mmmmmbeeer

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) Christian thugs blow up abortion clinics, shoot doctors, and kill homosexuals. So much for a "Religon of Peace" Except I don't believe it, of course. They may be thugs alright, but theor acts are far from Christian. Now you can go back to painting the world with that wide-ass brush you like to use. Abortion clinics are bombed because those people believe that those doctors and offices are supporting and committing murder. There is no widespread fatal violence against gays. These dumb motherf***ers are rioting around the f***ing globe because of a f***ing political cartoon...not murder....not perceived murder....a f***ing drawing. Quit trying to draw comparisons. Oh yeah, apparently I need to add the disclaimer that should go without saying, I'm referring to the f***heads who are rioting, not the muslim religion as a whole. If this isn't proof that those societies are stuck in the f***ing dark ages then I don't know what is.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) Pimms and soda usually. And yes, I am the only one around here I know that even heard of it. I bought some Pimm's a couple years back, mixed it with ginger ale if I remember right. The rest of the bottle is still in my liquor cabinet and will probably never be touched again. I didn't enjoy the Pimm's experience, at all.

any coconut rum, especially malibu. got drunk at the girlfriend's house when I was 17 or so. Ended up getting ridiculously sick but was supposed to drive home to make curfew. i couldn't even call home. the girlfriend called and told my moms I had bad eggs at denny's and was too sick to drive. felt like ass the next day. also, tequila. i've gotten sick from it numerous times but it never really bothered me much to drink it again. something happened because i can't smell the s*** anymore without gagging. i have actually smelled f***ing tequila in my dreams and it woke me up, with no tequila in the room anywhere.

Tanqeray for my TnT's Beefeaters for my martinis can't stand rum, whiskey, or tequila.... vodka i like grey goose and a shot of jaeger never hurts me

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) Today they aren't... but who knows how things will be in 15, 20, 30, 40 years. This is his last chance to make the bucks. He's not crying the "Spreewell Cry". I think his requests are fair and in line with the market. Has there been any semi-concrete info indicating how much loot he's looking for?

I really thought the Count was comfortable with his surroundings in Chicago. It's unfortunate that a guy from such a meager background, who is already rich beyond his wildest dreams, is apparently putting the dollar ahead of comfort. I hope both sides manage to get something done eventually. I like the Count and want him around for a couple/few more years.

Costco prides themselves on paying their employees very well with both a strong pay rate and benefits package. If any sane person were given the choice they'd rather work at Costco than walmart. Costco is certainly competitive with Sams Club and WalMart considering they have gained marketshare while Walmart expanded as well. They are effective because they get the best employees which enables them to accomplish more with less. Perhaps WalMart should use this b.s. law as an opportunity to reorganize and reevaluate the way they structure their workforce....go for the more productive workers and compensate them appropriately, meeting the guidelines set forth in the law, instead of paying s*** to thousands of marginal employees.

