StrangeSox

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) At the very least it shows that work is more important than her children. No argument there. Good grief, you missed the point. Another poster was implying that in order for her to wear the bikini, she must be pretty close to Stebic and be very comfortable around him, implying some sort of romantic relationship. We were just pointing out that plenty of women wear bikinis in public places around strangers and acquaintances. QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 04:31 PM) And, if a guy did this, I would HOPE that he would be fired as well, although I think it would be a "quiet suspension." It wouldn't even be mentioned. No one would hear about it. But because she's a woman, it appears "scandalous." Sex sells, as NSS alluded to. I agree with the rest of your post, though.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) I don't know man...If her story is true then she was originally going to a public pool with hundereds of others. What was her comfort level with all those strangers? Good point. How many women at public beaches are in bikinis?

All of these investigations and subpeonas are just backlash for Congress letting Bush do whatever he wanted for 6 years without any oversight or possible reprocussions. If you swing the pendulum hard one way, it'll swing back just as hard the other.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 07:56 AM) Bingo! The fact that she was in a bikini debunks her entire argument in my opinion. I loved the front page pic in the Sun-Times yesterday conveniently showing her wedding ring. Amy, that's not what this is all about. Her argument was that she was on her way to the pool with her kids when she was called over by Stebic's sister. How does her being in swimwear debunk her argument?

IF you listended to Taylor's testimony yesterday, she was all over the place on when she claimed executive privilege. In one instance, she claimed it for one question and then two hours later answered the same exact question without pause.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) You think he was referring to time spent there in a profssional capasity? This, supposedly, was in a professional capacity, if you believe Amy's story.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 12:03 PM) The answer to the thread title is unequivocally YES. I just read her "Im Crushed" interview in the media juggernaut Suntimes. She is a bigtime ditz, she doesnt understand what she did wrong, and keeps referring to the other people that were there with her. Basically she doesnt understand that she wasnt supposed to be there at all, she thinks everyone is upset about it because they think she is having an affair with Stebic, and she is glossing over the ethics part of it. Maybe not in a swimsuit and with her kids, but if she were there by herself, why not? The circumstances were bad and she exercised poor judgement, but I don't think its as big of a deal as some people (CBS) are making it out to be. It reeks of tabloid journalism to me. QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) I don't know what you're thinking, but personally I don't care if she was screwing the guy or not. My concern lies with the welfare of her children. The guy is suspected of murdering someone... you don't put your minor children in a situation to be around someone like that regardless if there were 800 other kids and adults there. Though I am probably a tad bit over sensitive about stuff like this at this present time. Not true. Some in the media and public have speculated about "how things look," but the police have repeatedly said that he is not a suspect nor a person of interest.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 8, 2007 -> 04:11 AM) Chalk me up as another "Live Free or Die Hard" fan. Phenomenal action film. That movie was amazing. My favorite line was when that guy fell into the cooling tower's blades and Bruce Willis just says "Ohhh no!" Because that was exactly my reaction. QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jul 7, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) Sorry, I refuse to look for realism in a movie about Giant Chameleon robots from outer space based on a 1980's cartoon. Meh, it's sort of like my beef with King Kong. A movie about a gigantic ape isn't realistic, but having him dancing on thin ice was just completely unbelievable. Even if its a fantasy movie, it can still make sense.

QUOTE(WSoxMatt @ Jul 7, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) If the Sox give in to MB for a full no trade, then next year they will have to give in to Garland, and in the future all Sox starters will want the NTC...Then you get a staff with 3-4 starters with NTC and the Sox would be screwed... You tell them tough s*** unless they've earned it like Buerhle has.

QUOTE(stretchstretch @ Jul 7, 2007 -> 01:35 PM) ....that's a 68yr record broken by a team that is two seasons removed from the World freaking Championship.... During the game, my Mom, who is a casual fan, turned and asked me "They just won it all two years ago. How did they get so bad?" I just had to shake my head and laugh. I've been doing that a lot this season.

