LowerCaseRepublican

BA pops out to CF. End of the inning. 1-1...going bottom 2.

Uribe flies out to right. AJP tags up. 2 out with runners at the corners.

Crede with a BB. 1st and 2nd with 1 out.

AJP safe on a fielder's choice.

JD gets a BB.

Kong ties it at one. Yay!

Good to see some disarming. Neither the FARC/AZN or the AUC are really any good. AUC are f***ing nuts -- anybody who didn't agree with them were seen as potential threats. Their actions are absolutely atrocious. If the government can get a true commitment to peace and end their buddy buddy commitment with certain paramilitary groups (like the AUC) then this could be a very positive step in the right direction. The AUC is one of the most brutal groups in Colombia. The fighting isn't so much political as it is trying to hedge their power in the drug game. But good to see them getting the steps starting to be taken.

From Wikipedia.com CEI has been an outspoken opponent of government action on global warming which would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. CEI has also been a leading member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which operates the website globalwarming.org. In March 1992, CEI’s founder, Fred Smith, said, of global warming: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture". [1] Exxon Mobil Corporation is a "major donor" to CEI, with over $1.6 million in contributions between 1998 and 2005. In 2004 the company gave CEI $180,000 that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute. [2] In December of 2005 CEI participated in the UNFCCC negotiations in Montreal as an NGO, sending back several dispatches summarzing events of the conference [3]. In a 2006 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (after the Archbishop urged Christians to take action to reduce emissions), the CEI claimed that reducing pollution levels, even in 'baby steps' would 'result in the deaths of more people in the U.S. than global warming would worldwide' [4]. In May of 2006, CEI released two television commercials arguing against Global Warming, with the tagline "They call it pollution; We call it life." Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, says CEI is misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said. [5] Criticism CEI has been called an "ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business" by Sourcewatch. It would probably be a fair assessment to say that the CEI chooses its issues based on the interests of its corporate stakeholders. As a result, while it may be true that excessive government regulation can hurt consumers, the organization's statements should be understood to be promoting specific industry agendas, rather than simply the common good. Special attention should be made to their scientific claims, as they are selective in their use of facts. For example, one of their ad campaigns displays a headline from a paper that shows that the East Antarctic ice sheet is growing without mentioning that the abstract of the article (seen in the ad) says that although this mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacier, it does not balance it out completely. In two of their ad campaigns, they imply that global warming is not a problem. One video depicts a world in which carbon dioxide is NOT causing a backlash within the earth's environment, while the other video makes an attempt at showing that the glaciers and polar ice caps are growing, not shrinking--opposed to a large porition of what the scientific community believes. There is an over abundance of information stating that human interactions have caused a lot of damage to the earth, while CEI works on trying to counter these facts. The group is thought to centralize a lot of their points of view on the world's ecological situation as being merely exaggerated by environmental advocacy groups. -- Yeah, they take in hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon Mobil and then are supposed to be a 'neutral' interest group. If you want to call anybody a b****, they fit the bill just as well.

No love for Dan Pasqua? But go with the AJ jersey. I picked up a Buehrle one because I could not find an AJ one for the life of me when I was out at a few places & didn't have the time to order one online.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) I'm sure the ACLU would take the case if they weren't so busy trying to get the bible banned from everywhere... I'm really hoping that is sarcasm because I'd really expect more from you, SS. The Book Nazis are the same people who said it was racist to read Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer years ago. So it seems for many of these social conservatives that supporting the actual war is good and patriotic (i.e. Vietnam, WW II etc.) but when an author writes a book about the horrors of the war like The Things They Carried or Slaughterhouse Five, then they become dirty, vile and objectionable. Unless we all fall in lockstep in agreeing with the social conservative theocrats, there is no way that we can remain free.

