LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(rangercal @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:43 PM) Is he still picking the sox to finish 4th? :headshake The Royals will win the division!

I'm surprised nobody suggested the Major League-esque "Fly ball. Not caught."

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) I like the no-hitter idea. Maybe Buehrle or Garland will finally finish the job. It's hard to hate the Royals even when they're semi-good like in '03. They've just become such a pathetic franchise. They will win the AL Central! /quits.channeling.Harold.Reynolds

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) I'll take that as a "no." Take it as its a wonderfully warm evening and approximately 15 minutes before a Sox game but since you insist -- ther word media appears within seven words of 'liberal bias' 469 times and withing seven words of 'conservative bias' just 17 times. The media gives much more play to "liberal bias" even though there is nothing backing up their claims. Back in 1995, Bill Kristol even stated to the New Yorker: "The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Rich Bond, former chair of the RNC explained that the claims of liberal bias was just maneuvers in a cynical game: "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs." If liberals run the media why do they spend so much time and effort publicizing their ruthless suppression of their adversaries? Then there is the huge monetary advantage of the conservative cause over the liberal cause to be covered in the media. Whether is was Richard Mellon Scaife's million dollar "Arkansas Project" to find anything about Bill Clinton (read David Brock's firsthand experience with him -- no time to post it here) L. Brent Bozell III's Media Research Center, the money is amazing to get the claims of bias across. And saying that journalists and anchors are liberal just because they voted a certain way in an election -- what would that prove about the political bias of a TV show/newspaper. After all those who decide what airs are the editors, not the reporters. These editors serve the publisher and most publishers are conservative and Republican. I definitely have more for you, unfortunately its "Have a couple beers and relax during the Sox game with a friend" time for me right now. I'll have the rest of my argument for you in a little bit, Hurt. Don't go responding yet until I finish!

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:41 PM) So, are you still going to argue that the media output in this country is as conservative as its corporate ownership, or are you going to deflect my question again? Talk about cherry-picking. :rolly Read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian or any of the books by Robert McChesney. These two experts in the field of media studies lay out the arguments much more eloquently than I.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner has launched his next assault. The full House Judiciary Committee is set to vote as early as next week on H.R. 1528, which creates a new group of mandatory miniumum penalties for non-violent drug offenses, including a five year penalty for passing a joint to someone who's been in drug treatment. That's right: Passing a joint to someone who used to be in drug treatment will land you in federal prison for a minimum of five years. The "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" (H.R. 1528) was introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on April 6, and it has already passed out of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. http://www.rense.com/general64/fdei.htm And anybody who is interested in the topic -- I highly suggest "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About Them: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs" by Judge James Gray

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) Thanks for proving my point. Actually you said I made no mention of it which I proved wrong -- even a person who doesn't read posts and just cherry picks for his debate without actually hitting major points can agree with that.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:25 PM) No, you said nothing about owners OR anchors... The political affiliations of the managers of CBS News mean nothing when the messages they deliver on air (via Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and other journalists with strong liberal slants) clearly and consitently support one side of the political spectrum. I don't see any correlation between the "conservative corporate interests" and the liberal anchors/television producers that they employ. Fox is known for owning the most conservative cable news channel in America, yet also spews out liberal programming like The Simple Life and The OC (and, going back many years, the then-controversial Married... With Children). Do you really think that the wealthy, conservative, Republican big-wigs that run GE are "down" with the homosexuality in Will & Grace? I'll bet that the vast majority are not. Actually I did say something about ownership --

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 06:53 AM) It's Red Foreman from "That 70's Show." Here's the radio clips from Chisox.com, if anyone's interested. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...radio/index.jsp The combustion one kinda sounds like George Carlin...

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:37 PM) So, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were as conservative as Viacom and PBS is as conservative as the Republican-dominated Congress that funds it? You crack me up. BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your family's run-ins with those misguided Priests. It's unfortunate that people like that represent the Catholic Church. I said owners, Hurt, not anchors. There's a big difference there. And there is no denying the small group of controlling mass media interests that flood the air/radio waves and the news stands.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:55 PM) Apparently he never "faught". Got this from a friend via email so I have no idea where it's from or if it's accurate.. Ratzinger was born in Marktl am Inn, in Bavaria, the son of a police officer who was staunchly anti-Nazi. In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth , but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until he deserted in April 1944 (an offence punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary. That's almost verbatim from Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. /themoreyouknow

