EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) Isn't it a shame that we have these workers that want to work, while citizens sit on their asses and collect welfare? I'd much rather employ and support someone who wants to work and support their family over someone who happened to hit the lottery by being born here. So maybe it is time to end the welfare state.

Too easy to negotiate a backdoor off-season deal if a trade does NOT happen. Then the teams can lowball kenny, knowing that they can lock him up after the season regardless. Kenny should negotiate a deal himself, then trade him.

i about drove off the road after hearing this on an overnight sports show early this morning. As sad as it is to say....after watching Vince handle things with Eddie G. i wonder how long it will take before he starts pimping out Benoit's memory is stupid storylines. Benoit has been my favorite for years and i pray that due to the situation that the Benoits died, Vince will have enough class to NEVER bring it up.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) This is just a guess but sicne they had to take blood I'm guessing he refused to blow. That in itself make himself look guilty of something and probably a big factor in why they said adios. You know me and normally I would be up to no good being out at 3am also.. but these days.. when the mood strikes for a Klondike bar, one must go get a Klondike bar. I would have refused the roadside test, if that was what was offered, but he should have agreed to do the one at the office. I took that roadside one once and it said I was so drunk the cop was wondering how i was standing. i had had 2 beers in the last 3 hours. oops! That said, good move Bears.

Being out after 2am is just an invitation to bored cops to be pulled over anyway. Nothing good happens after 2am. Seriously though, why even have a DUI limit if they can charge you even if you are under it. "being impaired to the slightest degree"? WTF, this is just one step away from police state. They tried this crap on me once many years ago. I had had ONE beer, 2 hours BEFORE I was pulled over, but was wearing several beers due to a barfight that I happened to be in the way of. The cop was the biggest ass I have met, had cuffed me, hard, left my car on the side of the road unlocked, and kept me in the station for 3 hours. Oh, it was also 2:30 am. After blowing low enough to aalmost not even register three times, they finally let me go with a fake speeding ticket (I also wasn't speeding, positive of it), claiming to be acting 'nice' by not giving me a 'slightly impared' ticket. On a different note, be carefull out there people, thanks to MADD, Illinois is doing a huge DUI push the next two weeks, with random roadside safety checks (yeah, safety. sure). It would be interesting to note if anyone here gets stopped by a nazi patrol or not. Living not too far from the Jooliet riverboats, I see the stops alot.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) So, one interesting thing about that NYT article is that the Edwards campaign actually offered to set up the NYT with interviews which would give the other side of the story, interviews with people that the campaign claims were actually helped by Mr. Edwards's anti-poverty programs, and the NYT actively turned down the offer. Any way you look at it, it was a sleazy thing to do as a way around the rules, just further reenforcing his two americas viewpoint, the one he is in, and everyone else.

I guess Edwards idea of helping others is by helping himself first? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/polit...and&emc=rss In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008 By LESLIE WAYNE Published: June 22, 2007 John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff. Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show. A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty. The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states. While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations. Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty. “He wanted to learn, travel and be in a position to be a viable candidate,” said J. Edwin Turlington, a Raleigh lawyer who was the manager of Mr. Edward’s 2003 presidential exploratory committee. “He had the ability to raise money to fund his activities. He had a vision, and he knew it would take money.” Mr. Edwards mixed policy and politics in a way that allowed his supporters to donate to the causes he believed in — and to the organizations he had set up. He also set up two political action committees, something commonly done by politicians thinking of running for president. But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status. Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors — and the campaign declined to do so — it is not clear whether those who gave money to it did so understanding that they were supporting Mr. Edwards’s political viability as much or more than they were giving money to combat poverty. The money paid Mr. Edwards’s expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street. “He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office,” said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. “So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it.” Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 “soft money” organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts. From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile. “It’s a permanent campaign,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group based in Washington. “It’s about shaking every money tree possible and finding every means to finance a permanent campaign. It’s like having different checking accounts, with different rules, and the goal of keeping your name and agenda in the public eye.” The two foundations and the two political committees all shared an address in Washington and jointly raised around $4 million. Most donations to the political committees came from his core supporters, trial lawyers and unions, and in one case from an anonymous donor, who gave $250,000. Many donations ranged from less than $10,000 to $50,000. For example, Boyd Tinsley, the violinist and backup singer for the Dave Matthews Band, gave $50,000, as did the Service Employees International Union, whose organizing efforts Mr. Edwards has supported. The Edwards campaign defended the activities of the nonprofit. “One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity’s main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it,” Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager, said yesterday. “Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans? It’s patently absurd to suggest there’s anything wrong with an organization designed to raise awareness about poverty actually working to raise awareness about poverty.” “Of course, some of the people who worked for Senator Edwards in the government and on his campaign continued to work with him to fight poverty and send young people to college,” he added. “Perish the thought: people involved in politics actually trying to improve peoples’ lives.” Mr. Edwards also developed mutually beneficial relationships with public and private institutions. He founded the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, which provided him with a platform. In return, he raised $3 million to sustain it. He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to “develop investment opportunities,” according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street’s most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler. “Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel,” Mr. Turlington said, “but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people.” The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed. The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give out $476,000 this year, Ms. Garland said. Mr. Edwards broke his ties to that charity once he announced his candidacy for president. “It’s really just me now,” said Ms. Garland, who began her job last May. She credited Mr. Edwards with devising the program, raising the money and speaking to high school students, using his own up-from-poverty story to inspire them. At the same time, the larger nonprofit group had a more politically active agenda. Its directors included Mr. Turlington, the Raleigh lawyer; Miles Lackey, Mr. Edwards’s former chief of staff; Alexis Bar, his former political scheduler; and David Ginsberg, Mr. Edwards’s current deputy campaign manager. The $1.3 million the group raised and spent in 2005 paid for travel, including Mr. Edwards’s “Opportunity Rocks” tour of 10 college campuses, consultants and a Web operation. In addition, some $540,000 went for the “exploration of new ideas,” according to tax filings. Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies. “I can’t say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong,” Mr. Owens said. “But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he’d fall over it.” Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards’ OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 23, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) As with all forms of racism or bigotry, this sort of thing does nothing but harm to all involved. If you want to give everyone a fair shot at something then give EVERYONE the same shot at it. If its a job, go by qualifications. If there is evidence that people are missing qualifications because there is a closed door betweem them and it, then open that door. If we need more student loan availability, or better equality in school funding then do that. But for God sakes, can we please stop trying to get rid of racism by being racist? Don't you know, only white people can be racist. (If there was a half-green color, I would have used it there.)

