LowerCaseRepublican

"The girl says a 19-year-old man lied in his profile about being a senior on a football team to gain her trust and phone number." The girl is FOURTEEN! What the Hell is: She doing meeting a high school senior in the first place Giving her phone number away to a random guy she never met before on the 'net Her parents doing? They're totally not monitoring the situation of her internet use. She was hoping to meet an 18 year old football player who wanted to have sex with her and instead got a 19 year old non-football player who wanted to have sex with her. She was hoping for a trophy jock to show off to her friends. Talk about playing with fire. They're suing MySpace now because the guy lied on his profile. So, if he was the 18 year old football player and still molested her, there's going to be no lawsuit? Goddamn, the parents in this situation -- "Our daughter is 14 and is a total skank wanting to f*** random older guys she meets on the 'net who are years older than she is. But that isn't worrisome. The person to blame is obvious -- MySpace!" Their denial is insane. I mean, the guy is still a predator and needs to see some jail time out of this -- but any sane judge has gotta dismiss the lawsuit against MS and tell these parents to not be f***ing idiots going after a deep pocket.

QUOTE(SouthsideNorthsideFan @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 11:59 PM) please... There are those magical 3 weeks where Henry Blanco just hits the s*** out of the ball. It's the baseball equivalent of a chimp being in heat. Nothing stops his insatiable desire to smack the hell out of the ball. Blanco's been tearing it up recently...Not only 3-4 with a HR and 4 RBI against the Tribe tonight but: DATE OPP RESULT AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA 6/18 Det L 3-12 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 .203 6/17 Det L 3-9 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .179 6/16 Det L 3-5 4 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 .173 6/9 @Cin W 6-5 3 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 .125 6/6 @Hou L 1-4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 .089 5/30 Cin W 8-3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 .070

I'm going to make a case for a cult show "Wonder Showzen". It is pretty humorous for the type of people that would enjoy this really subversive type of humor. It isn't for everybody and you're either going to love it or think it is terrible.

QUOTE(beautox @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 05:12 AM) im serious. They're not doubting that. He's just going for an inside joke (regarding the airport story)

But...but...government would never abuse its authority! /if they had nothing to hide a little torture shouldn't matter

Juvenile capital punishment is a disturbing trend. The only countries still officially supporting the practice are Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I'm quite glad the SCOTUS voted the way it did.

Rusch's back apparently tightened up on him after his start on Friday. The left-hander, who is 2-7 with a 7.80 ERA in 15 games, including eight starts, said the problem was minor. "It's better to take a little more time, especially because we're in a bind for pitching," Rusch said Sunday. "I think it'll be beneficial rather than try to do something in a short period of time, which would leave us short on the mound." Cubs manager Dusty Baker said Rusch has been battling back spasms for a while. "It's something that kind of nags you but doesn't really hurt," Baker said. "You're trying to be a man about things and you don't want to complain about things that could be minor in some people's eyes. It's been bothering him for a while. It could happen on a bad bed on the road, a pitch. When it comes to back stuff, I don't think anybody's figured out why or how."

I really like the trade. Not only does he have good stats, but Riske knows the AL Central hitters pretty well from being with the Indians. I think it solidifies the bullpen a bit but as we all know the only reason we got him was because we had to demote Tracey since he refused to hit Blalock