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) Not that the liberal media has an agenda against the Catholic Church or anything. The media is only as liberal as its conservative corporate interests that own it.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) Not to mention Canada, Europe, and pretty much everywhere outside of Central/South America. My experience with Catholic Priests has been very positive. All of the ones I've met have been incredibly nice, reasonable men. We flat-out told the Priest that did our Pre-Canna (different than the one that married us) that we were co-habitating, engaging in pre-marital sex, and using birth control and he didn't think it was a big deal. He didn't even seem to mind me arguing with him over the merits of Natural Family Planning. If the younger Priests that I've dealt with are any indication of the direction that the Catholic Church is headed in, I'd expect future Popes to be somewhat more tolerant towards pre-marital sex and birth control. IIRC, something like 85% of Catholics are using birth control. They can't afford to alienate intelligent, responsible Catholics for much longer. Yeah the experiences my parents and I have had with priests have been less than positive. One priest told my parents that since my mom was not Catholic, that any Catholics attending the wedding would be cast into the brimstone and Hellfire and all that jazz. My dad's parents didn't even come to his wedding because of what that priest said. Another priest after my grandmother died told us when the funeral was going to be and was an absolute dick to my entire family and I (he was the priest that a few months ago or so Southsider posted that article about him getting busted for embezzling funds from the church to the tune of a few $100k). And four years of Catholic school for me -- 'nuff said.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 12:38 PM) Ok, I'll bite. Pope Benedict is known as one of the largest advocates for traditional Catholic dogmatic teaching. This man is extremelly popular amongst the Cardinals and is admired for his intellegence, piety, kindness and so on. Could he have been elected by the Cardinals to guide the church during a time of much strife and interpretation, or was it, he was elected Holy Father and head of the Catholic Church to serve as "a stop gap in the vatican until one of the younger guys gets some experience under him?" I'm done playing now. Don't even bother responding. There was a backlash in the Catholic Church that J2P2's reign was too long as Pope and that the College of Cardinals wants more control over the Papacy -- hence picking a man who is 78. Its more of a control thing for the Cardinals plus it makes the church less "stagnant" in that with J2P2, if you didn't believe in some of his stances, they risked losing a lot of people from the church since he had such a long reign. And yes, Ratzinger is going to further the cause of delegitimizing birth control in the 3rd world as a viable option to curb the AIDS epidemic & yes he does see Buddhists as the next big threat to be taken on by the Catholic church -- but at least he's no Urban 2 or Innocent 8.

Jon Armenia

Bobby Darin - Don't Rain On My Parade Bobby Darin - Beyond the Sea Bad Religion - Do What You Want John Cougar Mellencamp - Authority Song

This guy is definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal -- being prosecution for a chess game? He played chess -- its not like he did anything criminal while there. Is Fischer even worth the effort to bring him back? Thought not.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 12:48 PM) I'm just angry that you're allowed to be a bigot...and I'm not. whatever. I have a dislike for people who use a religion as a justification for bigotry and violence (i.e. gay bashing etc.) And just because you're not allowed, well it hasn't stopped you before.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 12:47 PM) lol that's funny. I actually have much distaste for the station myself. Dr. E.V. Hill makes me laugh the most though.... say his name 3 times fast... I mean, come on...that's a stage name, right? Dr...E...v...il? There's one guy, joel, I think his name, he's out of the mega church from houston...I don't mind him that much. That'd be Joel Osteen. One of the few that I don't mind on there either. My personal favorite religious snake oil salesmen are Benny Hinn (he's really giving up everything to follow Christ with his $3 million beachfront parsonage on the beachfront) and James "I fought Spring Break in Florida and Lost" Kennedy. And who can forget Hal Lindsey who has made millions writing books about how each decade was the end time.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 12:27 PM) guy, you have no understanding of biblical truth and comprehension. Without the spirit you might as well go read a comic book...so please stop trying to speak as if you have a quarem on the subject. Quoting Aliester Crowley -- People must feel very unsure of themselves if they have to insist angrily that their personal prejudices are the Immutable Decrees of the Almighty.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 08:19 AM) Which is a funny statement because who is actually persuing and procecuting people who broke these laws... I'll give you a hint, it isn't Turkey, Jordan or the UN. Yes, they are going after them -- which makes me wonder if its out of political expediency (well, I'm almost sure it is) since this will further cement the "See, we don't need the rest of the world's opinion!" mentality that is very rampant in the United States and make the current policy much easier to implement. There was some knowledge of what was going on -- and it was a lack of enforcement. I'm hesitant to believe that the world's greatest superpower had no f***ing clue that this was going on, especially when (to quote Hawk) it had a "cat bird seat" to all the events transpiring. And BigHurt, choosing between "lax enforcement" or "protracted multi-year military overthrow and restructuring" is a false choice. Perhaps a more stringent enforcement could have worked as a solution?

He's the O'Reilly of the left -- insane, moronic but at times makes a good point. This, however, is not one of them. And BigHurt, leftists aren't necessarily anti-religion since there are a lot of people in liberation theology and follow the religious teachings of Helder Camara or Oscar Romero that are leftist. When religion is used as a sticking point to justify bigotry (be it limiting civil rights to people -- since marriage is a civil institution and not a religious one since one can get a marriage in a courthouse or using religion to justify hatred of all things Muslim...etc. etc.) Turn on Trinity Broadcasting Network and you get a nice sense of what the radical fringe insane religious Christian Taliban wants to do. It is no secret that they want to: -remove the use and availability of contraceptives -determine arbitrary morals of what people should see/hear in TV/radio/CDs/internet -deny rights to homosexuals in a very selective enforcement of the laws in Leviticus I could go on but unfortunately for now, I need to get ready for a group meeting with our sociology professor regarding our final semester project.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Apr 17, 2005 -> 06:15 PM) Yosemite is awesome. If you have a shot LCR, you should go there cause my personal stance is San Francisco is one of the worse cities out there. Its filthy and there is nothing to do besides Fishermans Wharf and Alcatraz. I swear you can see the whole city in a day's time. Haha, well my brother isn't going to be there for four days so I've essentially got free reign of his apartment for 4 days

My brother has some frequent flyer miles that he can't use, so he getting me a free ticket to come out and visit him in California for a week in the middle of May. Anyway, since there are some CA people here and its going to be my first trip to California, what would be some good things to see/fun things to do while in the San Francisco area?

Well they did know that there was huge exports going to Turkey and Jordan (if these exports were stopped, it would have destroyed a lot of the economy of Turkey/Jordan) Yes, the corruption is bad -- however, the US can't say it had no f***ing clue and play like it had its head up its ass for so many years.