jackie hayes

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) If Pujols reaggrivates that injury, they'll be regretting this move. That's the first thing that comes to mind. But they can't be so stupid. They've been playing well without AP, except for the last two games, and they're still comfortably in first (with guaranteed-to-slide Cincy next up). And clearly not Pujols or Zeus could have made enough of a difference in the last two games. So you'd think the initial reports had to be exaggerated. I dunno, it just seems like they'd have to be 120% sure he's okay to bring him back tonight.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) Damn, saw just the "Unofficial" part of the title and thought we had made a trade. Going into the thread like that, what'd you do when the first word you saw was "Pujols"?

Not really. She's been sporting that "unattractive look" for a while now.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) Drill Pujols in the poohole with the very first pitch. Send the bastard a message, I have no problem with drilling the other teams best player when no warnings are issued (ie: nobody on our team is suspended). He also needs surgery. Oh, where is that pot-stirring smiley when I need it?...

What what what?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) lol I know...I was just making fun of the s*** he gets for being a bit heavy...Even though it certainly did show in the past couple of games, he still can be lethal as was shown today... Pretty soon they'll be reshuffling the nicknames. Ronaldinho and Ronaldo both graduate, to Ronaldo and Ronaldao.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) He's just guessing you're completely wrong. That's different than being sure you are completely wrong. That. Obviously we can't know for sure (unless you'd like to give it a shot? ), but I'm pretty sure there'd be a s***storm unleashed. No way words like those go unnoticed, imo.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) I think some people are underestimating Isiah. I see them as a better team with Isiah. About 10 wins better. Now I'm not saying Isiah is a better coach, but he'll be better for that team. 1)Brown had a bunch of players he didn't like and tried to mold them. The players just couldn't play his style of ball or didn't want to at all. Isiah won't try to mold them. He'll let them do whatever they please on offense and not ask for much on defense. Good point. You need to play defense to be a championship team. But a team that heaves up shot after shot and has zero defense will win a few games. Since that's the only thing this team can do, they may actually improve by abandoning any pretense of playing good defense. They'll still suck badly, but they may outshoot enough people to improve their win total.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 07:05 AM) Ok, I am almost sure that Jay completely ripped the choice of Ozzie Guillen as coach for the White Sox. The guy is such a bald faced liar in print, it is silly that he can just write whatever he wants. Checking the Sun-Times archive, I find the following Mariotti article from October 22, 2003: "Wave him home: Guillen is right choice for Sox". So I think you're probably wrong on that.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) Bad example. How about let's see everyones reactions if you called Ozzie a "dago" or a "wop"? I'm guessing nobody would give a s*** and if any Italian said anythign about it they would be told STFU. And I'm guessing your guess is 100% wrong.

I don't think the pk was justified, but still, Onyewu knows how they've been calling the fouls. Jmho, but he could have played that smarter. And I like his style of play, but it often looked as if he was playing with fire in the box. Donovan was just a liability. What a waste. He himself threw away two shot opportunities. It's a shame Reyna has to go out with that play. Ghana played well enough to win, congrats to them. (Yes, the dives, yes, the suspect defense -- but damn, they ARE quick.) Too bad the only thing they win is the opportunity to lose to Brazil, because I do enjoy watching them play.

Dammit. Thanks for the tease, Dallas.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) See, if this foolish thing ever passes, that's the part I'm going to have some fun with. Do you know how many incidents of flag descration happen every single day in every city in America? Dozens, if not hundreds. People flying tattered flags. People letting the flag touch the ground. People flying flags (and not necessarily the Mexican flag or a church flag) equal to or higher than the American Flag. People leaving flags out at night or in the rain. They happen all the bloody time. I biked to a sports store last week to pick up a few supplies, and counted 6 things I could have reported. If this amendment ever passes and the nation does ban "flag desecration", I'm planning on making people regret not paying attention to how stupid their representatives are. "Ban flag desecration? Sure! Can't let them hippies hurt my flag. Wait, whaddya mean I get a $150 fine for laying my flag on the ground?!" You know that won't work. No law will use a word as general as "desecration".

