The Sir

Oh, and remember when you gave me props for my post where I said I wasn't all that big into being a judgmental Christian? You approved and then noted that the approval was "unironic". But actually, it's quite ironic, since you have turned out to be one of the most unapologetically judgmental people I've encountered yet on this board.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 07:03 PM) I'm not atheist! but I like that you know I'd cry for you to get banned, that's amazing precognition for me to suddenly start doing something I've never done before that you could pick up on after being here about 3 weeks! You'd whine about being judged, and don't even act like you wouldn't. And that doesn't just apply to atheism. It applies to any view of yours that I could single out and call terrible. You'd cry nonstop about me passing judgment on you for a personal belief, while you feel free to do the same to me. It's arrogant and hypocritical. We're not arguing facts on this thread. We're talking about personal beliefs. Again, who are you to tell me how I should feel personally? You can't name one way this belief of mine affects you, or anybody but maybe myself and my unborn son. I don't want a gay son but I'd still father him all the same if it happened that way. It doesn't even really affect him! Just me for the personal sadness that I would feel. But you, in some twisted desire to advance your far left beliefs, try to act like I said I'd disown the kid, or something worse. And then you try to compare my beliefs to Nazism. That's absolutely outrageous.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 07:00 PM) I was more curious if you hold the "Jews deserve Israel because the Bible says so" position that I remember West advocating. but w/e No. I share his end state, not his reason.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) why? Why? Well, I believe the Palestinians should be left stateless for a bunch of reasons that I strongly believe in, but I already know your predetermined response will be to simply call me a bigot and an Islamophobe (which, honestly, coming from a liberal isn't that insulting anymore). So I'm not going to waste my time. Arguing with someone who is so intolerant and hostile to different opinions and judgmental in general is pointless.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) I hate this "you're bigoted against bigots!!!" solipsism. No, it's not being a bigot to call out a bigot. Not all opinions are valid or equal. His views that children should lie about who they are or not turn to their parents in times of need because it might shame them are terrible. Would we apply the same "everyone's got opinions, you can't call him a bigot!" standard to someone who came in from Stormfront? I can't apologize since I don't know what you're specifically referring to (and searching via google is a pita), but I wouldn't call you that based on what you've posted itt. My personal preference that I don't want a gay child is mine alone. It's a personal view that affects no one except my son, and even then, only if he's gay. And since I would never disown my son (BigSqwert would like to make it seem that way, but I never mentioned doing such a thing), it wouldn't even really affect him. If my son came out to me, I'd do whatever I could to help him, but secretly it would hurt. And in a way, there'd be part of me that would wish I'd never known about his sexuality. But that doesn't mean I'd abandon my duties as a father. That's all I said. And frankly, the reason I wouldn't want an openly gay kid is because that's an extra struggle for him to face in life. Teenagers gotta enough s*** to deal with at that age without the added trouble of being gay. Why would I long for a kid that's going to be discriminated against more than he needs to be? What father would long for that for their kid? It's just a trouble he/she won't need. I bring up the atheist thing because it's a judgement I could make about you (but choose not to, because I really don't care) that you wouldn't appreciate. I don't judge your atheism because as long as you don't decide to attack my Christianity, it's a personal belief of yours that doesn't affect me. Just like my internal reaction to my son's sexuality is a personal thing that doesn't affect you. And really, I don't even think your atheism is a terrible thing or whatever, because it doesn't affect me. I'm not gonna be so offended by something that doesn't affect me. However, if I chose to get in a huff about you being an atheist and tell you that it was a terrible view, I guarantee you'd cry for me to be banned and you'd whine about me judging you, while you do the very same thing to me. It's hypocritical beyond belief. And then you go and try to backhandedly parallel me to some neo-Nazi punk from Stormfront. Pitiful.

Viciedo definitely deserves to be called up in light of his excellence at AAA and Dunn/Rios' struggles up here. But the other three, no way. And why is Quentin on this list at all? His average is mediocre but he hits for power and drives in runs. What is the problem with that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 07:23 AM) Yup, an outrageous and infeasible demand. Which is why every other President has made the exact same statement. God bless you Mr. Bush, and Mr. Obama for following the exact same policy. I didn't say anything about GW's policy. As far as I'm concerned, he was wrong too. I'm in agreement with Allen West. The Palestinians do not deserve a state. Period.

