EvilMonkey

If he could only keep from getting his nutsack so tight in RBI situations, he could EASILY have as many as Ortiz. Instead, it seems like it is always a 6-4-3 DP, or Pooooooooooped it up! I would not be heartbroken if he were to be dealt. At this point, Gload would be better.

And it's hilarious to you why? Because you don't agree with Goldberg's views? What if it was Al Franken being ambushed? Or some other liberal writer? Methinks your liberal horns are showing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jul 21, 2005 -> 12:35 AM) Wait isn't Hatch a Republican? Did Clinton ask a Republican for his recommendation before nominating somone? :rolly Wow, I wonder if Bush considered that? And just who do you think someone like Teddy Kennedy would have suggested that Bush nominate? Bush has already been 'advised' that just about anyone he picked would be in for a long fight.

Here is his 'sorry' story. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2111883 What a tool, both of them.

Apparently he was conformer to the DC District court 99-0. I wonder how the Dems are gonna portray him as not unfit, when 2 years ago, he passed perfectly. If they really go on the attack, don't they risk looking like the complete partisan hacks that they are? Seriously, why does a Senator need to know just what a judges 'feelings' are on an issue. All that he or she shuold have to say is that they will rule according to the law. Isn't that supposed to be the plan? The fighing has already begun, and I am sick already. :banghead

If I brought my son to the game, he likes it, so I will relent and do it. Otherwise, no.

Since you are trying to gauge interest, I would be interested, with the same restrictions everyone else seems to have. It depends on when.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2005 -> 10:33 PM) Tell that to Fitzgerald. Somehow, I just can't believe that the guy would spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars doing research, fighting in the courts, go all the way to the Supreme Court to rule 2 reporters in contempt, and then send 1 of them to jail if he didn't think something criminal had happened. Why not? Cops get a person in their mind that is guilty, they don't ever seem to give up until then get their man. Sometimes even to the point of making up evidence. Isn't that what prosecutors are accused of doing in Dupage county, or with that guy who they said killed and raped his little girl? Why is it so hard to think that THIS prosecutor couldn't just be a bit obsessed with this case, like the others? Afterall, he is known as a bulldog, and to come back with nothing, even if nothing is all there is, would look bad on him. For that reason alone, he COULD be prone to over-reaching, etc. It has happened before (albeit not to him, that we know of), no reason it can't happen again.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jul 18, 2005 -> 02:30 PM) That only makes sense if 1) The gov't is keepting tabs on ALL organizations, both pro and con, or 2) We have confirmation that terrorists are retarded. If I'm a terrorist, and I want to cause problems at the RNC, would I associate with a rabble-rousing group of protesters, sure to draw attention, or would I get in with some non-descript pro-Republican group that would conceivably get me closer to places/people where I could cause more damage? Who said they had to be foreign terrorists? ELF is pretty damn bad, and I don't think they are Muslum. Greenpeace is also anything but peacefull. There are alot of wacko nutbag domestic groups out there, that could be inspired to violence by the stupidest things.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2005 -> 06:09 PM) Damn that John Kerry, he's somehow projected his flip-floppyness on our wonderful, straight-talking honorable God-fearing administration! This has to be his fault...no one else but him ever flip-flops on a policy position! YOUR guy waffles on the issues MY guy sees the merits of both sides of the argument YOUR guy would pack the courts with judicial hacks who'll rubber stamp his extremist agenda MY guy will hand pick eminent jurists whose rulings reflect the will of the American People YOUR guy stonewalls the press MY guy reserves the right not to disclose information that could jeapordize the national interest YOUR guy flip-flops on the issues MY guy has refined his position YOUR guy panders to lunatic fringe groups MY guy reaches out to disenfranchised voters YOUR guy surrounds himself with boot-licking toadie who are nothing but yes-men MY guy puts together a team that shares his dream for a better America sorry, I am not that funny. Courtesy of Alfred E. Neuman. They all suck, they all cover their own, quit getting so indignant (not you specifically) when it is someone from the 'other side'.

You have lots of groups saying they will protest at the Republican national convention. Why SHOULDN'T the FBI look into them just to make sure there are no terrorists among them. What better place to wreak havok that at the convention? They are going there to protest, and we all know how the peace-loving liberal protesters can be anything but peaceful while protesting. Not sure about the ACLU, though, unless they were trying to see if terrorist groups may have been funneling them money to fight Bush? No clue on that one.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 17, 2005 -> 03:41 AM) That's the thing that is most disturbing... In T-Ball...YOU DON'T KEEP SCORE!!!! No one wins or loses!!! What a f***wad. My younger boy played t-ball this year, and they did keep score. However, none of the kids threw hard enough that if it his another kid it would prevent them from playing! That is just sad.

I got it at Christmas time. Nice little read.

The Al's on Lake Street in Addison sucks. Hugely overrated.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jul 12, 2005 -> 05:59 PM) And as for Garland, well, Simmons is basing his thoughts on Garland's career up to this season. While I hope Garland proves him (and most of the rest of the nation) wrong, Garland needs to keep proving himself this year. Yet, these same guys are perfectly willing to annoint Joe Nathan from the Twins as the next great closer, when he has only done it for one year. I understand the thoughts, it just needs to be done in moderation, even if it is humor.

Bra vo!

Women who spend a small fortune in beauty salons, day spas, etc, trying to make themselves look, smell and feel pretty, who then proceed to light up a cigarette. They just WASTED all that effort by that one little action.

I like this part..

The use of the word "gourmet" to describe every food item from jelly beans to coffee. To me, the word is just a signal that it will cost more. I also agree about the cup of ice thing. I hate that.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 17, 2005 -> 02:09 AM) Gina Gershon. I second, and third, that! She is hot. Thought I would be the nly one to mention her! She is the only reason to sit thru showgirls. Well, that, and the sex scene in the pool.

I probably got close to 1000. Last night I had to stay late at work and basically babysit the copy machine. So, while it ran, I voted! Just had to load and unload paper every 10 minutes or so. Congrtas to Pods, and everyone here for helping!

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 05:44 PM) Here's how I see it. The ACLU, as an organization, represents freedom and equality for everyone, no matter how ass-backwards or ridiculous the group/rantings. By sticking to this philosophy, I can understand why they would go to bat for the KKK -- can't say free speech for all, then say (except people who say things we don't agree with). That would be completely against the main principle they stand for. However, I can also see why they wouldn't want someone tied to the Minutemen or any other like-minded group from REPRESENTING the ACLU. I mean, if the people of the ACLU are supposed to represent anyone and everyone being unfairly treated, then you can't have obviously biased people in charge of making sure all get equal treatment. Therefore, I don't find it hypocritical at all for the ACLU to represent the KKK, yet do not want Mr. Minuteman actually representing the organization. Do I make any sense here? He wasn't in the Minutemen group as a representative of the ACLU, he was there as a regular person. I thought what people did on the ir own time was none of their employer's business? How about if they found out he smoked pot on weekends, could they ask him to leave then? I am trying not to be filled with 'outrage' here, but seriously, like Nuke says, it is pretty bad that they asked him to leave because of what he did on his own time.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 01:40 PM) I'm just sick of manufactured outrage. I will actually agree with you on that. From both sides. I know I am guilty of it sometimes, as is just about everyone here. Let's face it, politics suck.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 12:12 PM) Private Organization doing what it wants. OUTRAGE! Yup, just like the Boy Scouts not wanting gays in their ranks. Private organization doing what it wants. OUTRAGE!

I love that intelligent people are out there to tell us the truth