it's a prime example of my being turned from a dove into a hawk. Had such language not been used I would not have created the thread. 2) You have failed to undestand a basic precept of guilt by association fallacy so allow me to educate you further. When a murderer makes a direct reference to a particular philosophy as to a central cause for their actions it strengthens the GBA to that source. In the case of Darwinists, & NeoDarwinists we have plenty of prime examples strengthening the GBA. Further we have millions of subjects led by such leaders who further adopted those sources as they were taught in school. Those millions that execute the murders further strengthen the GBA. You mentioned the Crusades. There are countless books on the subject that have served to weaken the GBA over the years. Making the argument that these were massacres executed for lands & riches much more so than any faith in God. Indeed the more historians probe the Crusades the more they are finding that the majority of the fighting men would not be considered devout nor did they fight for any Godly cause. What separates the Medieval Age from the modern age in this respect is that born from the Roman empire there was no separation of Church & State. Secularists would argue that such a separation is a good thing but moralists would argue the opposite. The modern world has lived under a separation of Church & State for the better part of a 100 yrs & in that time we have witnessed two world wars, been led to the brink of anhialation, & have witnessed 10's of millions executed as a result of Darwinian philosophy or some other secular belief. A moralist would argue that the Church at least serves as a conscience for the State. Before a leader can choose to murder or steal from other's he must first seek the blessing of the Church to do so because of the impact the Church has on his constituency. The Church then represents a collective conscience for the heads of state. In the absence of such a conscience the only conscience that remains is that of the heads themselves. For civilized people that is an illogical form of governing. 3) I never stated mentioning God to a believer in evolution turns them angry. That's simply a lie. I stated clearly that if you mention God to a Darwinist it turns them angry. There is a BIG difference. I support the theory that natural selection plays a vital role in evolution. But I am not a Darwinist. I do not propagate that theory into a religious belief that natural selection is evidence that God does not exist & that we have no purpose other than a temporal form of survival in this Universe. That basically defines what a Darwinist is. 4) It is YOUR assertion that WE view the progression of science in a different fashion. Yet you state it as a fact. If by WE you mean Darwinists then I would agree. If by WE you mean the bulk of scientists & those who work in the field of science throughout the world I strongly disagree. You can search on Google or visit your public library to learn more. Again you make another FALSE assertion & a very large one at that by suggesting that NO ONE in this country thinks of science in relation to God in America. That's an easy one to disprove as there are plenty of faith-borne people working in the field of science today that have written books asserting to the opposite. Likewise you appear fixated on biology & are ignoring quantum physics altogether. The reason why Darwinists are under attack is because the knowledge of understanding of QT has had enough time to make it's way through much of the educated world. QT changed everything from a philosophical perspective & now purpose has become exceedingly important. As evidence, check out the film "What The Bleep Do We Know?". I would agree that since the advent of the scientific method we moved away from a spiritual relationship with science. It became more pragmatic & more event driven than anything else. But I equally agree that since the advent of QT we are moving back to a spiritual relationship with science. Those scientific discoveries which were foretold by some centuries beforehand radically changed our way of thinking about ourselves, our relationships, & our Universe. It's why some refer to it as the "New Church".

I take issue with the quote at the top of your article as well. Such a quote is discriminatory in nature & lacks tact. I doubt very much it would be used often. Instead you are likely to hear this "My apologies, but you lack a certain characteristic that by all measures of standards available to us we have found to be very important to our parish, school, or community. We have found that professionals posessing this characteristic generate the best results for us." It amounts to the same thing only it takes a macro perspective on the issue instead of an individual one. That's really what separates liberal from conservative these days: Individual vs group rights. Conservatives believe the courts have destroyed the balance by shifting radically to the individual side. The balance needs to be restored. Liberals care very little for group rights unless it's a group they believe in (PPH). Generally speaking if the community for which an institution serves predominantly favors a faith-borne employee it's pretty obvious hiring a non faith-borne employee is going to be less productive. Thus the rejection is based on productivity & not religion per-se. If the liberals ever gain enough support to where you can't discriminate on the basis of productivity, God help us. Thankfully we appear to be moving in the opposite direction. ===================================================== Though you clearly meant it as a personal attack I will respond to your analogy. If I were an APPLICANT for a job here at SOXTALK & the person in charge of that decision convinced me common sense wise that my hiring would be harmful to the community & therefore make it less productive I would not think of it as discrimination or contest the decision. It would be foolish for me to do so. It amounts to my saying to the rest of the community accept me for who I am because the law says you must. Ridiculous. The law is only as strong as the people's faith in it.

