EvilMonkey

I don't know if I get rid of any, but i make sure to tell them that if they ever do a 4-pitch walk when it wasn't supposed to be intentional, they are out of the game and in the doghouse. IShould do it for 3-0, but then you would run out of pitchers every game. Just throw strikes, Even if you groove a fastball on the first pitch, they only hit it 1/3 the time.

I have a friend coming in from Baltimore, a Sox fan, and we also bought tickets just to see him. Well, and to go to the game, since he doesn't get out here much and I don't get out there much. Oh well, I do take some glee in the Yank-mes getting screwed in this.

Maybe they can introduce the Mammoth Car into the movie as well. And Ricci just doesn't seem right for Trixie.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 31, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Of course...you're sort of ignoring the key point...the ACLU only gets its attorney fees paid for if it wins a case. If an opponent actually has a valid case, then they won't be paying for the ACLU's attorneys. The issue of course is that it actually is constitutionally problematic for the government to be endorsing one type of religion over another, etc, so there's always a reasonable shot that if someone does something stupid, like insist that this government building needs to have a cross on it's front otherwise Jesus will hate America, they will lose. In other words...don't put the stuff there if you're not constitutionally sure. It's really not that hard to read the recent court decisions to figure out where the court will come donw. They also get the fees if the case is settled, but the point is that they get fees where there are no actual damages, not actual fees to be recouped since the services were donated. They incurred no injury and no expense, yet make money. Like I said, a sweet deal if you can get it. And I will conceed a point that especially in today's world, if a city decided to build a new courthouse and have religious symbols all over it, that would attract attention. but when they go after decades old war memorials because they dare have a cross on them, that's going a bit too far.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 31, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Yet they have taken on BSA and the Catholic Church, so it isn't just small battles they enter into. Sure, deep pocket defendants help too. The ACLU uses a little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act to demand reimbursement for its attorney's fees for suing crosses, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments, and liberal judges grant these awards. This law was designed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases, but the ACLU is using it for First Amendment cases, asserting a civil right not to see a cross or the Ten Commandments. That is why they go after every cross they can bear. There was a bill introduced to overturn this in some cases, but it was, of course, fought by the ACLU. I believe it was called The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679). Here is a somewhat biased story about it, but it gets the point across. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44155

An Australian hotel catering for hetrosexuals has won the right to ban homosexuals from its bars so as to provide a comfortable venue for straight men not wanting to associate with homosexuals. In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality. Australia’s equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality. But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the ruling was necessary to provide straight men with a homosexual-free atmosphere where they may be free of increasingly aggressive advances by emboldened homsexuals. “If I can limit the number of homosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance,” Peel told Australian radio on Monday. McFeely said that, while the hotel welcomed everyone, its straight clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of homosexuals coming to the venue in the past year. He said there were more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne that catered to homosexuals, but his hotel was the only one marketing itself exclusively to heterosexuals. ______________________________________________ never happen, right? Now switch heterosexuals with homosexuals, and switch straight with gay, and you have the real story. http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnough...D21543120070529

