May 1st vs Oakland

[CrespoBlows]

The war on drugs is a f***ing joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HCNKMQR1yg

 

How the f*** can the Gov't think they can regulate what we put in our own f***ing bodies. The f***ing Consitiution itself protects those freedoms. They think they can make laws to protect the common people and majority... THE f***ing constitution was created to protect just the f***ing opposite, to protect the minority who wanted to do things that might seem rediculous, stupid, outragous, bad for society, what ever the f*** you want to call it. Thats what the f***ing Constitution was created to protect and the same f***ing ******** politicians are using it to shut em up and "protect" the common good and people... The f***ing common good doesn't f***ing need to be protected.

 

OK, I'm going to make a thread, because the drug war has no relevance in a game thread.

 

Things that piss TedWilliams101 off:

 

Strikeouts, Walks, OBP, the Drug War, Wily Mo Pena, Slow guys who walk and hit homeruns but clog up the bases and can't steal.

[TedWilliams101]

I love the word f***.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1229138312499693343&q=penn+and+teller+********&hl=en

 

Profanity is legit. It does have a place. Anyone who thinks its the words themselves that are offensive, etc, are just stupid and naive. Its the meaning that gives meaning, not the sound of words. Using Freaken, Holy potato, whatever other silly stupid f***ing phrase you want, portrays the same f***ing idea. So why using baby talk instead of using well chosen words that get your point across. Some people piss me off. f***.

[TedWilliams101]

lol. Ya it is a game thread, so back to the thread....

 

Lets go sox. Do you guys think Tito will start Cora or Pedroia at 2nd tonight?

 

Oh, and by the way, I'm fine with power hitters who can't run. I don't like non-power hitters who don't provide much AND clog the bases. But anywho, where did that come from?

[TheKilo]

Crespoblow, what the f*** gives you, or the Gov't the right to tell me what I can and can't do to myself? ... That was just playing devils advocate, I don't have a problem with you. But I'm trying to make a point. Freedom isn't about protecting the common. It's about protecting those who piss off the Gov't, common, etc. You can't honestly tell me there is a legit reason to outlaw drugs, that is in accordance to the constitution. The gov't is getting awefully comfortably tredding on our freedoms. If drugs were legalized the problem would got down. The black market would dissapear. Crime would go down because you have less shady deals, drug traffic, etc. Deaths would decline as people would be more willing to go to hospitals and clinics as they won't have to fear prosecution. Let people figure it out on their own. Instead of outlawing something which, according to the consitution and freedom itself should be perfectly legal, teach our youth about the actual dangers of drugs and have plenty of rehab centers.

 

And I just don't get why pot is illegal. There hasn't been a single person who died from it. Not one. Yet thousands die from alcohol poisoning each year. And pot is proven to be useful as a pain reliever, etc. Where's the problem?

 

Two quick questions.

 

1. Do you have any empirical, cited references that say if marijuana was legalized, the crime rates would go down? Is there some kind of significant statistical correlation to these two that people have done studies on? If you can link me to these studies, then yeah I'll believe it. But until then I think that there is no guarantee the crime rate would go down if drugs were legalized.

 

(Although you hate statistics, so I can probably just expect a post of you repeating your opinions)

 

2. Alcohol is a drug, is it not? Do you think there is a reason that governments put restricitons on the amount of alcohol you can drink before operating a motor vehicle? Have you not leanred anything from the Josh Hancock mess? Do you think we as citizens should be allowed to consume as much alcohol as we want and then get behind the wheel of a car?

 

Like it or not, this government was founded on the principles of the social contract. You know what that is? It says that citizens, like you and I, follow the government's rules and regulations in order to keep social order and to be protected from the government. It is a classic example of compromise. We give up some "personal freedoms" (like in this case, smoking pot) in order to be protected in times of crisis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

 

The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain social order. In laymen's terms this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

 

Read up on it, sport.

[Ray10]

Well we got Schilling on the mound for us tonight and this is going to be a good game to watch it's just too bad that I can't watch it because I have night school to go to. But either way I'll keep checking the scores in the library somehow. GO SOX GO.