Head Start is really just the tip of the ice berg on this issue. Many politicians including Daley himself are moving in the direction of school vouchers, tax deductions, & other monetary assistance to private & parochial schools. The USSC has upheld this direction so long as the education in question for the most part serves a secular purpose. Now of course with that being the direction hiring practices are going to be called into question. It's inevitable & an issue the courts will have to address at some time. Considering Roberts & Miers are staunch conservatives on this issue it's likely faith will be considered an exception from general hiring practices WHEN the institution itself is faith-borne. That distinction does make a difference.

You will only get in trouble if Mods do their job as that definitely constitutes a personal attack. Seeing that you edited the post it's a moot issue now. In general posters should stick to debating the argument & refrain from personal attacks but for some natural selection seems to have led to a pre-disposistion that makes it a part of their very nature. What you fail to understand & continue to fail to understand is that the majority of Americans do NOT believe in the establishment clause as you do. This has been measured time & again & is why there have been two attempts to pass a faith-based amendment to overrule the anti-religious rulings set forth by a questionable USSC. So where you associate the Govt as an implication that religion does NOT matter & should not matter most Americans do not. These institutions are NOT just any institutions. They are insitutions FOUNDED upon a religious faith. If not for that religious faith the institutions WOULD NOT exist. That's why it's ridiculous to assert that such institutions should be FORCED to employ people not sharing the same faith in order to recieve Head Start money. If we are talking about fairness where does the money from Head Start come from? Tax payers. On the subject of taxes in support of public education imposed upon those who send their kids to private schools is as unfair as it gets. If we are talking about fairness then allow these parents to claim that cost as a local tax deduction. The cost of Head Start pales in comparison to the added burden these parents are shouldering.

Not everyone. There are good people here at SOXTALK who are much more open-minded than others. They just choose to remain silent so as not to stir the pot. I love stirring the pot. Seriously I remain silent for the most part too until I read a post where someone is knocking religion or spiritualism in general. Then I transform from a dove to a hawk.

As long as there does NOT exist a Hicks out there willing to way overpay for AJ I see no reason he can't stay with the CWS for a long time. I see no reason why he can't build a legacy like Fisk.

We all have opinions but some of us provide links to lend greater credence to them for consideration as facts. There are very few irrefutable facts in life, but something's are common sense.

It's a good read & basically when you sift thru everything it really comes down to whether or not the umpire made a convincing enough sign that the 3rd out had been recorded. Given the the decision was upheld by the other umpires on the field & is in accordance with the rule book that goes so far as to even detail the possibility that the runner may advance towards their own dugout before sprinting to 1st I would say there is no reasonable doubt.

NA NA NA is not a RALLY song. It's a victory song. Now this would be killer RALLY music: Wagner: The Ride of the Valkyries, Overtures and Choruses Adding Apache helicopters is optional

How should I respond to this? I can go the personal attack route .. which you have in the other threads .. or I can go the sensei route & enlighten you. When you consider the size of the American economy in relation to the rest of the world it's impractical to believe that a company holding the patent to this vaccine or any other would not setup manufacturing in the US if given the proper incentive to do so. As to that incentive, conservatives are not chained to the minimum wage as liberals are. In the interest of national security the US Congress can make an exception for this.

And as long as the faith-based don't make use of public schools I'm sure you won't mind if we don't tax them for it. After all wouldn't it be discriminatory to tax those who don't want to support public schools in the first place? :rolly

1. You obviously are not well educated in history. That topic was discussed at length in another thread & the facts provided by the links are indisputable. NeoDarwinism has led to nearly 200 million murders in the world. 2. Only a closed-mind individual would conclude a straw man. 3. You are obviously wrong as evidenced by the first post & the line referring to God in the last one. 4. A further acknowledgement that you are not well educated in history seeing that scientific knowledge was born out of philosophy. :rolly Until the advent of the scientific method in the late 19th-20th century science evolved by certain individuals pondering the mysteries of our planet & our Universe. Prior to Darwin, there was Newton's Philosophy of Nature which clearly emphasizes this fact. If you have not read it you should.