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 31, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) I thought the ACLU represented people, why would they receive the settlement? The lawyers are able to petition for their 'fees' which end up going to the ACLU. That is one of the reasons they target small school districts and such, because they can't afford a lengthy battle, and the insurance companies usually tell them to settle. I'll get you some more info on that later.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 31, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Just out of curiosity, how often does the NRA bring suits regarding unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of the press? Isn't an organization free to define its motives however it wants? Hey here's a thought. If you don't agree with the way the ACLU interprets the Constitution, or you don't agree with the cases it chooses to take up...then don't contribute money to them and don't join it! I may not agree with the way the NRA interprets the 2nd amendment, but I don't spend every waking moment watching for mid-level NRA execs who wind up misusing guns, and I don't think that one NRA guy misusing a gun would be a sign that the NRA is either right or wrong about anything. The NRA doesn't claim to be a defender of our civil rights, the ACLU does. maybe they should change thier mission statement to defending only those rights that we deem worthy or defending. Right now, it says they defend them all. http://www.aclu.org/about/ As for Tex telling us how their lawyers are 'volunteers', yes, they are, until they win or get a settlement, and then they 'bill' the loser for their time, which is a major source of funding for the ACLU. Pretty sweet gig. High profile lawyer donates a bit of time to the ACLU (yes Tex, GOOD lawyers volunteer for the ACLU, not scrubs), they bully some poor school district into settling, then 'bill' the distric for thier inflated rate which gets donated to the ACLU, getting the ACLu income, and the lawyer a tax writeoff. Sweet gig, if you can get it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 31, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) It has been mentioned several times, mostly by crimsonweltall, that the ACLU views the second amendment as a group's right, not an individual's. I'm not saying they are right, but with the way the second amendment is written (a well regulated militia) I can understand. And that would be the only one of the 10 that wasn't an individual right? You are correct that that is the arguement of the ACLU, I just find it convenient that they interpret that one right as a collective one, when all the rest are individual rights. They read the first ammendment so generally so as to allow a casual mention of religion to somehow constitute 'establishment', but yet try to be so literal with the second.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 31, 2007 -> 08:17 AM) I'm generally not a big fan of the ACLU, they tend to be suing my Church and my employer on a semi-regular basis. But to be fair, they SELECTIVLY DEFEND the Constitution. They do this by making certain that the lowest forms of life are allowed their rights. By making certain that those low life's are allowed all the rights that the Constitution guarantees, we know that everyone else will be protected as well. I don't see anyone else doing that. Free legal services are a rare thing for scum bags to get. It also makes for strange bedfellows. I know one very conservative former attorney turned Judge who was very supportive of the ACLU. His love of our legal system and our Constitution was great enough to want to see it preserved. He would speak of a slippery slope when scum bags (my words) lose their Constitutional rights just for being scum bags. My problem, and I am certain quite a few others here, is how they interpret the Constitution. I never have liked it when we try and paint an entire organization bad based on the actions of a small percentage of members. I fixed that for you. When they take on a pro-second amendment case or two, let me know.

I only put this here since there isn't an independent candidate thread, and she SUED to be a Dem. McKinney for Pres in '08! http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap...inney_08_1.html

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) Why is it so easy for Americans to believe there are not enough smart, technical people, but that there are millions of Americans wanting low wage, menial labor jobs? That right there is where you have a mental block. I never said that the people here WANT these jobs, nor that they should aspire to those jobs, but that if they have no other job, they should DO those jobs. I have done jobs that I hated, because I needed to work. I worked at a Rent-A-Center for a year in Joliet because I was unemployed for 9 months and needed to work. it paid s***, the hours were s*** and the conditions were s***. You wouldn't believe the homes I had to deliver to, collect from and repossess from. I was threatened weekly, shot at once, had a gun ponited at me a few more times than that and almost run over once. But is was honest work. And your unemployment figures are the amount of unemployed people who are SEEKING WORK, not how many aren't working. There are alot of people that COULD be working, but for now it is better for them to NOT work. So as a result, we need to import workers.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) The great part of our economy is they do not have to take those jobs, and haven't in a generation or two. Unemployment has stayed very low and our schools turn out workers with better skill sets. We are a nation of immigrants, and those immigrants have always taken these jobs as a stepping stone into our economy. From our darkest past when it was kidnapped slaves in our agriculture industries and indentured railroad workers, to "free" immigrants working in our nation's factories. " kids, you can do more. You can follow the crops from Texas to Oregon, living in your car and toiling long hours in the fields. Now go out there and make me, and America, proud." That's the work ethic it takes. If that's the best we can turn out after 12 years in our schools we have failed. You know full well that there is a huge amount of people in this country that can barely even say '12th grade' much less graduate from it. What are they to do? I am not saying they should aspire to do migratory farm work, but isn't that better than being drain on society and a useless piece of s*** that everyone looks down upon? During the Great Depression you had people willing to do any honest work available to survive. Now, not so much. There is your labor pool to replace/suppliment the illegals.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) I am still amazed we care more about minimum wage jobs being taken by workers than about workers coming in and taking high paying skilled jobs, or middle class jobs heading over seas. We have this elaborate H1B program to bring in skilled labor, but ignore where there is a greater need in numbers. The flaw here from a legal standpoint is there isn't a system in place for legal immigration for workers making minimum wage like the H1B program. And the cost burden was too high to track these workers. The other problem is these workers are low skilled, have poor language skills, and are not likely to become peers with the middle class voters who dominate this country. Instead many live in a manner we can not comprehend. High density, extended family, making little, saving much. And Alpha Dog will become a migrant farm worker to take their place and encourage his kids to become janitors and yardmen What a great American you are There are more than enough dropout and other people here already that could do the same jobs, especially if they had to. We don't need to create people to take their place, they are already here. As with every problem we face, it is interconnected with other things. Sure, people should stive to be the best they can be, but somewhere along the line parents need to instill a work ethic in their kids. Too many wastes of space just sit around all day doing nothing, because they CAN. Fix it so they can't, and there you have your new farm hands.