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) well white males who make 150k don't really need a career fair. Read a little better.

QUOTE(ROC Sox Fan @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 09:48 PM) Where's the Ron Paul love? His supporters are too busy spamming internet polls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19223211/?GT1=10056 [quoteGerman squirrel on a rampage injures 3 people Updated: 8:23 a.m. CT June 14, 2007 BERLIN - An aggressive squirrel attacked and injured three people in a German town before a 72-year-old pensioner dispatched the rampaging animal with his crutch. The squirrel first ran into a house in the southern town of Passau, leapt from behind on a 70-year-old woman, and sank its teeth into her hand, a local police spokesman said on Thursday. With the squirrel still hanging from her hand, the woman ran onto the street in panic, where she managed to shake it off. The animal then entered a building site and jumped on a construction worker, injuring him on the hand and arm, before he managed to fight it off with a measuring pole. "After that, the squirrel went into the 72-year-old man's garden and massively attacked him on the arms, hand and thigh," the spokesman said. "Then he killed it with his crutch." The spokesman said experts thought the attack may have been linked to the mating season or because the squirrel was ill.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 08:46 PM) 1. As Balta states, were in a situation now where someone has to pay. Period. Probably all of us, to one degree or another. 2. You are saying the program is a bad idea because of what MIGHT happen later. Nothing of the sort is going on. Why would we want to avoid something positive because it might lead to something negative? Why not do the positive and fight the negative? 3. Ultimately, the biggest polluters should pay the highest price. That is what I would hope for in any program. I'm saying that a system that allows, on a personal level, those who can afford to pay to pollute more, while screwing those who cannot pay is wrong, and create the two americas that Edwards so vehemently rails against. It won't be a 'Let's all conserve for the good of our planet', it will instead be 'I'll pay you to conserve so I don't have to', or even worse, 'I can afford to install solar panels and drive a hybrid, but since you can't, you have to pay all those new pollution fees and taxes'. As far as the program goes in regards to businesses, find a way to verify that the so-called pollution credits actually DO some good other than assuage some guilt, and you may have something. But as the systems stand now, they suck.

Israel gets a permanent inditement while Cuba and Sudan are removed from the Black List. Yeah, right. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/...773803Dictators Fidel Castro of Cuba and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus will be celebrating the UN Human Rights Council's likely adoption tomorrow of a reform package that will see both regimes dropped from a blacklist, while Israel is placed under permanent indictment. Contrary to all the promises of reform issued last year, the proposal released today by Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba targets Israel for permanent indictment under a special agenda item: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories," which includes "Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"; and "Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people." No other situation in the world is singled out -- not genocide in Sudan, not child slavery in China, nor the persecution of democracy dissidents in Egypt and elsewhere. Moreover, the council will entrench its one-sided investigative mandate of "Israeli violations of international law"—the only one not subject to regular review after a set term—by renewing it "until the end of the occupation."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) I've gotta go with Jackie on this one. It can work very well, if implemented properly. And SS, I know you are familiar with the commodities markets. You can indeed trade on a market representing a fraction of a product or item available in the world. The key is connecting the SOLD or RELEASED physical product to the contracts for sale. That doesn't mean that the entire world of carbon release has to be taken into that market, any more than we need all the world's corn to be present at that market. All your arguments on both sides here assume that the green movement limits this to the business areana. Just wait until they atsrt 'taxing' individuals who pollute more, and can't afford carbon offsets. Older car? pollutes too much, you need to pay more for your sticker, or buy some offsets. Don't have a front-load washer? Oh, too bad, extra fee on your water bill. When it gets to the individual level, you will have created Edwards two Americas, as the rich will still pollute, and the poor will get screwed.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) I honestly don't know any illegals who go to college, law school for free or own their own legal business without paying the same costs as an American Citizen. May not be free, but it sure costs alot less than some Americans can get it for. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...25600-6207r.htm

