LowerCaseRepublican

Giambi getting the start at 1st base...what a crock. Fan voting is such BS. You could put Carl Yastrzemski on the ballot he'd get voted as a starter because they recognize the name. Hell, put a Yankee jersey on a corpse and it's almost guaranteed a starting spot.

You got a gift win for the 2nd win. In the Sox 2nd win, they kicked Zambrano's ass. There's a bit of a difference.

You'd think with all the sellouts and the beer sales, the Cubs could afford a goddamned drainage system. What bulls***. I'm off to go take a bath in that warning track at Pigley. :fthecubs

Bases loaded! Rock rock on! Let them play umps. Let them play. This is critical.

It's starting to rain again. Here comes Wuertz into pitch.

MEANS, the umps the past two games have sucked with the low strike. Runners on the corners and 1 out.

Infield single on the bunt! Runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Everybody looks like they are roller skates right now.

Maddux is in and Willie with the base hit. w00t!

We just got done deposing a theocracy in Afghanistan (although a lot of the Taliban forces are regrouping there and the ideological movement is very popular in Pakistan and India), why would we want to have one in the US? All this BS about a bishop denying Kerry communion because he's pro-choice, where does he get off choosing who can get communion and who cannot? Why not adulterers or liars too? Here is a good article on it: http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/2164 snip -- Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame has a view that is something to think about: "Burke in St. Louis is angling to become a Cardinal. Sheridan in Colorado Springs would love to be an Archbishop. What better way to get noticed than to deny communion to politicians and voters who are pro-abortion? They get points in Rome!" -- And re: the Bush abortion while working for Daddy's campaign in the 1970s...Flynt has obtained affidavits from the woman, her friends who heard what happened right after the event took place, the doctor who performed the procedure. He's known about this for a while but did not want to put the safety of the woman at risk because she asked him not to (since Bush does have the CIA, Secret Service etc. at his disposal) Whatever you may think about Flynt, he's a guy who is not a hypocrite and does expose those who are by "Flynting" them like he did to Bob Barr and others. He's got a track record of being on the right track when things like this go down.

Moore is traditionally known for stretching a few things to fit his agenda, just like any politician/political writer/radio host these days. For conservatives, Justin Raimondo wrote a review of F 9/11 that I thought was fairly intriguing. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2891 And Baggio, not all members of MoveOn.org are Kerry supporters. I'm a member of MoveOn and do not support Kerry. His policies are the exact same as Bush and the neo-conservatives (voted for NCLB, voted for PATRIOT Act, etc.) There are a lot of parallels with the ideals of fascist regimes that have come into play at the end years of the Clinton administration that were only strengthened by the Bush administration. In fact, there was a study done of previous fascist governments and the key parts they all shared in common. Here is the list of 14. 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia. 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite. 5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses. 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses. 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion. 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens. 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice. 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population. 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite. Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. -- Let's face it. Bush and Kerry are both softheaded tits who are dangerously incompetent to the task of protecting America. It says something about our country when the two best people we can find to run it are an ex-alcoholic ex-coke addict billionaire & a multi-millionaire who skis at Aspen saying he knows the plight of common people. We deserve better.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...p/j30priest.htm This priest performed my grandma's funeral. He was a real dick. He told us when the funeral would be instead of us choosing a day and gave my brothers really nasty looks for no damn reason and he was just a really aloof prick. They can only prove that he stole $46,000 but they believe he misappropriated and swindled a hell of a lot more. What a f***ing asshole. f*** him. :fyou

Still 6 outs to get before the Flubs can put this away. The game is not over yet. We've made comeback wins before.

Anybody announcing is better than Chip. We can get to Zambrano. We've done it before and we can do it again. We're not out of this game by a long shot. Remember the 8-0 game with Wood on the mound? We won that one and a lot of come from behind games this year. Lots of baseball left to be played today.

Watch the game on mute. It's much nicer. :fthecubs :fthecubs :fthecubs

The state is not a nanny. "My kids are watching too much violence and sex on TV. Instead of monitoring what they watch like a responsible parent, I will demand that the state put in harsh sanctions by the FCC on what they see and hear and allow the government to make my choices for me!" "My kids are listening to music that has questionable lyrics. Instead of monitoring what they listen to and discussing why I disapprove, I'll have the state put stickers on them in a set of random quality controls because of what some Christians do not like!" "My kids are fat. Instead of making them go out and play, I let them load up on soda, chips, ho-hos, etc. I need to sue the companies and fast food restaurants for making my children fat." "My kids surf the internet. Instead of monitoring what they look at by putting in parental controls, I'll let them roam free and if they get done up the butt by a pedophile, I need the state to control that so it won't happen." The citizens of the US need to get off their asses and f***ing be assertive parents, for f***'s sake instead of having the ever growing nanny state doing everything for them because they're too goddamned lazy to see what their children are involved in. The idea that people actually have to be assertive rather than sit back and consume, consume and f***ing consume must be repulsive to most Americans. And hey, "majority", how's these apples? If there is a bedrock principle of the 1st amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -- Justice Brennan, TX vs Johnson 1989