QUOTE(minors @ May 21, 2006 -> 11:59 PM) About time the ACLU and those liberal activist judges where handed a defeat. They have taken the constitution and stretched it way beyond proportion. The first amendment does not say that a group of students can not have a prayer before there graduation as long as no one is being forced to pray. Here is the exact wording "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Justice Stevens has grown to senile for the bench he has to be pushing 90 he is way to old to be making such important decisions. Lee v. Wiseman was 5-4 split all along party lines (liberals winning) so it means nothing to me. And finally yes the kid acted like a coward, if it offended him don't do the prayer ( I know several people who's graduating classes recited a prayer and they didn't believe in it so they just sat there and no one though any different of them.) If you believe in something stand up for it let your name be known instead of hiding behind the ACLU and the Courts and that is why he was harassed because he acted like a coward. I see, they're activist judges when they say that a school cannot promote a certain deity via prayer at a school function but they're not when they're putting up big monuments to the 10 Commandments in their buildings. Gotcha. And the case we were referring to was Santa Fe Independent School District vs Doe (2000) which was a 6-3 decision. Prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval." The offensive part to me, was not the prayer, but the f***ing grandstanding these hypocritical 'Christian' f***s participated in. They fell all over themselves about what big Christians they are and how much Jesus impacted their lives -- yet they harass the kid, tell the kid to leave the country, boo the kid, etc. What if I tried strongarming a set of prayers for the Church of Spongebob Squarepants into my school graduation speech? What if I wanted to regale everybody with how the Testament of Squidward Tentacles helped me in my life? The fact is you wouldn't f***ing stand for it if it was any other religion getting this preferential treatment. Student initiated, student led prayer at a school event violates the Establishment Clause and that is the law of the land. Not only did these morons violate the law, they were severely hypocritical to their own religious belief structure of compassion and loving thy neighbor -- which just makes this all the more deliciously hilarious. Leave God in the Church and in your own personal philosophies without wearing Him on your shirt sleeves in a grandstanding fashion.

QUOTE(minors @ May 22, 2006 -> 12:18 AM) I agree with Nuke it is interseting how all of these liberal pigs who write stuff like this never touched a uniform are now bashing our miltary. http://www.ivaw.net/ -- That any better for you? And if you want to talk about bashing the military -- how about the fact that US has denied for years that Gulf War Syndrome is an actual disease (from Gulf War I) or the fact that there are numerous homeless vets that have received little to no assistance from our government. Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers. While some experts have questioned the degree to which mental trauma from combat causes homelessness, a large number of veterans live with the long-term effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, according to the coalition. And veterans from this most recent Iraq foray are showing up at homeless shelters as well. Here's a source from the notoriously liberal biased Washington Moonie Times http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...21848-6449r.htm And yes, the usage of cluster bombs is ILLEGAL. Yet we used them anyways. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or says it. The Nuremburg Tribunal clearly states that the wanton devastation of a city is a war crime (shock and awe, the demolishing of Fallujah etc.) Also, during the Nuremburg Tribunals, the concept of pre-emptive/preventative warfare was a Nazi Defense used by the surviving Nazis to shift blame from their atrocities. The Allies (including the US) threw out the defense saying that the idea of pre-emptive/preventative warfare was a war crime, a crime against peace and a crime against humanity. The legal precedent is quite clear. The facts don't change just because you don't happen to like the person saying them, Nuke, Minors and General Franks. All the US tries to do is stick our fingers in our ears and yell "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to anybody calling us out for being just as guilty of war crimes.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 21, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) But then again, how much more of that space is being "clogged" by serial killers who could be executed? (Something you are against.) Incarcerate violent criminals because it is cheaper to incarcerate than it is to execute. That is what prisons are for. Housing non-violent drug offenders in there for mere possession does not curb those that use drugs. Nobody comes out of prison wanting to do less drugs. There are hundreds of thousands more non-violent drug offenders in prisons than there are hardcore serial killers. It is much cheaper to run programs for addiction and have relatively cheap, regulated drugs than it is to execute people. Plus, the state does not have the right to take a life. But here I am waxing philosophical about that. Judge James P. Gray wrote a really interesting read "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs". Really discusses that these mandatory minimums have to go if we're serious about curbing drug use in this country because it is not effective.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 21, 2006 -> 06:42 PM) Sure, change the topic. Typical. This is about a dumbass given a second chance, and screwing it up. Not potheads and some politicians misguided attempt at prosecuting the 'war on drugs'. Different topic altogether, and one which you and I may actually agree on, at least a little bit. No, I concede the fact that Lionel Tate deserves to be locked up for a long time for his multiple crimes. However, the reality is that in many states, violent offenders (rapists, murderers, etc.) are being let out early on paroles simply because the jails lack room to house them since they are forced by the Feds to have non-violent posession drug offenders in jail for long mandatory minimum sentences. That's where I was going with this. The kid had multiple chances from f***ing up early to the holdup of the pizza guy a few years ago to this new one. It scares me that America's 'war on drugs' may possibly mean a release of this guy while he is still a danger to society.