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) See?!? It's you young upstart know-nuthin' drinker wanna-bees that are causing all of the problems to begin with!! GUINNESS IS GOOD FOR YOU!! (Buncha' panzy-arse swill-drinkin' poofs. . . grumble. . . grumble. . . ) I'm a year older than you! My taste buds don't like Guiness, Corona or even alot of the craft beers that are available. Oh well, I have enough of a beer gut as it is, don't need the million calories in a Guiness to add to my bulk.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 11:45 AM) Am I the only one on the planet who does not like Guinness? My taste buds tend to only like American beers and an occasional Canadian brew. No guinness for me.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jun 18, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) So to you there's a difference in leaving the bench vs leaving your position? That's brutal logic. Yes, if the objective is to stop fights. The 9 are already on the field, as is the batter. i guess you can say the on deck guy is also on the field, but even then, 9 vs 2. if the batter still wants to charge, go ahead and charge. You just cut down bench clearing incidents by probably 90%. Most of the guys would be happy to have an excuse to NOT go onto the field, especially the bullpen guys. How silly does it look seeing these guys jog in from the outfield. If they are gonna fight, why not nail the opposing teams bullpen pitchers as they leave the area, instead of just jogging down there to save face? But no, they gotta trot down to the pile and stand around looking like they care so they don't get called out for not being a team player.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 18, 2007 -> 03:01 PM) Im saying that the jobs that they get and the hours they have to put in to making a living is more work than most people that are citizens of the USA ever have to deal with. And than i made the comment about the message board because everyone who posts on a whitesox site has a computer available to them and internet plus its highly likely have cable tv to watch the games. Than majority of these posters probably like to attend a few games when possible. An illegal immigrant working more hours per week than most of us doesnt have the money to afford all that. In debt up to my eyeballs and working 60+ hours a week as a small business owner. I work harder than any 2 illegals combined. I enjoy what I have because I KNOW I have earned it.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jun 17, 2007 -> 11:57 PM) So you can't leave the bench, but it's ok to leave your position and take on a guy 9 on 1? That makes a whole lot of sense. The leaving the dugout rule would be stupid and would be broken constantly due to the numbers game. You can't have that rule unless you followed it up with position players can't leave their positions, which would also never happen. It makes perfect sense. If you feel that enraged that you want to charge the mound, go ahead and charge the mound. Just realize that you are not going to have your bench to 'hold you back' like Lee when he ran for cover before acting all tough again. This would stop fights. What player wants to get suspended for a game for leaving the bench to stand around like a dope while two guys act tough?

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jun 16, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) It takes a lot to get Lee pissed so I gotta side with him on this one. I'm no Cub fan, but I think D. Lee is a class act and one of the best baseball players around. Fun video though! Damn! What a year: the CUBS are throwing punches at everyone in sight and we're... well I don't know what we are. A class act who, when initially seperated, ran behind a few of his Cubbie teammates to 'hold him back'. What would really end the fights would be like basketball and have an automatic suspension for anyone who leaves the dugout or bullpen. Mr. batter, if you feel that outraged that you want to go at the pitcher with 8 other guys on the field, knock yourself out. But a teammate leaves the bench, automatic suspension and fine, no appeal. How fast would a DLee go running out there if he knew he wouldn't have teammates to hide behind after the initial scrum?

Big hurt? Well it IS big, and it might hurt.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 07:47 PM) Harsher teeth in the laws (and enforcement) for the companies that hire them and pay them below minimum wages > punishing the individual illegals. Take out a demand and the supply goes down. See a lefty understands economics! And oh yes, to the mention of leafblowers -- Is there anything more futile? I'm all for busting the businesses that knowingly hire illegals. Nail them to the wall. And deport the illegals they catch while you are at it.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) Well, he might be able to hit with aluminum, but can he hit with wood? I sometimes have trouble standing with wood, it throws off my balance with all that weight on one side, I don't think I could even imagine hitting with it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) I'm confused by the term "legal immigrant." Is that what you righties call QP's dad? I noticed how she reffered to him as a "legal resident." So essentially in America we have: Born Citizens citizens by naturalization legal residents and illegal immigrants. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong up until this point. Why is it always the assumption that the illegal immigrants don't want to go through the process to become a citizen or legal resident and they just want to be some leach on society? Half of the illegals that snuck in here last year were due to overstaying on work or school visas. I'd argue that if they went through the trouble of getting a visa, they'd be willing to go through and get a legal document that allows them to be here. Just how difficult is it to obtain this documentation? QP said it took her father 6 years. The assumption is that they don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else and 'jump the line' by coming here illegally. In the current amnesty bill, illegals get preferential treatment for citizenship over the people who played by the rules are are still waiting. And many of the work visa people purposly overstay or had no intention of going back. I will agree that the process for coming here legally needs to be streamlined, but at the same time, it needs to be made harder to come here, and stay, illegally.