Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) apparently he does represent the people of SF. He was elected right? It's not our call, it's theirs. They're not too happy about his idiocy either. http://p209.ezboard.com/fabledartsbathroom...icID=1254.topic Sound embarrassed to me.

There's another terrible article from Slezack. Of all the possible issues surrounding Sosa, his image, and his future within MLB, whether or not the Cubs erect a statue of him outside Wrigley Field is far from the forefront. Does anyone believe he could give a s*** about a statue? Or the Cubs for honoring him with one? No one wants to associate themselves with him, anymore. Any statue of Sosa would probably be defaced, as well become a favorite crapping location for birds across Illinois. Slezack's arrogant tone is what strikes me. Bad memories are always forgotten? These memories are like haunting nightmares for Cub fans. I don't know many who support him anymore. Most believe he took steroids, and his loveable act was merely a sham. That was evident in 2004 when he became a prime target for their fans. And her last paragraph is missing a key point. Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, and Rafeal Palmiero will all be included among the games roided sluggers. Their fates--esp Palmiero's--will be key to determing Sosa's. Will Palmiero be voted in the HOF? Will McGwire be a first balloter? I'm sure we'll hear those people who like to act diginified, and above logical reasoning, when they suggest, "There's no proof! I guess in our country it's guilty until proven innocent," or some bulls*** variation of that. Wilbon on PTI is good at making himself out to be a student of law; always complaining about our cultures view on poor ol' Barry. Too bad the procedures of the law hold no ground in public opinion. To the public, Sosa--among others--roided. He'll carry that cloud for a LONG time.

I'm not familiar with every division of the law--especially those stemming from these harrassment issues--but several of those alledged incidents cross the line. If nothing else, they'll be charged with vandalizing private property. Perhaps a restraining order will be issued. All I know is if I lived within the area, and were a neighbor to these people, I would do my best to protect the family. If these harrassments were occuring to my family, you better believe I would have kicked the s*** out of a few of them. Pussy animal right activists can't possibly defend themselves. It's a noble cause, but issuing threats and disrupting lives shouldn't be the method they use.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) I almost wonder if this is some sort of "undercover" deal... if you know what I mean. I could guess, but I'm interested in what you believe. Is this some sort of undercover deal, in your mind, whereby controlling port operations in our country UAE removes itself from sponsoring terrorists?

PALOS REPRESENT! Happy Birthday.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) On the other hand, is it possible that through efforts to bend the U.N. more to our will, we'll wind up splitting ourselves from the people we should be working with, and strengthening those we should be working against? Yes, it could possibly split ourselves from allies. Don't know how it would stregthen those we should be working against, though. I just don't believe we can have any significant influence in appointing a new UN leadership, as Northsidesox is suggesting, without problems erupting. It's almost as if for the United Nations to hold any legitimacy in the world, you'll need a leader who doesn't appear to be in our pockets. Everyone wants change--they just don't want reform if it means newly appointed leadership doesn't follow their beliefs. And guess what? With a Republican appointee representing our country in the United Nations, and the obvious importance the United States holds, you can only guess who they would support.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 08:30 PM) Using our influence is bullying and arrogance? No, sending an anti-UN relic like Bolton to represent your country and wholly ignoring the rest of the world in going to war is arrogance and bullying. I am suggesting working positively, politically, to push things in a different direction. No guarantees there, but its a much better alternative than cutting and running, further opening the divide. Do you suppose their favored nominee would publically voice opposition to the Iraq War? Or express sympathy towards Iran's nuclear program? I'm merely suggesting if the United States uses its position within the United Nations to heavily influence Annan's successor, don't be surprised if the appointee cators to our ambitions--present and future.

I'd like to see him hit one fewer than Babe Ruth's HR record, then have pitchers simply refuse to pitch him anything the remainder of the year. He'd cry racism, and we'd all have a good laugh.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 06:47 PM) As I stated in the other UN thread, I'd rather see us get more active in the choice of new leadership in the UN, and start changing the organization from within. Its time to use our influence, instead of bullying and arrogance. Using our influence within the United Nations to appoint new US friendly leadership sounds like bullying and arrogance to me. If we're a part of it, you damn well know they will push for their candidate. Whomever thay may be. It just proves no matter what we do, someone will dislike our country. Withhold dues, it creates further divide. Lend a hand in appointing a successor to Annan and it's, "America deciding what's best for the world again.."