Yes, using a baseball as a weapon is dangerous. Just ask Padilla as he drilled AJP 2 times in that game. Although maybe the froth from your rabid anti-Sox whining got in your eyes and you missed that portion of the game, Mr. Mariotti. And it is not being a "goon on demand" -- it is defending your teammates and showing the other team that having a slapnuts pitcher hit a catcher twice is not going to be tolerated. Plunking has been a way for the game to police itself for years. If he hadn't written this about Ozzie, I would have sworn that this portion was in regards to Mariotti himself. Mr. Mariotti -- it was not megalomaniacal (good thesaurus use too!) of Ozzie to want to defend a player. I can only imagine you as a defense attorney in a rape case: "Hey she was wearing a skirt so she was asking for it!" It clearly in analagous to your "Well, it's just AJ, so it is okay to hit him twice!" And speaking of being an adult, perhaps you could do Chicago a favor and not s*** your pants and whip yourself up into a pointless, sensationalist, pseudo-righteous fervor for the sole extent of backpeddling a few weeks later when your opinions are proven more hosed than a civil rights worker in 1950s Mississippi. OH NOES! HE ASKED TRACEY TO DEFEND A TEAMMATE! HOW INCREDIBLY WRONG OF HIM! /soaked in green I did Mariotti. And perhaps if you weren't swinging from the nuts of the North Side, you'd know that there is a team in Chicago that not only is in a pennant race this year but also won the World Series last year. You wouldn't know about the menality of the clubhouse, Mr. Mariotti, because you're not allowed in. So quit with the thirdhand backhanded lamer than s*** gossip mills. It was a moment for the team to realize that people need to stick up for other members of the team when they are getting drilled. That's what it was. Yeah, damn Ozzie for wanting to protect his teammates. Perhaps you should have your ire raised by somebody who punched somebody in the face (Barrett) or even better, show your wrath at Padilla for plunking the same batter two f***ing times. But they don't play on the South Side, so they are immediately off your hackish radar. So you rip on Ozzie and the Sox yet not one f***ing peep about Paddia and his two plunks. But I guess that is okay because it is AJ. f***ing hack. Not to mention that plunking is a tried and true method of protecting teammates and an internal policing mechanism that has been around for years. But let's get rid of it because Jay doesn't like it Perhaps we could have them settle disputes with a tea break during the game? Wow, trying to blame AJ for not getting out of the way. Your hackishness knows no boundaries. Using a baseball as a weapon may be "cowardly" but you know what is more cowardly -- writing a hackish column based on half-truths, deceit, gossip mills with no direct knowledge of the clubhouse/situation and with a large anti-Sox ax to grind. It's policing the game and playing it hard. Wow. Maybe they shouldn't try to take out the second baseman during a possible double play because they would just be meanies for not letting them complete the throw. The only man I'm worried about is you, Mr. Mariotti because you're really too f***ing stupid to be given a column with the readership/circulation that you have.

This guy's article was some of the worst stuff I've ever read. It's almost as if he used a dart board to pick the positions of some of these teams on the list -- because it sure as Hell wasn't logic, reason or facts guiding his decisions.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 03:56 PM) Wow....this might become a legendary post. What day should I plan Marmol's Hall of Fame acceptance speech? Right around the time that Miguel Olivo gets voted in, I'd assume.

Any team that can help put down a division rival (assuming we win our games) is of assistance to the goal of getting another trophy on the South Side of Chicago. Every game counts. /hoping Marmol and his Marmol-ades can get it done today against Verlander because it helps the Sox //Sox fan, not just anti-Cub

There's a difference in debating the voracity of his claims and the numerous "STFU" type personal attack comments that went on. If you find something wrong with the presentation of the data, keep the debate to the data (i.e. don't just count articles, discuss what the articles are actually saying) instead of going after Hanger as a person. Divorce the person from the presentation of the data. And my "put him on ignore" was just a suggestion. If it really irks people that much then it seems logical to not read it if its going to get your anger level incredibly high. It is why we installed the ignore feature -- so people could use it.

Question about today's game with Marmol as the starter. If he is in line for the win, would the relief pitchers then be able to be called Marmol-ades? /will be here all week, try the veal //don't forget to tip your staff

SoxFan76, Hanger, Jim, Steff et al. of people in this thread. I've just spent the past few minutes of my life re-reading this thread and all I can say is the following as a moderator based on this and other threads that have been making the rounds on the boards. We will not have any personal attacks towards other posters. It is something that the administration and moderators have gotten sick and tired of having. We're not averse to laying down the law, so please don't make us have to. Also, if reading the "Media Watch" thread gets you up in arms, I'd suggest that you don't read it. Put a person who annoys you on the ignore list. There's a reason that we have the feature and it is exactly so whining and squabbling between people is kept to a minimum. And we know that there are questions regarding Hanger's methodology. We got the point. Good. Hooray. Now let's move on in keeping any debate regarding the facts of his methodology and not "OMG WELL HE'S A STOOPID CUB FAN BEFORE! LOL!!!11!1 ELEVENTY!" I don't like being a babysitter and I'll be damned if I am going to be forced into the situation by a group of adults who should know how to act in a proper fashion.

I have my ax to grind with Lieberman because he is a pro-PMRC, pro-censorship douche. But that said, I don't care who the politician is, but they need better commercials than a negative bear cub ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jDn4McAXr4

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 03:13 AM) I looooooove Henry Rollins. f***ing hysterical.