[TedWilliams101]

In time of crisis? Whats the crisis? I have nothing against the laws against driving drunk. Thats cool. But the drug itself is not banned. It would be foolish to ban it. Just as it is foolish to ban other drugs. What a person does with their body is their business, not the Gov't. And I disagree whole-heartedly with the idea of giving up some "personal freedoms". The whole point of the constitution is to protect against that. Fredom isn't being willing to give up certain freedoms. Its all or nothing. Either you maintain your freedom to the most absolutely form possible, or you don't have it at all. You can't pick and choose. When you start giving up certain freedoms due to fear or "society", your no longer looking at freedom. Thomas Jefferson once said: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Banning certain drugs is necessary, in your view, to maintain "order" and safty in country. That is exactly what the founders of this country fought to prevent. Just like the Gov't trying to pry away certain freedoms due to the fear of terrorism, you either have to take freedom as it is, in its pure-ist form, or it isn't freedom. Once you open the door to taking away personal freedoms, it will continue to grow and take more and more until there is nothing left.

[HeadOfSoxNation]

I love how our Gov't doesn't care about going directly against the f***ing constitution.

 

The Constitution wasn't written when people could legally acquire automatic and semi-automatic weapons at the drop of a hat. If you want to have a single-barrel, muzzle-loading weapon in your closet or under your bed to defend against a tyrannical government, as was the 2nd Ammendments purpose, more the power to you.

 

The Constitution of the United States still provides a basic framework as to what is acceptable and what is not...like anything else written in that time period, however, it requires interpretation and discretion when it comes to its implementation.

[TheKilo]

In time of crisis? Whats the crisis? I have nothing against the laws against driving drunk. Thats cool. But the drug itself is not banned. It would be foolish to ban it. Just as it is foolish to ban other drugs.

 

But you said you were against the government taking away personal freedoms. What if someone wanted to drive drunk?

 

Are you saying there should be some limit on the personal freedoms people allow? Like you say here:

 

Fredom isn't being willing to give up certain freedoms. Its all or nothing.

 

So what you're essentially saying is that we should not give up any freedoms, yet laws against driving drunk are OK.

 

(FTR, I do not condone driving drunk, I'm merely using it as an example to show everything is not black and white)

 

What a person does with their body is their business, not the Gov't. And I disagree whole-heartedly with the idea of giving up some "personal freedoms". The whole point of the constitution is to protect against that.

 

The point of government is to protect its citizens above all else. I fail to see how regulating ILLEGAL DRUGS does not fit that requirement, especially when there is significant medical evidence to the fact that some of those drugs can cuase serious health risks. Maybe not marijuana necessarily, but there are illegal drugs that can cause death on the first usage. Again, all or nothing, remember.

 

Either you maintain your freedom to the most absolutely form possible, or you don't have it at all. You can't pick and choose. When you start giving up certain freedoms due to fear or "society", your no longer looking at freedom.

 

You have the freedom of speech, yet you still can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Why? To not cause a panic and protect people from harm.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Banning certain drugs is necessary, in your view, to maintain "order" and safty in country. That is exactly what the founders of this country fought to prevent.

 

So we'd all be safer if all drugs were legalized? Remember, YOU can't pick and choose what drugs are legal and what drugs aren't because in your view, that inhibits freedoms.

 

Again, until you can empirically show me otherwise, I'll go with the thought that there is no positive correlation between the legalization of drugs and the drop in crime rate.

 

Just like the Gov't trying to pry away certain freedoms due to the fear of terrorism, you either have to take freedom as it is, in its pure-ist form, or it isn't freedom. Once you open the door to taking away personal freedoms, it will continue to grow and take more and more until there is nothing left.

 

I don't support the Patriot Act at all. However, the government was acting in the way they thought they could best protect the citizens of this country, which is thier number 1 job. It's too bad the people running the show don't know what to do. The theory behind their practices is sound, their execution was not.

[TedWilliams101]

I don't like picking and choosing, so I want all drugs to be legalized. The reason it is illegal to drive drunk or intoxicated is that it is very dangerous and those actions kill OTHER people. It is impossible for a drug to kill someone not taking it. If someone takes LCD and goes crazy and gets fired, destroys his family, etc, the problem is on the PERSON not the drug. People need to be held accountable for their actions, not drugs or guns. The constitution protects people from each other, not from themselves.

