JUGGERNAUT

Putting aside the lib-speak please educate me as to when JFK, LBJ, Carter, or Clinton met with such a woman under similar circumstances. If there are no such cases that were met favorably by the press such that they bolstered public opinion of the guy then put the issue to bed already. Having to rally behind such a woman to make a point sure is making the lib-speakers look desperate. Can't you make a single argument that resonates with the American voter that doesn't involve grandstanding personal stories? Don't you feel ashamed when the highest rated & most notable viewer program discussing lib-speak issues is HBO's Real Time? The scary thing is that lib-speakers take that show seriously! :rolly

My arguments evolve due to your response. This is the essence of debate: point, counter-point. I have never stated as an absolute that majority rules. There are inalienable rights ordained by our creator that no man can argue away. That is why they are inalienable & not subject to the musings of mankind. As far as the majority is concerned I have always advocated that action speaks louder than words. The best measure of their will is when they have to act on their own accord either by vote or correspondence with elected officials. This applies to the federal, state, & local governments including school boards. As for the war, as far as acts of Congress go they still support the war. That's the majority opinion in Congress. It was after 9/11 & it still is. The majority of voters can express their opinion on the war in 2006 by nature of who they elect to Congress. At that time we will see whether the liberal anti-war rhetoric has resonated to a change in voting patterns. We are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with terrorists who threaten the safety of the public & the security of the government there. That's the problem with liberals in general. They often look at things from the perspective they want to see rather than all the perspectives they should see. Polls are useful data but they are usually jaded by the nature of the questions asked. The most influential polls are those that ask whether a position will result in a voting change. Short of that Congress is most influenced by lobbyist groups & correspondence with influential voters.

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

The Pirates GM days are numbered. I could see the PR hitting the Tigers with Young. Especially w the Maggs fiasco. Not a chance.

It's an intriguing idea even if he just plays DH for us. If he's available & we can get him sure why not? You're only on the hook for what he's owed this year.

They did that with playoff coverage in the past. But I don't recall them ever doing it for a regular season game.

I've had pizza in S America, Europe, C America, the SW USA, the SE USA, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, & none of them compare to the local guys. A good analogy is that there's Wendy's style hamburgers & then there's everything else. Real Chicago style pizza is wet. Wet with greasy sauce made from LOTs of fresh tomatoes. You become nostalgic for it when you travel & taste other versions.

Sat Sept 17th is an interesting date. The game is not being televised because of the FOX contract with MLB. The Cub vs STL game is being televised instead. But if the Cub are hopelessly out of it by then you could see FOX switching from Cub to WSox game & maybe even use picture in picture. That would make the most sense in terms of maximizing viewers in the Chicago area. I don't think CLE will fade so easily. I think they will clinch at home vs DET. BE THERE!

I strongly disagree & so do the players. They've said as much. There are many times when momentum shifts because players feel more energetic because the crowd is behind them. It's been documented in just about every sport. I really like the "WE WA NT TO WI N!" slogan though. At 2 letters per large card I need just 6 people. I can get at least 3 in my own party & I'm sure I can get 3 other fans to hold them up. I would love to see it on big banners across the stadium. It would be like the ultimate put down for the Cub.

In general most people respond better to positive reinforcement. There are exceptions of course. If it was up to me & I could orchestrate it for every home game I would have the fans yell in a uniformed chorus "WE WANT TO WIN!" Maybe I'll try to get the crowd going next time. That covers both cases: 1) The guys who feed on good vibes 2) The guys who need a kick in the rear once in a while Better yet it sends a STRONG message to the FRONT OFFICE as well.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to boo. As a fan you do. But what do you hope to accomplish by doing it? Positive reinforcement has been proven to be a better psychological tool to getting the best out of people. Booing a player on your team has never made any sense to me. Booing players on the other team makes all the sense in the world. So I would say the best time to express your boos is when the other team takes the field prior to your team coming to bat. That's when you should express all your frustration that your team is losing. When your team finally comes to bat, if they do nothing say nothing. If they get on cheer loudly. That's what I do. I also throw a <opposing team> sucks in there as well to make sure my team knows I'm booing the fact the visitors are beating us.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...d=846371&st=0 It pertains more to this thread than the other.