Franks is a thug and a de facto war criminal via the concepts of the Nuremburg Tribunals. So, I don't really give a flying f*** what the murderous bastard has to say. http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle05172003.html

Hey Hill -- open mouth. Insert foot. http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb Guillen's comments were relayed to Hill. "He's right," Hill said. "I haven't done anything in this game. I'm just a rookie and shouldn't have been running my mouth. After watching the tape and watching the replay, it looked like a clean play. It was a heat-of-the-moment kind of thing." Plus, Hill felt he had to defend his teammate. "That's part of the process that was going on, too, sticking up for Michael," Hill said. "I think [Hill] was wrong," Hendry said of the pitcher's postgame comments on Saturday. "I have no problem with A.J. running over Michael in that situation. That's baseball. You can block the plate without a ball. I think Michael did the right thing, too. You've got a throw that normally might get there in time. [Left fielder Matt Murton] didn't get behind it well. Michael did the right thing, too. A lot of times you see guys get out of the way and not willing to take the hit. Rich was wrong making those comments." And Hill heard about it from his manager. "I've had a number of talks with Hill myself," Baker said. "Sometimes, the young man speaks more than he listens. It's part of the problem. "What Pierzynski did was baseball -- good, clean hard-nosed baseball," Baker said. "What happened after that is a different story." Hill did get a chance to watch the replay. "The comments I made were in the heat of the moment," Hill said. "After looking at the tape and watching the replay, it was a clean play. I looked at it, and I was going for the ball and didn't really see what was going on behind me. At that time, I was caught in the moment."

If it makes anybody feel better, he'll likely be paroled when the jail runs out of room because we've got so many non-violent possession drug offenders locked up in mandatory minimum sentences clogging the jails.

Well that convinces me to give the GOP a clean slate for all their crimes! Please, there are corrupt politicians and they all need one good swift kick in the ass from somebody that isn't in their little club. (i.e. Ned Lamont taking it to Joe Lieberman in CT)

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 21, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) to follow up on my post a while ago in this thread, heres another example of total PC bulls***: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14628069.htm How about going with our real national motto? E. Pluribus Unum "In God We Trust" was just a knee-jerk reactionary move in the 1950s during the Cold War. Nothing more. But please -- keep telling me how Christians are treated so terribly in this country. It is quite hilarious. Perhaps Christians can go to their churches every Sunday without being harrassed, pray freely in their own homes and dare I say, perhaps we can have 43 consecutive religious Presidents, many of whom are Christian. But I'm sure that would never ever happen here. There is nothing wrong with private, non-school event prayer services (say, the students got together at a local home or church to have a small service before graduation) but they cannot promote one religion during a school event because that violates the separation clause. It is really quite simple. Personally, I'm laughing about how "Christian" most of these kids were -- booing the person, telling them to leave the country, etc. I believe it was Thatcher who discussed being a lady when she said "If you have to tell other people all the time, you're not." I think that statement fits the kids in this situation that were parading their Christianity. And then there is the whole part of the Bible that discusses how one should pray in secret, without the right hand knowing what the left is doing and do not be like those who go out and parade their faith in grand displays etc. Religion is an intensely personal activity and choice for an individual to make and should not be cheapened in the public sector with huge monuments etc. on grounds paid with public funds. People should know that they're Christians by their compassions, kind words and tolerant actions much rather than their trite, grandstanding (not to mention illegal in the school graduation setting) bulls***.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 21, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) screw that asshole, he deserves it. if he doesnt like a prayer that the majority of the student body wants to say, he can abstain from saying it, not sue anonymously like a little b****. Screw the asshole, he deserves it. What a Christian sentiment If you knew your IL law regarding school prayer (which it seems that you and Evil don't), the law provides for a period of silent reflection. That way they can pray to Jesus, Allah, the sun, Xenu or any other thing they feel like praying to as long as it is personal, silent and individual. These kids just wanted to fall all over themselves whining about how much they love Jesus, yet they didn't really follow that whole "love thy neighbor" thing. They're the worst kind of religious hacks. The Supreme Court has said that school led prayer is ILLEGAL (see court case I cited earlier in this thread). This is clear judicial precedent, that a prayer advocated in school and led during a school function is de facto promotion of religion. The kid was merely standing up for his rights. But it is good to see the "well the majority wants it so it has to stand". The majority of Afghanistan wanted the Taliban. Does that mean they should have it? The majority wanted women to wear burqas, get stoned etc. so therefore it must stand because thats what the majority wants. And hey, we should re-segregate the schools cuz that's what the majority wanted at that time too.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 21, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) Somehow if this situation was reversed, and the people wanting the prayers were the ones being ridiculed, and it was an anti-prayer group that stood up and disrupted the proceedings, I believe that you would be applauding thier actions. A prayer being said at the graduation in no way endorses one religion over another and in no way establishes a state-sponsored religion. So one person is offended. It wouldn't be the last time that pussy gets offended by something, I am sure. Did the school get up and say 'pray or no diploma'? Um, no. The first amendment of the constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…. By denying these students thier RIGHT to free exercise of thier religion, you are violating THEIR first ammendment rights as well. There are plenty opportunities to pray -- like in church or in one's home or on the streets. A prayer at a school prefers one religion over another. Not all the students in any given school are Christian and therefore the prayer (especially the Lord's Prayer) may be antithetical to their belief structure as per their religious choice. If they want the Lord's Prayer then let's get some eightfold path Buddhist prayers out there and start praying towards Mecca, et al. And it seems like you're quite offended that these kids couldn't fall all over themselves about Jesus at a graduation. Funnier still was all these people falling all over themselves as some sort of good Christians -- yet they make fun of and give the guy who filed the lawsuit endless amounts of s***. Guess they really learned that "love thy neighbor" thing, huh? As for the student led prayer violating the establishment clause, I refer you to Santa Fe Independent School District vs Doe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Inde...ol_Dist._v._Doe The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