QUOTE(zach23 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Well, my wife and I have adopted and I have to tell you that this isn't exactly true. We did meet the biological mother and father, but only once briefly. As far as their medical history, they filled out a form given to them by the agency. Did they tell the truth on it, who knows? There are many times we take our son to the doctor and they ask us if there is a history of certain conditions in the family. We have to say that we really don't know and tell them he was adopted. We show them all the information we got from the agency. We also have no way of knowing if the guy we met is the real biological father. The couple was not married and didn't even live together. So for all we know the real biological father may have never answered any questions about medical history. We didn't research or "choose" a child. We went through the long adoption process, specified if we would take a boy, or girl or either, specified what races we would accept, and if we would accept a child from a mother who took drugs, alcohol, etc. We submitted a life book that consisted of personal pictures so the mother they matched us to could decide if she liked us. When a baby became available that fit, we were introduced to the parents, or the mother if the father wasn't known. If they liked us, they chose us, if not they were introduced to another couple. Every agency is different too, some don't do things like ours. Plus, ours was private and would only take clients that were referred to them. We looked into foreign adoption at another agency and with that you even have less of a choice. You basically go through the process and the country you are adopting from decides which child you will get. You can't specify sex, race, etc. Plus in these cases the child was usually abandoned and nothing is known about the parents. So there really isn't that much difference in a child that is adopted and one that is conceived from rape. Besides the obvious that your wife has gone through a horrible ordeal, the only real difference is you know everything about the mother's history and can control the pre-natel care she gets. In our case, the biological mother had almost no pre-natel care. In both cases you may not even know who the father was since there is a chance that the rapist won't be caught. Its hard for me to comment on the original question of this post since it would be impossible for my wife to have a child even if she was raped. That is why we adopted in the first place. If she could have children and this happened, I would respect whatever decision she made. If she did decide to keep the child, I would have no problem accepting him/her as my own. After adopting, that is a much easier thing to see now. Since the day we adopted my son and started going to see him in the hospital (he was born premature), I have never once felt like he wasn't mine. It doesn't matter that he isn't biologically mine, he is my son and always will be. I guess the hardest thing about a child from rape would be if he someday wanted to know his biological father. With our son we decided from day one that he will know he was adopted. We have pictures of his biological parents and gave them books to fill out personal information about themselves. If someday he wants to know more about them, he will be able to. I want him to know that his parents didn't just give him up because they didn't want him. In the case of a rape, this would be much harder. Thanks for sharing your story. I think that's great that you and your wife adopted, giving a kid a better shot in life. I am surprised to hear how little information you actually received concerning the parents' histories, very interesting. I'm with you on loving a child that isn't biologically yours the same as you would your own. I have a 9 year old son who is not biologically mine but he is an important loved part of my household. I do not have any issues with caring less about a child because he/she is not "mine". The question was what we'd each do in the tragic situation of rape. I just wouldn't feel comfortable raising that child. I'm sorry if I offended some folks like Steff, or come off as a cold-hearted dick, that's just the way I feel. Who knows, my reaction could be completely different if I was forced into that situation.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) The Christian Conservatives are already mobilized, they are a solid GOP voting block, and stirring them up (or more precicely, calling whackjobs whackjobs) isn't going to cost Dems a whole lot of votes. Meanwhile, they are becoming a heavy anchor around the neck of the GOP. And every time this vocal minority is appeased at the expense of moderate Repubiclicans, fiscal conservatives etc., it is another blow to the unity of the GOP voter base. Speaking as a registered republican, you've hit the nail on the head Flaxx. I'm done with the party until some sense of sanity returns. Their uncontrolled spending, faith based initiatives, pandering to the churches in cases like gay marriage and the like, protectionist economic policies, bowing to big oil, and blatant disregards for civil liberties (phone tapping, patriot act) have all left me feeling alienated. This isn't the s*** that I thought I was getting when I signed up as a republican. For some reason I thought conservatives believed in standing up for the freedoms enjoyed in the past by weakening government and empowering the people through a strong capitalist system. I applaud this dem from Ohio. Chances are I disagree with him greatly on many, many issues but he's rather accurate in his portrayal of the GOP.

QUOTE(GASHWOUND @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:32 PM) http://www.allofmp3.com/ I only use this site to download music since it was mentioned on 'The Screen Savers'(tv shoIw) a year and half ago or so. I've downloaded close to 500 songs so far from it..And you only pay like 2 cents a MB and can choose the quality..reg mp3, ACC, and CD quality.. CD quality charges just a bit more. I love it you beat me to it. this site is a godsend when compared to itunes store, napster, or walmart downloads.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) I told you what would happen in my earlier posts. They would vote on their political beliefs - on the issues. And you are wrong about their power being diminished. In both states, the people whose votes were not in the majority still actually count. Right now, that's not the case. In states like NE, KS, etc., the number of actual farmers is actually the minority, not the majority. If the issue was farm subsidies, right now, their votes are not as important, because they are the minority in a bunch of states, never getting the electoral votes. Their votes are worthless. If you remove the electoral college, you instead turn those farmers into hundreds of thousands of votes nationally, and that can make a difference. So again, the electoral college does NOT help states rights, not does it help minorities (electoral). The electoral college really only helps the few states with very large urban populations (and it only helps those urban parts of them). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, you're making zero sense to me..