Awwwwwwwwww yeah... Btw, I still don't see a link for TalkDominos.com, and I check first thing every morning. Someone gonna take care of that? I bet even diehard Blackhawks fans would have preferred dominos the last few years.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) He just expects us to trust him that he's right and we're wrong. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT What the f*** ever. This is usually how arguments with Badger end up. He gets beat down with point after point against him and then he just says "Im right and you're wrong" and walks away. This is toooooooooo funny Re: "we". You do know I think this amendment is nearly the stupidest f***ing idea in this nation's recent history......right? Just to be clear. There's not a chance in hell the SC would 'invalidate' this amendment, but it still disgusts me.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) All I am going to say is, Im not going to take the hours it takes to read through every Supreme Court case and tell you which ones they say are fundemental. You can do the research yourself, I already provided you the three constitutional standards: 1) Strict scrutiny 2) Intermediate scrutiny 3) Rational basis The first level strict, is reserved for those rights that are fundemental. The court has repeatedly stated that the bill of rights are fundemental rights. I dont see what the constitution has to do with this. The supreme court is the final law of the US, they are the ones that interpret the constitution, and they have interpreted the fundemental right into the constitution, therefore it is part of the constitution. If you would like to bring a case that says the first amendments are not fundemental rights go ahead. Jackie, Your not using the word assumption correctly. I do not assume it, the Supreme Court of the United States has said it themselves. They have said that there are certain fundemental rights that require more protection. Its not an assumption when Im just repeating what the Supreme Court has said. WCSox, Who cares about whether or not it was part of Western Culture or not. Slavery was part of western culture, but clearly today it is not tolerated. The argument is off point, but anyways the Supreme Court has no problem putting the right to consume food or drink, or drugs into the rational basis test. In which the govt just need to prove legitimate interest. Fantastic! You know of specific cases where the SC determined that the Constitution contradicts itself and declared the later portion "unconstitutional" because the previous part is "fundamental" and therefore superceded the later part. Or "fundemental", I'm happy with either one. I can't wait to see these cases. Of course, no, you're not going to actually provide the quotes, but, "trust me", you say, "they're there!" If you demand exact quotes, be ready to provide them, or stfu.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) You seem to be assuming that certain parts of the Constitution have more authority than others... QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) Jackiehayes, Actually I do not assume anything... QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) Not all amendments are equal... And you talk about two parts that are directly in conflict, without ever replying to my reference to the (very commonsense) treatment of JUST THIS PROBLEM in the Federalist papers. You keep demanding some quote from the Constitution, yet you keep using the word ""fundamental"" (in quotes, no less, although with a, let's say, different, spelling), even though that word is NEVER used in the Constitution. Ya know, personally, I don't see why you insist on the Constitution having such language. If it doesn't, I expect the Supreme Court would just declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Problem solved! And boy, how legal! And if anyone wants their dog on the Court, they could just challenge the part of the Constitution that says that the President appoints SC nominees, accept the case themselves, and find the Constitution (again, as so often) unconstitutional. Having a dog on the SC is a """"""""fundamental"""""""" right.

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) Agreed, I was shocked he didnt sub in Eddie Johnson for McBride at around the 81st minute when it looked like McBride was just running on fumes, you have the substitution, use it! On the red cards, Pope was rightfully sent off, Mastroeni was not, that was a brutal red card. The Beasley goal should have been disallowed, McBride was in the offside position and was screening the goalie. That being said, the referee was terrible and the Americans did look like the better side when the numbers were even. If the US plays like this against Ghana, they have a good chance to win that game. Also, big props to Kasey Keller who came up with a couple huge saves at the end. ^^^^^^^^^^ All that. I have no problem with the Pope red. He was playing like crap anyway, it's too bad he didn't get subbed before that. But the Mastroeni red was complete bs. He was, what?, 1/10 or 2/10 of a second late on a tackle? Christ. Still too many bad passes by the US, but okay -- much, much better.

So, according to your logic, the SC could determine that the SC is unconstitutional. Okay. It plainly makes no sense to say "The Constitution is unconstitutional." But if you like law-by-paradox, be my guest.

Yes, if that amendment passed, the SC would certainly "have its hands tied", in the sense that they would have to condone punishment for anyone who does not follow Islam. (Although, technically, it just says nonbelievers must be arrested -- so they could just be trivially arrested once and let go, and that would satisfy the amendment.) You seem to be assuming that certain parts of the Constitution have more authority than others, which is just nonsense. If anything, the more recent the amendment, the MORE weight it receives. From the Federalist papers: Any two items in the Constitution are "of an EQUAL authority", so the new amendment would take effect.

She can say whatever she wants, but can she describe his penis?

Lying, cowardly b****. If it passes, maybe the newly legion flag burners will be spared punishment under the reasoning that no flag is a fitting emblem for display any more, given that it no longer stands for s***.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Also why didn't Montero hit anyone its not like he had his good stuff going either. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 06:41 PM) First, why didn't Montero come in and hit him after Tracey "failed"? I mean, he's got the beloved "veteran experience", shouldn't he have been in the same boat as Tracey? Or, was it different, because Ozzie didn't ask Montero to hit him? ^^^^^^^^ *** crickets ***

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) That would still throw off the whole rotation with having guys like Buehrle working on short rest or your pulling your best setup man out of the pen to make a start or maybe even bringing up a certain knuckleballer to make a start. Is it really worth it? I think so. With appeals, perhaps they could push it to some time around the ASG, where you have a lot of flexibility in how to set up the rotation. I think that's a smaller problem than weakening an already questionable bullpen.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) Randy Johnson was suspended 5 games today by MLB along with Torre picking up a game. No warnings were given out and I'm pretty sure Randy didn't even hit Eduardo Perez. If this is any indication I'd have to say Vazquez would have received something like 6-7 games for hitting a batter after warnings were given out and Ozzie more than likely would have picked up 2. Just an FYI. Which would have pushed back his start 2 days or so. Not great, but not the worst situation. In many ways, a reliever suspension hurts the team more.