I really don't get how everybody wants to take God out of the church and put it everyf***ingwhere. Doesn't that do a disservice to the actual religion when you have teachers etc. who are not 'experts' in religion being forced to deal with it. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. If they want to pray the Lord's prayer, then let's get some eightfold Buddhist prayers going or my personal favorite, prayers to the Church of Spongebob Squarepants. http://www.bushflash.com/bs1.html http://www.bushflash.com/bs2.html http://www.bushflash.com/bs3.html The three part episode of Penn and Teller's 'Bulls***' totally owning creationism and 'intelligent design'. The best part was seeing how truly 'Christian' these students were. "Gabe McNeil said during a rehearsal on Thursday, other students booed the student suspected of filing the challenge when he walked across the stage. "They've been giving him crap," McNeil said." So, they're all for the f***ing grandstanding but not actually standing up for the principles that their religion actually believes. What a bunch of f***ing hack morons. And to combat the last sentence, America was not founded in any sense by the Christian religion (or so Washington wrote in the unanimously passed Treaty of Tripoli) The Founders were Deists, not Christians.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ May 21, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) He is a loose cannon, but I dont want to see someone get a hand broken on an inside pitch. f*** that moron. He's dumb but he's not that f***ing stupid. If he plunks one person, not only is he gone, but he'd probably get (after today) an almost 'Artestian' suspension. And why is it that Z's pointing to the sky, testicular justiculating and all his other 'amped up' garbage is okay for Flub fans yet AJP slapping the plate is "classless"? Just wondering cuz I sure as Hell can't figure it out.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 20, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) Yeah. They were clearly trying to do damage control on that one. Kinda funny really. If Barrett gets less than 10 games Id be shocked. Just had ESPNNews on and they were running through the longest non-drug/alcohol suspensions. 30 games is the longest. Hell the Rangers pitcher Frankie Francisco only got 16 for throwing a chair in the stands in 2004. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2098862 Fun sidebar list of the longest suspensions. In 2000, Juan Samuel got 15 for throwing punches in a brawl. So I think the bar is set that Barrett is going to see about that kind of punishment. And are these suspensions without pay or do they 'get paid' (wink wink nudge nudge) but have it go to a charity instead?

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ May 20, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) BA IS THE CHAMPION!!!! I think he gets the TNA belt from AJP for his actions today.