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) I simply don't agree with your assessment here. As far as the ratio of importance of small states to large states, the fact that Wyoming has 3 instead of 1 isn't terribly relevant. Either way, it looks unimportant to a candidate. What would make WY residents MORE important to a candidate is if that candidate's views played well to that political profile. Again, the focus moves from states to issues. That's positive for WY's residents. If you leave it as-is, a candidate is likely to avoid WY entirely, since A) it's a given R state usually anyway and B) 3 votes or 1 vote in the electoral college isn't a lot. On the other hand, you remove the electoral college, and suddenly the residents of that state are as important as those in CA. People WILL travel all over the country for votes if their political profile requires them to. If they are appealing to a group of people that tend to be rural, well then, they'll travel a lot in rural states. It's pretty clear to me. Removing the electoral college enhances the power of all individual voters, and for that matter makes the smaller states more important as well because they actually count for something. Plus as stated, it changes the focus from geography to actual issues, and further, it removes some of the randomness of state importance (the imbalance caused by a few given states getting all the attention as "swing" states in that given election year). Wyoming is rural. Nebraska is rural. Utah rural. Montana rural. Kansas rural. Etc. You tell me what would happen if all these "given R states" caught wind that a Republican was going to abolish any and all farm subsidies. With 3 electoral votes each, do you think that they'd have a pretty big f***ing effect on the outcome of the election? Those states aren't ignored, they are pacified. If each of those "given R states" only had 1 electoral vote each then combined they wouldn't have the power of California. The politicians would s*** on those rural states both on the campaign trail and in policy matters knowing that rural states are completely powerless to enact change or resistance. The only change I could see, which could only happen on a state-by-state basis, would be to give states the choice to choose electors proportionate to the popular vote within each state. I believe Maine and Nebraska have a somewhat similar policy in place now.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) Isn't it all "what your supposed to say"...? Until you put on this pair of shoes - and I pray that no one here or anywhere EVER has to - you have no idea how you'd react no matter what you say. And PA, in the big picture it really isn't any different then adoption is it? It's not your bio child, yet do you think you could love it..? And why would the child not be treated normal..? Do children created as a result of rape come out with "child conceived from rape" tatoo'd across their forhead..? How about this one mmmmbeer.. if your daughter was raped by her husband and choose to keep it.. would you love it? Would you stand by your above comment that you would not participate in it's life...? It would be your bio grandchild... If I was raped I honestly have no idea what I would do. But if I did have the child I certiantly wouldn't blame the child for the way it was conceived. raped by her husband? you lost me there. my biggest objection would be that "criminal gene". with that in mind, it's VERY different from adoption. Adoption you get to choose your child after careful research. A baby borne of rape you not only have no chance to research and choose a child, but you also know from conception on that that child's father was genetically prone to violent behavior. THAT is not something I'd want to get involved in. Like I said, it may sound cold hearted but i have my values and my own life. If my wife made what I deemed as a ridiculously poor decision that I just couldn't live with, I'd have to leave.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Did y'all know that we are the United STATES of America? Not the United Individuals of America. Our founding fathers saw this as the states getting together and electing someone to be President. Just thought I'd mention that. It seems so basic, but some people lost sight that we wanted power among the states. Each state was protected, in a fashion, from being taken over by another. If not for the electoral college we wouldn't be living in the USA, several states wouldn't have joined the union. I'm certainly curious what exactly has changed today because, as far as I know, states are still not willing to sacrifice power to other states.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:42 AM) The GF and I talked about it over dinner actually about a week ago. I always use the " So if your saying a serial rapist and killer took control of you, raped you, and you then became pregnant, you would want the child, with that monsters genes in that child, to be brought into this world?" She agreed, but also said it would be extremely difficult to abort a child, which I 100% understand. That's what I'm sayin' man, I would not want that set of genes in my family. The kid would be resented greatly. Ultimately, it's her decision. As cold hearted as it may be, if she wants the kid and I don't, I would have to leave her life. I couldn't live with a daily reminder of my wife being violated by some criminal. If it were my daughter, it's still her decision. Being I would not be responsible for raising the child or playing a large role in the child's life, I wouldn't split ties with my daughter.

I refuse to put a TV in my bedroom. The wife doesn't like that fact, but I just feel the bedroom should be a place to get away from it all, and TV is not getting away from it all. Not to mention, if I fall asleep with the TV on I have a bad tendency of incorporating whatever is on into my dream. If we ever choose to watch a DVD before bed I've got my computer back there to watch movies. For bedtime noise we have the ceiling fan on high.

#2

pardon my ignorance, but is Felix Diaz still in the system? he pitched reasonably well out of the pen in, what was it, '03 or '04?

Although I've never sold a house on my own, we did buy our house directly from an owner. All that you need to sell it on your own is a means of advertising your home, a basic contract (which you amend as necessary) from Home Depot or any website carrying contracts (I think the couple we bought from said they spent $45 on the contract), and a closing agent which the buyer is typically responsible for providing. Selling on your own may scare some buyers away and lead to your house being on the market longer, you've just got to gauge the market. At the same time, some folks may find a "for sale by owner" enticing being the 3-6% the owner is saving in realty costs could be negotiable in the sale price. If you're not in a rush, I wouldn't see the harm in throwing it up on the market yourself and, if after a few months you receive no interest, then fork out the 3-6% to take advantage of the experience and networking power of a real estate agent. As a buyer, I was very comfortable dealing directly with the seller. Negotiations were simple and honest, I had a direct contact any time a question popped into my head, and got first hand accounts of what the neighbors/neighborhood were like prior to buying. Whatever you choose, good luck.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?Res...xt=murtha+moran The C-span video is here, but is shows an exchange between Murtha/Moran (the Senator sponsoring Murtha's town hall forum) and a recently returned vet who took him to task with some of his statements. Murtha then chose to go on to the next question without really saying anything. I believe the exchange is at the 34:30 point in the video. Text of the exchange is : After that, Murtha was speechless while Moran simpy moved on to the next question So this guy says some of his buddies' morale is high and that discredits anything Murtha ever said? You ever watched "Off To War" on Discovery Times? Those are real troops as well and I didn't get the impression that their morale was especially high, nor were any of them chomping at the bit to go back overseas. Point being, until you see the results of a poll conducted in the military measuring morale (which you'd obviously never see), you're never going to know for sure.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Cora has always stated that he was disappointed, and caught off guard. So maybe they both could have let Cora know in advance, instead of just basically walking out. I think this is the real issue. With the work those two put in last season, I find it hard to believe that he'd be this upset if they'd explained the situation to him and asked for a dismissal from winter ball. Sounds like Cora felt that there was a lack of respect there.