 

There really isn't a sound agrument for banning guns. I'm all for regulation. But not banning. Banning would be a terrible idea. Criminals don't follow the law. Banning guns wouldn't prevent criminals from getting guns, it would prevent law-biding citizens from getting guns. There are far too many cases where new laws prevented a citizen from carrying a firearm and a situation arised where, had the citizen had their weapon, they could have prevented a bloodbath. Citizens should have the right to protect themselves to the full extent possible. Obviously, a nuke would't work, because that would kill many innocent people, thus is against the law...

 

And the yelling fire thing in a public theater, you know thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about censorship. That has nothing to do with yelling fire in a public place. That is about suppressing people's thoughts and ideas. The idea of vulgar language and words themselves being offensive is rediculous. Its an old myth. Its not the words, its the meaning behind them that matters. Censorship and yelling fire have nothing to do with eachother.

[TedWilliams101]

And remember, Columbine and the Vtek massacre happened in gun free zones...

[kreinbihl34]

But what you need to take in consideration is with the way you want laws, those situations will rise. No matter how many laws you pass or don't pass things like that will happen. Nothing will stop them, the best way though is limit them, which the Government tries to do.

[TedWilliams101]

I agree that these things will happen. But thats exactly why I don't like the gov't trying to ban guns, etc. It wont help. Freedom isn't free, it can cost lives, some people tend to forget that nowadays. But lets get back on track.

 

I'm expecting Manny to have a big game.

[MANNYHOF24]

Dear God people keep your argument in other threads. Allthough I kind of enjoy reading 3 pages on TedWilliams trying to justify his huge drug addiction. As for tonights game, score often and early boys, and hope that Schilling goes 7 or 8 tonight and we can win 7-2 or something like that.

[yeszir]

Instead of watching this game I will be attempting to cram as much economic theory into my head as possible. Ultimately, it will be to no avail, as I am destined to get in the 76-82 range on this crap final.

[TheKilo]

Lineups:

 

Sox

 

Lugo

Youkilis

Ortiz

Ramirez

Hinske

Lowell

Varitek

Crisp

Pedroia

 

Schilling

 

 

A's

 

Stewart

Ellis

Chavez

Piazza

Johnson

Crosby

Buck

Kendall

Langerhans

 

Blanton

 

 

Their pitching is great, but their offense sucks. Wear down the pitchers and the Sox should win.

[TheKilo]

Got the lineups from Sosh, but NESN said Drew is in the lineup.

[riverside sluggers]

Nesn reporting Drew was pulled out of the lineup very recently, blah do hope he's ok

 

EDIT: Drew has a stomach virus, he should be back tomorrow. Im very surprised that they dont have Todd Walker's bat in the lineup. He has had some pretty stats facing Curt

[redsoxrules]

hinske is only 1 for 12 against blanton

[TheKilo]

hinske is only 1 for 12 against blanton

 

He'll go 2-4 tonight.

[redsoxrules]

oakland is only batting .230 as a team

[Cocos Disciples]

A's lineup is:

 

Stewart

Ellis

Chavez

Piazza

Johnson

Crosby

Buck

Kendall

Langerhans

 

The lack of Swisher makes the lineup go from mediocre to bad. Dan Johnson should not be a 5 hitter anywhere.

[BoSox21]

Apparently, Swisher might only come back Friday but Oakland bats like s*** every year yet they give us fits so we'll see...

[CrespoBlows]

Instead of watching this game I will be attempting to cram as much economic theory into my head as possible. Ultimately' date=' it will be to no avail, as I am destined to get in the 76-82 range on this crap final.[/quote']

 

Sucks. Is it a general economic theory, or something specific?

 

I've got the AP Macroeconomic test in a week. I'm thinking of skipping it, because I've got to get a freakin' 5 to get college credit.

[RedSoxRooter]

Is tonight the night that the free preview ends for In Demand? I'm not getting a signal..

[TheKilo]

7 from Schilling would be sweet.

 

edit - 10 pitch innings could mean even more.

[TedWilliams101]

Nice and easy first inning for Schil. Lets plate some runs early.

[BoSox21]

oh man did Chavez look bad swinging at that pitch

 

nice start for Schill, 10 pitch 1-2-3 inning

[jacksonianmarch]

coco is on fire.

[BoSox21]

that good hustle by Crisp, Crosby clearly looked rushed on that throw

[jacksonianmarch]

never mind. Gamecast sucks.