I just wish he would highlight us die-hards more. The bandwagoners are the Cub fans & the Chicago fans who aren't really baseball fans but just want to ride the wave. Die-hards will always remain Sox fans & cheer them on. Win or Lose.

I'm being a bit of a debater today but I'll slide in my personal opinion on these issues: 1) I was against the war in Iraq: Wasn't willing to pay the price. I didn't care enough about the Iraqi people to liberate them. Preferred to back the Kurds as best we can & let them do the fighting. Didn't care much for the Sunni's or the Shiites. Today I realize now what's done is done. Back out now & our word is s*** to our allies. Our loyalty to Iraq will ultimately pay off for other troublesome regions in the world & the impending war against chinese-capitalism which is soon to follow. 2) I am pro-choice. But I am not pro-abortion. I draw the line at physical health. A woman should have a right to an abortion up to a time of fetus viability outside the womb. At that point only when a woman's physical health is severely compromised (long term consequences or risk of death) should an abortion be allowed. 3) On the issue of war protests & flag burning. I'm a big advocate of free speech so I say yes. They should be allowed. Where I differ probably with some of you is how the they should be regulated as it pertains to media coverage. Anything higher than TVPG is considered to have objectionable content that is not suitable for younger viewers. I would consider flag burning & war protests in that category. Thus media coverage of such things should be rated TV14 or higher.

I think I summed up your article quite nicely in this statement: By your logic, it's ok to kill innocent babies that are partially born, & it's ok to burn the American flag regardless of the emotional & mental consequences that act will have on other Americans but it's a definite NO NO to kill terrorists that share the same cause as those who attacked us on 9/11 & threaten our way of life. I never asked you what you feel personally on an issue. I won't say I care less about that but that is not something I can debate. I can only debate what you write. If you are going to make a general argument you should stick with it. Resorting to an personal one is weak. Your quote suggested repeal of RvW would change us from pro-choice to pro-coathanger. I refuted that claim by pointing out two acts of Congress already signed into law & working their way up to the USSC already explicitly protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. So either you are ignorant of that fact (& choose to remain so) or you are taking a non-credible position. You decide.

Nice effort to bridge their statement in 1999 with that of today. However I will add what you will not in order to resolve what you are crafting as hypocrisy: That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities; ANSWER: The people we fight in Iraq share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11. The war on terror is an ideological war. It is of national interest to us because of 9/11. Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy; ANSWER: There is a clear exit strategy: When the Iraqi goverment is capable of enforcing laws we will leave. That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and ANSWER: The U.S. Congress supported the war in Iraq. It still does. The opinion of the American people is best represented by the officials they elect. It's when they must act on their own accord to express their opinion.

Steff I was told to put you on ignore by the mods. They told me that they have told you to do the same thing. I see you are defying the mods again. No I have not read your post. I'm just pointing out more hypocrisy here.

This is getting boring. Suggesting that only 700 club viewers support Robertson is like suggesting only EWTN viewers are Catholic :rolly

Why is that liberals always have to resort to a personal angle to prove a point? Because they don't have a leg to stand on in a general argument. Enough said as a rebuttal to your latest lib-speak. I notice how you ignored the partial birth abortion law fact altogether. If you don't like that one there's another law explicitly defining the right to an abortion:Violence Against Mother's Act. So what we have is the example of a child who refuses to accept facts because it weakens their argument :rolly By your logic, it's ok to kill innocent babies that are partially born, & it's ok to burn the American flag regardless of the emotional & mental consequences that act will have on other Americans but it's a definite NO NO to kill terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 & threaten our way of life. And please spare me the lib-speak on what does Iraq have to do with 9/11. If you honestly believe the people we are fighting in Iraq don't share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11 then your ignorance is fueled by your bias. The war in Iraq is an ideological war. On one side is capitalism, women's rights, & free-market systems. On the other side is barterism, male domination, & closed-market systems. Those are the extremes. Most of the terrorists & the allies fall somewhere in between.

http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm Post-modernist Catholics (the most likely class for the many religious folk you refer to) are a growing minority. They are not representative of the majority or the mainstream. You can easily replace Catholic with any other religion and generally speaking the classifications would still apply.