I agree with the fact that his "I did not have sexual relations..." comment sunk him. However the Arkansas Project (funded with millions of dollars by Richard Mellon Scaife) to get any mud they could was deplorable. David Brock, the writer who broke Troopergate, Broadderick and other stories re: Clinton being caught with his pants down said that there was not much evidence backing up 99.9% of the claims and they got lucky with hitting paydirt re: Monica. Clinton was a douche for lying about getting the BJ and that's what ultimately turned the 2000 election into both candidates adding the "I have sex with my own wife" plank of their platform. I don't have a problem with things coming out that can stick but to ramble on about Troopergate and such things like were done (as if they were fact) is deceptive because even the conservative writer breaking the story, David Brock, didn't really believe the troopers. He just wanted to lampoon Clinton more. And if you are kinky and it comes out, speak the same way in public. Have the platform that the government cannot dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do in their own privacy. When you do what you say, you really have nothing to worry about politically. It's only when it's in direct opposition that it has any sort of political firepower.

Russ Ortiz and Andruw Jones could be a damn good fit. The numbers show that Jones can be a real offensive force to be reckoned with. As for those who said he is a clubhouse cancer, we're not in the clubhouse so we are not entirely privvy to everything (obviously) and lots of times, as others have said before, the media blows things out of proportion in order to have a juicy story. So, there is a possibility that Jones being the "clubhouse cancer" are stories that are vastly overblown (or at least there is a reasonable doubt that they could be). If Maggs is gonna walk, then let's go for Jones. He's a GG winner and can be a huge offensive threat with the hitter's park the Sox have plus the offensive protection that he'd be receiving batting near Kong, Lee, Valentin, Thomas etc. He can hit LHP which is something very useful for the Sox and it's been noted how good his defense is. And if the Sox rent-a-player Ortiz to ride his arm then more power to us. He can be a solid pitcher for them through this and how sick would it be for Garland to be the #5 starter? If Maggs is gonna leave via FA, then I say let's get something for him and if it's a GG center fielder then that's just icing on the cake.

I think I've figured out the key to world peace -- make sure everybody is well laid.

So Juggs, you make a statement and I prove that statement wrong yet you continue to not acknowledge it. Nice revisionist move. It's not dishonest to quote you as saying something when its not taken out of context. So please, tell me in this statement: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past. Where was the policy problems that would be faced by Clinton receiving oral sex since you are all over Clinton bashing him for what he did. How would his decision making be impaired?

Juggs, excuse me but you're the one saying that the US must become a puritanical theocracy in which we all worship the Christian version of God and nobody has kinky sex and we all don't visit prostitutes or do drugs or do anything that anybody would find offensive by looking at pornography or saying anything controversial. That, momo, is a dreamland. The fact that your hatred of judges and anything that is paleo-conservative "government needs to stay out of peoples' lives" is deemed liberal is insane and misleading. You believe you are the sole arbitor of what is deemed right and wrong, so maybe you're just projecting on me just a tad bit.

Juggs, you've made 2 different statements on it. You can't go back on the quote I've chosen that you said just because you'd have to admit the Clinton witch hunt was insane and wrong. And SS2K4, it was Arafat who was waiting for him in the Rose Garden while he was getting his knob polished. And Juggs, nice removal of the quote I quoted you saying...when you said: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

Wait wait wait momo, I can't speak for the majority but you can? Who the f*** pontificated your ass to be their mouthpiece? I'm not wrong on all accounts as you say. The majority has been wrong before and continues to be wrong quite often. The fact that you can show no instances to prove my assertions only strengthens my case.

Hey Juggs, here's a quote from you on the 1st page: So, how does the fact that Clinton got a BJ have an effect on his policy decisions? You yourself said that prior indescretions should not keep a person out of office unless it would have an effect on his policy decision making. So are you ready to admit that the GOP witch hunt was wrong yet?

The federalists clearly state numerous times in the Federalist Papers that the role of the government is to protect the minority from the majority. There is an emphasis on the protection of the individual rather than roughshod democratic rule. We do not have a democracy in the US, have not had a democracy in the US and will not have a democracy in the US in anywhere in the near future.

Juggs, the majority did not want integration. The majority did not want the war of revolution in 1776 (even Adams said that an optimistic assumption was that it was 1/3 of the population). The majority did not want an end to slavery. The majority wanted the genocide of Native Americans for "manifest destiny." Clearly, the majority is not always right. And numbnuts, we don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic in the US.