What that was, Barry, was a weak American leader making an outrageous and unfeasible demand of one of our closest allies that got almost zero support from his own people, and then promptly getting the crap embarassed out of him by what is currently the world's greatest leader. God bless you, Mr. Netanyahu, and God bless Israel.

Obama administration takes credit for South Sudan's independence, South Sudanese thank George W. Bush. Ouch. They are facing tremendous challenges even after having been freed from the north, but I wish them all the best. I hope Salva Kiir gains a reputation as an honest, incorruptible leader with respect for his nation's constitution and the democratic process, and that he avoids the kleptocratic, violent methods of so many previous leaders on that continent. Good luck, South Sudan. On a less serious note, I do wish they chose a more interesting name. South Sudan, really? Nubia would have been cool, although I think historically that region is described as being farther north. Either way, I sort of dislike directional state names. North and South Dakota, East Timor, South Sudan...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 07:41 PM) I'm telling you that you have homophobic/bigoted views and that you put your own bigoted desires ahead of your hypothetical child. I'm not trying to guilt trip you. I'm hoping to show you that you hold some pretty terrible views. Yet you'd probably cry like a little kid if I said your atheism constituted "pretty terrible views" (again, I'm assuming you're an atheist, but hopefully you see what I mean). Why are you judging me when you wouldn't appreciate being judged?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 07:38 PM) Here's one thing worth thinking about. Do you want to have a kid who is scared to be themselves around you because they know that being themselves would leave you "sad". I didn't tell my father that I suffered from depression and almost shot myself in the head because I didn't want to bring shame to him. That's not fear; that's respect for your elders. If my kid's gay, I'd rather he not tell me so I never have to know. It'd be the respectful thing to do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 07:33 PM) No, I never said you'd disown your child. I posted my reaction to you saying you'd be disappointed and sad. Your last line here only reinforces that you're a bigot and that your child's sexuality and experiences you want to have is more important to you than their happiness. I notice both you and Jordan are using male pronouns and assuming a gay son instead of a daughter. I wouldn't want a lesbian daughter either. And who are you to tell me how to feel? I'm not gonna judge you for being an atheist (or SoxBadger, if you're not atheist), but you're going to judge me for how I choose to raise my kids? That's pretty arrogant. Whatever dude, you're not going to guilt trip me for wanting a normal kid.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 06:59 PM) I took it is him saying that no straight man on this planet would want to bring a son into the world with aspirations of him eventually turning gay. I agree with that totally. Can one eventually accept it? Sure. But no father initially would want that for their son. And I would have to imagine that even if one's father did accept it, it'd eat away at him on the inside for eternity. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Some of you (i.e. StrangeSox) are acting like I'd disown the kid and have his image erased from the family photographs, Stalin style. And I never said that. I just want my kids to go on dates with girls, I want to meet his female fiance some day and I want a normal family experience. Having a gay kid would be a big adjustment and I don't want that. And I'd be really sad for a while. I'd probably accept it sooner or later, but it'd always eat away at me like Jordan said. Here's a sort of random question, Strange Sox. Say I was a priest in a gay marriage state like Massachusetts. If my interpretation of my religion said marriage was between a man and a woman only, what would happen if a gay couple came to me to be wed? Am I obligated to do it? Just curious. And Heads, no, I do not have kids. Not yet, at least.

No to which part?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) Also works here I'm not allowed to be disappointed if my son is gay? Would you not be disappointed? I think most red blooded men would be. Doesn't mean we'd show it, but are there people out there who actually want a gay child?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) I honestly view the military as a necessary evil, literally. We should also strive to make it as small as possible. Ah, should have expected the typical "military hate" card sooner or later. And you wonder why I suspect you of being unpatriotic. It's a real shame that we are sworn to protect people of your caliber who don't realize the immense good created by the military. You're pathetic. To the admins, I'm not going to tolerate people insulting the military. Several friends of mine have died in the services, and to hear someone call their deaths part of "necessary evil" infuriates me beyond belief. If thinking someone who says that is the scum of the earth is not allowed here, then so be it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 08:00 AM) The military is part of the government. And it's the only part that's worth a damn. When I talk about a need for small government, I'm referring to bureaucracy, entitlement programs and other forms of control. Those things need to be minimized. National defense does not.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 05:05 AM) Is it patriotic to believe the government is incapable of solving and running complex programs like health care The government =/= The nation I love the nation. Government, however, I see as a necessary evil. We should strive to make it as small as possible. This dislike and distrust for government has no impact on my feelings toward the United States of America.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 10, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) If you wound up having a gay son or a mentally handicapped daughter will your attitude be the same if you hear people saying "f*****!" or "retard!" in your presence? I stand by my earlier comment that such comments won't be high on my list of concerns for a gay son or a retarded daughter. Remember that whole sticks and stones thing we heard as children? They'll get over a silly comment. What they won't get over so easily is other disadvantages they are sure to face, like where they will work and who they will take care of etc. Honestly, if my child is either of those two things, I'm probably just going to be very, very sad. I'll never give up my duties as a father because that's not how a conservative and an officer behaves, but secretly, I'll be heartbroken.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 10, 2011 -> 05:42 PM) He should have put Getz is a Geek or something. You just can't do what Gordon did. Can't you see that? The political correctness will never end. It's now here to stay. That makes no sense at all. It will never end and it's here to stay, so there's no point calling it stupid and fighting against it? Wow. I'm sure glad we take that attitude towards...oh, I don't know...communism? Just for starters. Political correctness is an idiotic idea designed to protect the emotionally weak. I'm not going to acquiesce to it simply because a lot of other people have.