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) Neither does the death penalty. Nothing helps a murdered victim. That's exactly the problem.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Yes, because there is no such thing as a "Victim's rights" organization. Doesn't help a murdered victim much.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_...rophet_drawings This thread may go on for another year at this rate. To extremists credit, atleast no deaths were reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- I thought I was reading a summary of yesterday's events. Instead, it was more fanactical violence in another continent. I'm wondering when the moment is going to arrive when a country is fed up with the issue and unleashes heavy gunfire upon a crowd. Everyday, protests abrupt. Everyday, they appear to be growing more violent. Think of these excerpts for a second: Sounds like protestors used the occasion as a convenient excuse to kill some of their neighboring Christians. Exactly what you want to do--encite further civil violence and begin a holy war.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 01:24 AM) I gathered that from reading it but I felt that question by itself was worth an answer. To answer your question: hell, if such actions would be guaranteed, I'd wouldn't flinch if I heard if the filth was beaten to death. However, I don't believe such treatment of rapists occurs as often as we might believe. Prison murders don't go unnoticed. ACLU wants to be sure their rapist and pedophilic clients are assured civil liberties within prison.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 01:11 AM) I dont mean to cherry pick your post but I sure as hell would. If the state doesn't have the balls to do it then maybe the other sodomites in jail can do it for us. What I meant is WSF99 opposed the death penalty, yet cited his support for the prisoners to deal with the issue. Which shows, as I interpret it, the need for certain people to die because of their crimes.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:35 AM) Maybe Salman Rudshie is the author of the cartoons? That guy is one of my heros. Honestly, I never heard of him until I watched an episode of I Love the 80's. The one radical Islamic cleric who suggested he'd never live in peace again really reminded me of today's lunatics. What's worse is I believe him. Similar to the Israeli's and the one Black September member still alive, Rushdie is still a marked man.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:22 AM) Stick him in jail for life and let the inmates have their way with him So, you're basically implying his death is justified--just not from our legal system. You would support a child rapist/murderer being beaten to death within a prison, opposed to a quick and painless execution? Honestly, I can't really sympathize with the 'if only one is innocent' argument. Can we put an estimate on how many people have wrongly been executed? An actual, legitimate guess based on some evidence? I'll even let you opponents site data from the early 20th century, which obviously reflecs a different time period in America. Even if it were several hundred, which I feely sorry for, more are killed senselessly because of gun violence. Or automobile accidents. If DNA evidence has provided a match between the victims blood and the defendants clothing, there's no debate. He's guilty. What I propose is for everyone sentenced to death before the introduction of DNA evidence to be removed from death row, UNLESS there's undeniable proof of guilt. Instances where forensic science doesn't need to be included. Such as video taped proof, numerous witnesses, etc. That way, our legal system can begin from a point where medical technology can prove guilt beyond doubt.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) Flash, that's the thing about the heinous crime and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Human beings are fallible. You can let a guy out of prison if the system f***ed up. You can't bring a dead guy back to life to say "Oops!" Someone is commiting these crimes. I don't accept oppositional tactics which site possible errors within the justice system as a reason for removing the death penalty. Even if federal laws were enacted which provided mandatory DNA testing in capital cases, there would still be complaints. This is true. Racial bias dramatically effects death penalty sentencing. But this is NOT a legal issue. Nor do I really care for its presence. Studies I've come across suggeset the sentence of death is discriminatory, not the preceding verdict. Jurors are carefully selected for the purpose of issuing a fair sentence. You can't reform the mindset of jurors who've been conditioned to associate a certain race with criminal behavior. If a criminal standing trial is found guilty, they deserve whatever they get. Any racial elements embedeed within jurors are on subconcious levels. It's transcends ALL types of cases. In a Gallop Poll conducted during May 2001, 81% of respondents supported the Death Penalty for McVeigh; including 58 percent who claimed they were death penalty opponents. I've dug these statistics from old lecture notes. What the numbers indicate to me, in cases such as McVeigh, that the horrific act of a crime may be enough to sway even opponents of the death penalty. You may say "executing one innocent person is too much," I'd say, "One Timothy McVeigh walking this planet is too much." Many agreed. As long as half the nation supports the death penalty--and our Supreme Court has a predominatly Republican contingent--it's not going away.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) What was up with the black dude just walking the halls all casually while all hell was breaking loose only to get shot? It was like dude wanted to get shot. I recalled the Elephant discussions earlier in the week while browsing through On-Demand's HBO selections last night. Thought I would experience the film for myself. What I found was 'Elephant s***' would have been better a better title. It's f***ing terrible. If you're going to create a movie about the school shooting--which obvious references to Columbine--atleast make it more factual. Or interesting. I absolutely despise movies such as these, where there's various elements of latent symbolism. You know, the type of movies where a simple action such as walking down a hallway is meant to "draw parallels to the fragile psyche of mankind." Gus Van Sant wishes he were Stanley Kubrick. And what's the basis behind the references to homosexuality? Gus Van Sant, IMO, was merely attempting to add a controversial issue to his story. If his direction didn't spend time following some goofus through an enormous highschool, or listening to a gunmen play classical music, perhaps there would have been time for proper character development. I practically laughed when the nerdy girl was shot in the Library. Didn't know a damn thing about her except her reluctance to change with other girls and wear short pants.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) Yeah, what the guy did was bad but what's gained out of executing him? Nothing. Don't you think people will learn that violence is bad by example much moreso than by strongarming them with threats? I've studied countless documents pertaining to corporal punishment, and explanantions of those opposing and supporting it. I understand executing criminals isn't a deterrent. I understand victims of families often don't recover from their losses whether or not an execution is granted. I understand the cost differential between life-in-prison and an execution. However, I believe you can't completely remove the death penalty. Call it primitive justice, but if someone commits a heinous crime AND it's proven beyond reasonable doubt they perpetrated the act, they shouldn't be allowed to continue life. I hate to drag abortion into this, but I still can't comprehend how liberals are so adament about the right to choose abortion, yet simultaneously oppose the death penalty? Personally, I support pro-choice--but not because of religious issues or debate relating to the life status of a fetus. Often the individuals who seek abortions are economically disadvantaged women who couldn't possibly raise their children in a nuturing environment. LCR, I'm interested in how you feel about Zacarias Moussai? Or Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacey, or Timothy McVeigh? If we could guarantee what happened to Dahmer occured to everyone guilty of murder, or another vile act, I'd be completely in favor of abolishing the dealth penalty. Both sides of the issue could rejoice.