/waits for produce prices to increase //obvious?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 09:48 PM) Flag-burning is a universally despised method of disrespect towards our country and enough people, on both sides of the aisle, agree that it is an unacceptable form of protest. Unfortunately, the practice has stood up in court based on the 1st amendment so people who dont like it are taking the step of getting an amendment passed. This is nothing more than a prime example of working within the system to change something that should be changed. It's the tyrrany of the majority that the founders warned about. The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect unpopular speech. Irony level that a military guy is going against the Bill of Rights = infinity

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 09:34 PM) I dont give a rats ass if the CIA and military are torturing people. As far as Im concerned, Radical Islamo-fascists have the right to be mowed down by machine gun fire and to have physical pain inflicted on them to produce information so that more of them can be mowed down. Problems with the economy? As far as I can see all we need to do is cut some spending. Aside from that we're in really REALLY good shape. Deal with the immigration issue also ( Which is being done ). Unfortunately the US Code of Military Justice does care and it is why a lot of people are being brought forth for charges and being successfully convicted. And torture is notoriously unreliable for information because they are likely just to give info to appease the interrogator rather than it be anything factual. Plus torture is completely anti-thetical to the concepts, precepts and all ideas that we, as a civilized society, hold dear. But other than that, it's just fine. But back on topic -- why are you so against flag burning when you and your colleagues are out defending the freedom of a society, especially one that includes the protected idea to burn a flag if one so pleases? If you don't like flag burning, do what I do. Don't burn one.

Cancers, tumors, etc. are life -- but nobody cares about those and actively endorses those killings. Many arch-conservatives (in general) are for the sanctity of life at birth but not for people accused of crimes that may warrant the death penalty. They do not lose their human-ness, only we choose to take it from them. As for giving babies to families who would want them -- there are plenty of kids out there right now that are hungry, alone and looking for people to care of them already. Perhaps those parents should take on some of the children languishing in orphanages or poor foster homes looking for permanent parents. For many of the most ardent pro-lifers advocating these people have their kids, I don't see them giving them the money and supplies to do an excellent job raising them. In fact, some of the most ardent pro-lifers like Georgie Bush are busy cutting poverty rolls to make it more difficult for the urban poor kids to be taken care of. Don't get me wrong, I have serious moral reservations about abortion as well. However, I believe that it should be safe, legal and rare. Instead of forcing abstinence only courses in sexual education, students should learn all the benefits and risks of sexual activity -- and how to protect one's self from some of the risks. By doing this, people will have the tools to be responsible as adults. If you really want to cut down the rate of abortion, educate people on safe sex and sexuality. Mere prohibition has not worked in the past (when abortion was illegal, alcohol, the war on drugs, etc.) and still will not work today. Making abortion illegal will simply mean that the women wealthy enough to go to a place where it is legal will still get their abortions and those who can't will go towards unsafe means to procure them (i.e. back-alley coathanger shops) The government should not have the right to dictate to a woman what medical options are open to her. Pro-choice people are not "OH YEAH! KILLING BABIES! GET OUT THE KEG AND FIRE UP THE GRILL, WE'RE BBQ'ING TONIGHT! WOOOO!" We just don't think that the government has the right to dictate to people what medical procedures they should not be able to have. It is the state intruding unnecessarily into peoples' lives when they can just as easily cut down the rate of abortion via adequate funding of social programs and proper education.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:30 PM) That's what is wrong with this country today. Where is the pride, our military is out giving there lives for our freedom's and the people at home don't even care if the flag on which this country was built around is being burnt. I come from a military family and I just don't understand where the pride went. There isn't a rash of flag burnings in America. Hell, I can't even think of one case in recently history (after 1990) where there has been a flag burning in America. It is nothing more than a cheap, tawdry political maneuver by career politicians who don't want to have voters look at issues like the problems in Iraq, psychological/physical torture being used by the CIA and certain members trained by the CIA in the US Army, the problems with the economy, et al. Justice Brennan: “Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”

Any team that has to have Esteban Loaiza pitching for them is in for a punishment in an of itself. But seriously, he's a f***ing idiot who endangers other peoples' lives.

The 1989 Supreme Court case Texas vs. Johnson ruled that flag burning was protected symbolic political speech. The justices also decreed that the state could not criminalize flag burning in order to keep the flag as a symbol of national unity. Justice Brennan stated in the majority opinion: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." The goal of the Constitution, for which much blood was spilled by our forefathers, was to protect unpopular speech from government oppression. If we venerate the flag so much -- then why have we also allowed for such crass commercialization of the image? I can have skid marks on my flag boxer shorts, wipe barbecue sauce off my mouth with my flag napkin, spill juice on my flag shirt, sweat all over my flag hat and get dirt on my flag pants. If Americans truly want to venerate the flag as a symbol of freedom and liberty -- then they should condemn the usage of the flag as a partisan political tool and the commercialization that has cheapened the importance of such an image. In my eyes, the Constitution is a much better image of what American stands for than the flag. It is the system of values, ethics and ideas that separate us from other nations and make us truly great. Every United States flag ever made could be torched but it would not mean a thing because the flag is just a symbol. The ideas in the Constitution can never be incinerated because they are in all of our minds and hearts as something we cherish and revere.

I've met Jello Biafra -- and holy hell, is he a f***ing prick. Made good music with the Dead Kennedys but he's a real douche.