Girlfriend's brother's and cousin's band played at the Metro last night in a battle of the bands style contest. They won a few weeks ago at the Double Door. They lost last night to a bunch of bands that all sounded the same -- a couple of guys rapping over a bad rock backing band and an Evanescence cover band. It was much more of a popularity contest than a talent contest. www.myspace.com/odjomusic

I ended up getting to the park late. Walking up the ramp, I hear that we're already down 3-0. As I'm walking down the stairs to my seats, I get to see Owens make the dumbest baserunning play I've ever seen in person. I just started laughing and knew I was in for a long game. It got good when everyone started sarcastically cheering them being able to get an out, though.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jul 6, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) And the liberals on this board rival my 8 year old for b****ing and whining about the eeevil Chimpy McBus***ler. He will be gone in less than 2 years, he can't get re-elected, get on with your lives. Both sides f*** up, both sides have nothing but contempt for the voters and both sides suck. Very cognoscente point. As you said, he's still around. And he's still going to be one of the worst Presidents this nation ever sees (hopefully) for two more years.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 11:40 PM) Remember, Cheney is not part of the executive branch. Scooter was a subordinate to Cheney. Therefore, Scooter was not part of the executive branch. Problem solved. Except for when he wants to claim executive privilege. Then he is. This administration rivals Nixon's in contempt for the law.

I'll be going to my first game of the season tomorrow night. I was praying that it wasn't going to be Masset starting. Hopefully Floyd pitches as well as he has been in AAA.

As much as we may argue amongst our selves sometimes, we all share the common goal: a strong, prosperous United States of America. Happy 4th! IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated: Column 1 Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton Column 2 North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Column 4 Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean Column 5 New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark Column 6 New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) Its too bad Bush had to stoop to Clinton's level. Every chance he has had to stay above the game, he has failed. Libby should have served his time, just like Rich and most of the Clinton administration should have. A crime is a crime, is a crime. Clinton's level? Bush Sr. pardoned all of the Iran-Contra guys. Ford pardoned Nixon.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 4, 2007 -> 01:51 AM) Double header. Who's pitching the night game?

I'm trying to see even deeper than that obvious conflict of interest, though. Why should the executive be able to throw out the work of the legislature (perjury laws) and judicial branches (trial by jury, conviction, sentencing) at will, with absolutely no reprocussions or limits on the power? Aside from political fallout which only matters every 4 years, it doesn't seem like there's anything anyone can do if there was a gross abuse of this power (or would it be impeachable?). Are there any examples of this power being used for some great benefit to the country, or is it almost exclusively for political favors?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) And now it's the good 'ole US of A's fault the electricity isn't on. When you're the ones who bombed the s*** out of the infrastructure and can't maintain the stability to rebuild it, yeah, it sort of is your fault.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) This isnt any worse than what Clinton did 6 years ago...yet of course Dems like Schumer and the rest will be b****ing and moaning forever about it. Short-term memory is awesome Kinda like how Republicans keep b****ing about Clinton's BJ and pardons for the last 6-8 years? It seems to me that giving the President the ability to pardon people at will distorts the checks and balances -- why should the president have this power, especially if those he is pardoning/ commuting are directly linked to him? It seems like its just something that is only ever abused and never really used for a good cause.

QUOTE(OilCan @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 08:05 AM) How fast was Bobby's fastball last night? And can someone theorize how/why Bobby's fastball is in the low 90s when in 2005 it was consistently in the top 90s???? It's more than just Bobby. Everyone loses velocity on this staff.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 10:46 PM) Who is going to close the games next year. Give me a name. Just saying, it needs to be blown up. Sure thats easy. Who is his replacement. If everything is getting blown up and rebuilt, there won't be many games to close out next year.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:33 PM) He's won once. Its not like he has a history of winning. 1 time in 7 years in a 5 team division is below average. Considering he has had the most resources to work with in several of those seasons and considering how poor Detroit and KC and for several years Cleveland were in the division, it makes his history even worse. His "I'm used to winning" line several weeks ago was laughable. 2005 was great, but he was very fortunate a lot of things went his way, even with guys who turned him away. It doesn't take anything away from it, but its not like KW is head and shoulders smarter about baseball than any other GM in the game. His arrogance since 2005 is obvious. He has all the answers, yet with a payroll over $100 million, all the best talent, the greatest coaches, the best owner, the best manager, his team finished 3rd last year and is in 4th this year in a 5 team race. I think its time KW get off his high horse.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:25 PM) All I've seen is KW regurgitating a policy of no contracts with full NTCs. That policy is most likely JR & Co's and has probably been around since the mid-'80s. Given that Kenny wasn't quoted as saying anything about the alleged 4/56 deal, his comments about the NTC might not be linked to it at all. And from what I've read, Mark's agent had even denied being in recent negotiations with KW in the middle of last week. I see no credible evidence that the two parties are even talking right now. Levine was saying that on the first day all of this started, but plenty of talk and action has come out of both camps to make it pretty clear that they were at least talking last week.