What happened to conservatism? It absolutely amazes me that the folks defending a President who trumpets blatant disregard for the constitution are all from the right. At what point do people finally decide that it's okay to criticize this president despite the fact he represents their party? I voted for W in '04. I wish I could have my vote back. Not to vote for Kerry, but just so that I could proudly say that I didn't vote for this guy. There's a point where partisanship has to end and realism must take over. I lost faith in Bush when the WMD claims proved to be fabricated. Since that point things have just gotten worse. I consider myself a conservative at heart. I want to conserve the ideas which men like Thomas Jefferson used to put our government in place. I can't imagine what Jefferson's reaction would be to Bush's comments yesterday. Perhaps the rest of you "conservatives" should ask yourselves that same question. Incidentally, between the WMD crap, the Plame leak, and now spying on Americans, I want to see the house introduce an impeachment. This president needs to have the impeachment footnote (even if the senate doesn't impeach him) beside his name in the history books so that future generations can recognize the injustices and criminal government nature he's brought to this nation.

QUOTE(valponick @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) Why does everyone on this board drool at the idea of Miguel Tejada?? For what we would have to give up, we would be the ones getting fleeced. Sure he is a "big name" but the way people on this board think he is one of the best players in the league makes me sick. He is not only a downgrade defensively but he is nowhere near the same level as the top tier hitters in the game the way people on here think he is. If you think I'm crazy, think about this.... We are talking about a guy who has NEVER had an OPS of over .900, and only once has he had one over .865. This same guy has only posted an OBP of over .350 TWO TIMES in his career (of which he is supposedly in his prime). Has never posted a fielding percentage above .975 and his range factor makes that a generous .975. Compare this with some of the top tier players in the game today...ARod, Guerrero, Ramirez, Ortiz just to name a few. If you were to try to argue with me that Tejada is one of the best Fantasy baseball players in the league I would agree, but this isn't Fantasy baseball. Not that this is ever going to happen, but I don't know why everyone was so excited about it in the first place. A-rod makes $27M/year Guerrero only makes like $13-14m/yr but he's an outfielder Ramirez makes $20M and plays the outfield Ortiz doesn't make much, yet, but can't even play the field Tejada is the top offensive shortstop in baseball and gets paid a modest $12M/yr. You can't compare an offensively productive shortstop with a LF who makes nearly twice as much money. It's all about return on your money, and Tejada easily is worth every penny.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:22 PM) It has everything to do with health and his impending contract status. I cannot recall the last time the White Sox worked something out successfully with Boras. They couldn't get it done with Scott Shoeneweis so I doubt they will get it done with Crede. Especially if the guy breaks out this year. Plus the bad back. If you have a chance to get Blalock you do it IMO. There is a big reason why the White Sox have only one Boras client and why they never draft any, or trade for any. What was the point of getting Mackowiak if Joe is on the block? I posted a question a few days ago concerning Joe possibly dumping Boras. I wonder if KW has even approached Joe about signing a deal or, if it's legal, encouraged Joe to dump Boras so that they can start negotiating a deal? Blalock just doesn't wow me with those road #'s. I have no doubt he'd hit well at the Cell, but why not keep Crede and trade Garland for some good prospects?

Despite all the hell you're catching for this thread, I agree with the premise completely. I think Joe is finally comfortable in Chicago and is ready to live up to some of the hype. There is no denying that his swing and approach at the plate looked COMPLETELY different after his stint on the DL. The guy figured something out. It's rather hypocritical to say that the Count will be one the best pitchers in the MLs this season because of the way he pitched in the second half, and then, in the next breath, say that Joe won't keep up the pace he started last September. Blalock is a good ballplayer, but I think he's still working through some struggles. Joe may have already made it past that stage. I don't see a point in sticking with a guy for 3 years while he's sucked ass and then trade him when he finally starts to show some promise.