Useless & subversive. Complete & utter ignorance: Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop the act of abortion. If overturned, it would merely change "pro-life" to "pro-coathanger". If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the partial birth abortion ban law would once again go before the court & be upheld. This act of Congress includes legislation not only defining a right to an abortion but regulation on procedures. On the flag burning, try this on: We allow babies to be murdered even during partial birth because it could affect the emotional or mental health of the mother. So if your need to burn the flag could affect the emotional or mental health of someone it should be banned. The most sensical thing you wrote pertains to the Patriot Act. But then again it says nothing about the important issue of profiling. Should the government have the right to unfettered search & seizure of FOREIGN persons fitting the profile of a typical terrorist BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED TO DATE (not some fantasy hypothetical crap)? But like most writings that lean left you offer nothing as a compromise hence my first statement.

Is SOXTALK an anti-religious environment? Read this thread to decide :rolly

The death penalty is a form of murder. Yet many Christians including judges & politicians support it. Why? Because the life of one murderer is not worth the potential cost in lives of innoncent victims. I've weighed in on the death penalty before. I'm against it. I believe science can benefit from studying such people & putting them to some practical use. So I'm in favor of expensing the lowest cost possible to maintain their life instead. A man in power who's policies represent a grave threat to American's lives & America's national security can be dealt with in only 2 ways: 1) diplomatic - try to buy him off with concessions to his policies 2) force - try to remove him from power That's the real world. War is justifiable in self-defense. It is morally justifiable to act first to remove the bat from a person's hand before he bashes your face in with it. Claiming to be devout & demonstrating your devotion are two entirely different things. What you write is who you are as far as the forum goes.

Please, that's ridiculous. If you believe that then you're ignorant. The sheer number of people that tune into the 700 club &/or devoutly follow the ministry that Robertson is a part of make your small circle of friends insignificant in comparison. Mainstream America could care less about the statement & see him as a good man. If you doubt that go find a poll or something involving large numbers to counter it. What part of Bush's victory over Kerry did you not understand? Now let's look at the statement (thanks to a poster): "If we we're going to assasinate this guy, maybe we oughta just go ahead and do it." It looks like I have to teach school again :rolly It's clearly a hypothetical statement based on the assumption that we WILL assasinate this guy eventually. All he's stating is that IF that is the case then let's do it now rather than later. And this is not a right-wing thing or are you suggesting it's impossible for there to be a right-wing atheist? This is a religious thing. You are attacking an old man (of senile age) for saying something he shouldn't have on the air. Why? Because you don't like the man's ideology. :rolly SOXTALK is an anti-religious environment which I continue to change. It's not about what my religion is or any one else's. It's about the posts. When someone writes a post in support of a religion there is a gang of members who will pounce on it. When it is clearly one-sided that's the sign of an anti-religious environment. Well unlike some I've got balls the size of King Kong. I won't say I don't care what you have to say because by the nature of my responding to you it's evident I do. But I will say I'm not afraid of what you say. If you attack religion or spiritualism in any way you can expect me to combat you. Even if I'm the only one. Considering I possess multiple degrees & a Phd in Computer Science I'm probably the most technocratic person in this community. Einstein believed in God & his faith was intensified as he surmised the possibilities of quantum theory. Newton believed in God & his faith was intensified as he surmised the possibilities of wave theory. So you can be extremely progressive in terms of science & technology & retain your faith in God.

The player's were smart to vote to waive playing that makeup game @BOS on Labor Day. Hypothetical WSox 94-67 vs Cle 94-68. WSox own H2H 10-3. IF WC < WSox then WSox win div & forfeit the BOS game unless it has bearing on home field adv in the AL playoffs. If WC > WSox then WSox forfeit BOS game & have 1 gm playoff vs Cle. ** It would make no sense to play @BOS when you can host Cle. If you lose @BOS then you still have to host Cle. They currenty own the H2H tie-breaker vs CLE & the best rec in the AL. So right now wrt to WSox the gm @BOS is meaningless.