I say we just send Mexico a bill to cover any costs associated for caring and dealing with the illegal immigrants. And when they default on that bill, we just repossess the oil fields to cover the payment. Or, we could just tax the hell out of wire transfers from the US to Mexico.

I've never liked his handling of the pitching staff in general, although I will conceed that I believe he is handling Danks very well. The rest of the staff, not so much.

Maybe she can go shack up with her good buddy Hugo.

Looks like Edwards is taking his turn at pulling a 'botched joke'. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274417,00.html

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 28, 2007 -> 04:18 PM) Just curious, why should somebody make and/or demand significantly more money and have benefits if there are other people who can do the same job just as well or to close of quality who don't make the same demands? We should base it on citzenship? Don't ask me, I'm not really pro-union. But if the guy was hiring illegals, that is just wrong. Hire non-union people as independent contractors to try and get around it or something. But if you are FOR hiring an illegal because he can do the same work for half the cost. then are you also for outsourcing of jobs to India and China, where they do the same work for half the cost? Maybe free up union restrictions to bring the costs down a bit. But that is a different discussion altogether.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 28, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Well that doesn't seem very bright. This combined with his fuzzy memory of his baseball background makes one wonder a bit if he one apt towards exaggeration. I'm not ready to back off this guy yet, as he still looks like the best candidate to me. But if he is going to have a habit of poor recollection, he is going to get nailed by the media left and right. So, here is a discussion question - if a politician is going to use someone's name in a campaign speech like that, even if its for a good cause (which I think his program clearly is), does he/she need to ask permission first? In today's sound byte society, using their name, even in a positive way, makes it appear as if that person endorses the candidate. If that person does NOT endorse that candidate, then it would probably be unfair to use their name. He can relate the same story without using the person's name if he feels compelled to. It would probably make it easier for him to remember it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 28, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) I remember hearing the quote of a former Marine who owned a construction company saying the reason why he hired illegals was because it takes two Americans to make up the work for one illegal. Sounds like a slam against unions.

Is Richardson making up stories now? http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view...ticleid=1002403 More at link. Apparently the mother wants him to stop using her name and her sons name in his speeches and demanded an apology. When asked about it on Meet the Press, he did the usual politian thing and started talkign about other things, but once brought back to the point said" Well, I’m sorry for the way she feels, but I believe I acted honorably." and then launched into a few lines about how he raised the death benefit for National Gardsmen. Show transcript here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ May 26, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) There's plenty of members of numerous organizations that have idiots, whackjobs and outright douchebags that previously worked for them. When they are no longer an employee, it should not look badly upon the former employer. Um, he was still on the board, just not the President. in fact, he was on the board until the day he was arrested. It is somewhat signifigant due to the role the ACLU has had in protection child pornographers and people's right to access porn in libraries. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030802115.html And besides, what's the deal with a DUDE having a hyphenated last name?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ May 26, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) I guarantee you the MSM buries this story. It has been buried. He was caught months ago.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/policeb...05-25-0145.html