Pitchers: Brian Bruney - C (nice ERA, but that WHIP is worrisome) Mark Buehrle - A (not getting the run support he deserves, but he's the best he's been in a few years) Jesse Crain - A- (most reliable pitcher out of the pen) John Danks - D (I could understand his poor record at first due to zero run support, but he started showing signs of Todd Ritchie syndrome...yuck) Gavin Floyd - D (he's a mental midget and the most overrated pitcher on the staff) Philip Humber - A (he's the new ace, and considering his preseason expectations, this grade is easy) Edwin Jackson - C+ (he's not bad, just forgettable...I wish he'd put that stuff to better use) Will Ohman - D (only kept up that far by the fact that little was expected of him) Jake Peavy - D- (he's not who he was four or five years ago with the Padres, and he's a bit of a China doll) Tony Pena - F (I missed it...where did he go? Well, good riddance) Chris Sale - C (I was gonna give him a D, but he must have done something right to get that ERA down to where it's at now) Hector Santiago - N/A (two games don't count as far as I'm concerned) Sergio Santos - B+ (when he sucks, he SUCKS...but he's been good too many times to go lower than this) Matt Thornton - C- (he failed at his assigned task...our record is quite a bit better if not for his failed stint as closer) Position Players: Ramon Castro - B- (not bad power numbers for the backup catcher) A.J. Pierzynski - A- (should have been an AllStar...quietly churning out a great season) Gordon Beckham - D- (negligible impact; lacks consistency) Paul Konerko - A (quite a career revival he's having in his mid 30s) Brent Morel - C (gets higher ratings than Beckham because he didn't have the hype Beckham did, and his D is incredible; but he shouldn't be more than a backup) Alexei Ramirez - A (slumping lately, but his numbers still qualify him as one of the best AL SS's...rapidly becoming a cornerstone of this franchise) Mark Teahen - D- (gets my vote as the worst hitter on the team, and yes, I know who Adam Dunn and Alex Rios are) Omar Vizquel - D (can he retire already so Hawk can just vote him into the HOF on the first ballot and shut up about it?) Brent Lillibridge - B- (his hot hitting to start was a fluke, but the several memorable and clutch defensive plays boost his grade) Juan Pierre - F (can't hit, can't field can't throw, can't run...the quintessential anti-five tool player) Carlos Quentin - B (good power, mediocre average = All-Star) Alex Rios - F (gets an extra bit of hatred for not even seeming to try anymore) Adam Dunn - F (Jaime Navarro resurrected as a hitter) Management: Ozzie - F (poor pen management, idiotic lineups, dumb tactics, and a big mouth...FIRE HIM) KW - B (needs to stand up to Ozzie already, but it's not his fault this team sucks on the field, he created a good product on paper which is his job) Walker - F (anyone directly overseeing this offense gets an automatic F) Cooper - A- (continues to do a great job of overseeing the pitching staff) Overall: C- (we're still in it, but only because we play in this crappy division)