Some how I knew a column from you would take aim at Christians :rolly It's common sense & pretty simple to understand. An institution founded upon a Christian, Muslim, Lutheran, Baptist, Buddhist, Hinduist, or any other religious denomination has the right to hire teachers & faculty members who share that faith. It's NOT discrimination as you see it because the institution itself is FOUNDED upon the faith. Without the faith the institution would not exist. Yet we so often see LIBs & Dems stick their nose in other people's business simply because they hate the existence of God in schools. Why would a person even seek such a job if they did not share the same faith? Simply because they are mean-spirited & unkind individuals who seek to cause trouble for the masses. There are plenty of jobs available to said individuals at public schools. Leave those that are FOUNDED upon a faith to the faith-borne. It's common sense & it exists in most nations outside of this one

No FSJ, that is HOW. That is NOT why. It does NOT explain how by natural selection alone some types are predators upon their own kind & others are nuturers. There are many such mysteries that can not be explained by a NeoDarwinist. I see you are back to asserting your opinion as fact again :rolly Try as you may you can not prove that a higher purpose has been left out by design. That is a metaphysical argument best left to those who are qualified in genetics, physics & philosophy to address. And yes, by all accounts of statements & behavior of NeoDarwinists including Stalin & Hitler it ACTS like a religion & a militant one at that. What is obvious about it today is that the mere mention of God to these people invokes a harsh & rash criticism even when that reference is made to support natural selection & evolutionary theory. Such close-minded, arrogant, & unkind behavior is definitely similar to militant Muslims. The world will be better off once these people reduce their numbers. Since belief that this world is all there is lends itself to desiring pleasure more than servitude to children it's inevitable.

How much of the $4B is going towards subsidizing manufacturing here in the US?

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFh...gtY3Nz/s/257376 Natural selection is the best theory going today to explain how we evolved. It's not perfect. It has it's flaws but nothing else can do as good a job. But it only addresses the how & somewhat the when part of the evolutionary question. It says nothing as to the why. If you study the great philsophers or if you enjoyed Matrix Reloaded they all say basically the same thing: without the why you have nothing. Some of these polls cited are pretty surprising. They say more about how the secularists are losing their grip on America than anything else. The lastest Gallup poll shows 53% of respondents favor Genesism over Darwinism. At least 67% of natural & social scientists view themselves as "spiritual". The secularists need to step back & let the other side talk. Teaching natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is a good thing. But teaching it in such a way that it offends those who believe in a Creator is not. Evolution is good, Darwinism is bad. The middleground would then be to incorporate both philosophy & science in the same class. Many scientists & philosophers since the dawn of man have felt that the two go hand in hand & should not be separated.

It's pretty clear there is no lack of time & space in the media for Dems viewpoints. They speak & regardless of how useless their speech is someone will write about it. The real problem as Nuke has eluded to is that the Dems just want to whine. They don't want to do something about it. Our any of them proposing legislation to insure that we have adequate manufacturing capacity of vacines here at home in the future? That's doing something about the problem. That's not just whining about it. Of course that action goes against the "global economy" paradigm that rules over both parties today & is otherwise considered unthinkable. So global capitalism overrules common sense in taking care of our own.

Marriage is a natural union between a man & a woman for the main purpose of raising a family. Sure there are exceptions amongst heterosexuals today but they are not so great in numbers that they should change the general rule. Of course committed sexual unions amongst homosexuals are so scarce that it's preposterous to even suggest a change in the general rule for that reason alone. Put another way a gay's right to life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness should not redefine our predominant culture.

The rotation makes perfect sense. Garland in game 1 means two starts in the ALCS. No thank you. Contreras, Buerhle, Garcia are much better in that role. Marte over BMac & Blum over Gload are both great examples of Ozzie believing in experience over performance. I don't agree with him on this but he's knocking on the door of the promised land so to speak so who am I to argue with him? I can only hope & Marte performs better.