I listened to Ozzie's interview on the Score. It was atleast 15 minutes long. He felt, for the first time in his career, he were the first person to "throw a punch." Apparently, Guillen learned a lesson from this incident and will be careful of what he says in the future. I believe that. No apology was granted for Nomar, however. That was labeled a joke of Guillen's. His reason for the conference went beyond an apology for Rodriguez. Guillen, whether or not he truly felt guilt, knew this would be an unwanted distraction for players defending a championship title. Mentioned the possible distraction several occasions. If he didn't address his criticism of Rodriguez, it would be a quesiton asked OVER and OVER to players. "How do you feel of Guillen alledging Rodriguez is a hyprocrite?" "Do you agree with Guillen?" "Were you upset Guillen didn't attend the White House?" (Guillen addressed this at length, too). There should be no need to discuss anything but baseball when players report. Everything is out of the way.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 01:31 AM) I was thinking the same thing. I'm just glad he's alright. No, I'm just making light of the Cheney shooting accident by suggesting Jenks should have contacted someone sooner.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 11:43 PM) The article forgot to mention that Bobby was driving drunk. The real question is how soon after the accident did Jenks report it to the Sox. THERE'S A LAPSE IN TIME THAT NEEDS EXPLANATION!

QUOTE(AirScott @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 10:06 PM) quite a feat to be remembered as worse than Koch here. I remember Eyre as worse than Koch, and I despised KW for some time after the Foulke-Koch trade. Hey, Capn12 may differ with you on that opinion! During 03/04, you couldn't have found a bigger, more apologetic Koch fan. Haven't seen him around lately, but if he were here, I'm sure he'd be defending him.

The cartoonist should go in hiding with Salman Rushdie. He's evaded death for 10+ years.