Political correctness is gay. Seriously though, when does the politically correct crap end? Why are people so sensitive? Everyone wants to act like stuff like Beckham's comments and stuff like Michael Richard's dumb comments a few years back are huge problems to those communities, but are they? Did Michael Richards cause another black teen to get pregnant or drop out of school or join a gang? He acted like a horrible fool, for sure, but he didn't contribute to the actual problems of black Americans. And Gordon Beckham, with his silly joke to a personal friend, did not contribute to the actual problems of gay Americans. If gays are worried about their legitimacy, they should be far more concerned with the debauchery of their pride parades, among other things (AIDS, anyone?). Those pride parades do more to damage the reputations of homosexuals much more than perjorative yet joking uses of the term "gay" do. I'd be equally disgusted by a straight pride parade (how ridiculous does THAT sound?) that behaved in such a way. All I see in this story is one crappy second baseman making a bad joke about another crappy second baseman.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 09:28 PM) Fly, haha thats after I got home from work and was actually able to cite and reply coherently. And damn I was hoping to get to reply to you one more time and use your own line "you cant bend your morals, murder is murder. So even if you kill an innocent man with the best intentions, its still murder". And that would probably lead to me making some quip about abortion, so...uh...let's just not go there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) Flysox, The treaty is from 1963. So in 1994 the US had been subject to the treaty for a few decades give or take. lostfan, Because execution is final. What if he had gotten consular access and the Mexican govt provided him a better attorney who plead that Leal was disabled and therefore should be put in a mental institution? As a justice system, we cant rewrite the rules because "it wouldnt matter", the reality is, we dont know what would matter and what wouldnt. If we are going to say our justice system is fair and just, we must follow the rules, even if it doesnt matter, even if it means we have to spend extra money. Because that is what justice means. It means that you gave the Defendant all of their rights and they still lost. As soon as you take away 1, whats to stop you from taking away 2, or 3? I mean if we know they are guilty why even have a trial, why let them appeal? Why not just execute? Its because our system is based on the fact that for the majority of human history, there has been no semblance of justice for those who were not the extremely wealthy. That we our a society who created a system where even the most terrible, the poorest, the worst, get the same rights as the best of us. Because as long as we give the worst the fairest chance, we can be sure that we give everyone a chance. Kapkomet, Law didnt exist at the time? Does not compute. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf See the date, April 24, 1963. If the victim was 16 in 1994, she wasnt even born in 1963. See Lostfan, this is why it matters. Because there are people who will completely rewrite history to strip a Defendant of his rights. They will change the law to say it didnt exist, just so that they can execute someone today, instead of 15 years from now. Thats why its a big deal, because not many people in the world care about Defendants. They immediately assume they are guilty, they want to execute them instantly, they do not care that humans are imperfect and therefore prone to error. They would rather kill an innocent man today, than let a criminal not be executed and have to live in jail. , which means we changed the rules after we arrested Leal. So if you are upset about ex post facto, you should be made that the US changed the rules in 2005 after the ruling in 2004. (Its sad how dirty this all is.) Even more sad, all Texas was required to do was: Thus if you are all correct, that it was merely harmless, Texas would have still gotten to execute him. So why not have the hearing? If you are so sure this guy is guilty, why not in 2004 have the hearing? The only reason you dont want to, is because youre afraid that more than harmless error occurred. And maybe its not in this case, maybe its in one of the other X cases of Mexican nationals not being given these rights. But who cares about facts or the law, the state of texas said Leal murdered some one, the state of texas is never wrong!!!! Or maybe the story of Ruben Cantu will give you pause http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent. And just for fun of the 9 people mentioned, 6 were executed in texas. How do you explain killing an innocent man? (not that Leal was innocent, but the reason why its all important is because it all matters, from the before the arrest, until the execution, it all matters and small injustices can lead to big mistakes) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Im busy today I've said my piece here, but I just want to say, I wish my busy days could be as free and open as yours...

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 08:06 PM) Well then agree to extremely disagree, because I'm not going to sit here and try to argue who knows this girl more, me or some people on a message board. Just because I am infatuated with this girl does not mean I don't see her with flaws. She is f***ed up in a lot of ways, but I would never characterize her as a whore/slut/hooker etc. I'm not budging on that, and in the scheme of things here, it's not even the issue at hand. We can disagree. It's not my heart at stake here. I just realized something though. You don't think she's a whore because, with the exception of her interactions with your friend (which you are desperately trying to rationalize), you wanted her to do all those things the other night. You wanted to see her tits, you wanted to drink with her, you wanted to hold her, you wanted to flirt with her and have her flirt with you. You can't see her for what she is and you won't listen to us because from your point of view, you wanted all of that stuff. You still haven't put yourself in her boyfriend's shoes.