clyons

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) Sad when being a role model isn't even factored in as President of the United States. I guess it depends upon how you define role model. By all accounts W has been a faithful husband to Laura, but for many years he was an irresponsible boozer and had a DUI. Driving drunk isn't being too stellar of a role model either. In fact, some might consider illegal behavior that recklessly endangers public safety more reflective of poor character than getting a BJ from another conseting adult. I know what you're saying, but I don't see this as "sad" so much as realistic. President as hero/role model was probably always a naive, mythical notion anyway. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a coin across the Potomoc, Thomas Jefferson was banging Sally the slave on the side, and I'm sure plenty of presidents besides FDR, JFK and Clinton couldn't keep it in their pants. I prefer to do the role model thing myself, and thankfully for my kids I'm up to that task. I much more prefer the president to be good at all the other important matters I'm unable to get around to, like foreign and domestic policy.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 12:56 PM) What are some good words for a drinking game? You mean besides, "my friends?" How about, "the failed policies of the last eight years?"

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) I believe Clinton was rendered almost useless during the Lewinski hearings and the final couple years of his Presidency. Any action he would take was judged based on "tail wagging the dog". I would prefer to not repeat the spectacle of a President explaining blow jobs in the Oval Office to Congress and the American people. Also, when the President takes the oath of office, I would like to think he actually understands what an oath is. Perhaps you are comfortable with him doing it with "his fingers crossed behind his back", but I am not. Your positions change easier than your character. What I termed huge was the difference between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, not the acts in question. I guess I care more about the president's constiutional oath than his marital one, and I don't see how a violation of one risks a breach of the other (Nixon, by all accounts, was a faithful husband to Pat), nor do I see how a past indiscretion as a senator or governor would necessarily make another Lewinsky crisis more likely once that official became president or VP. However, I do get your point as it relates to the value of one's word with respect to oaths in general, and I appreciate your explanation.

I'm still somewhat undecided, but will probably vote Obama. I see a lot of pros and cons for both, but was leaning towards Obama even before the conventions. Since the conventions, every time I consider voting for McCain, I think about HER, and the notion quickly passes. If the vote was just for Pres, I'd lean harder towards McCain, even though he sure isn't doing much to convince me of late. He's really running a sorry ass campaign.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:00 PM) Last I looked we are voting for President, the VP just kind of tags along. I wish we could vote for tat office separately. Yeah, thanks. I kinda knew that. What I didn't know is why you claimed this particular piece of info made a "huge difference" between the two offices in any respect, which is what I tried to ask. Personally, I could care less if any candidate cheated; not because I think "character" or even "morality" is unimportant, but because I don't know the specifics of their relationships and try to base my votes on their positions on other issues. I think this is a total non-issue; you seemed to term it "huge" (at least in relation to the president) and mentioned avoiding another Clinton, as if a candidate's past indiscretions meant we'd be in for more blue dresses, special prosecutors, and impeachments. I wasn't sure what you meant and was trying to understand. Still am.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:54 AM) And there is a huge difference between THE candidate having these issues and the VP candidate. What might that be?

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 06:55 AM) Well there was the refusing to mother her young children thing.And there was the leaving the rehab centers waaaaaaaaaay before the 12th step thing.Oh and the shaving of the head thing aaaaaand the flabby drunken high on something performance at the VMA'S. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE !!!!!

QUOTE (YASNY @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:15 AM) Fundamantals need to addressed up and down the organization. Situational hitting, bunting, hitting the cutoff man, thinking ahead on defense. These are organizational weaknesses from top to bottom and I hoping that Buddy Bell changes things for the better. True, and although I'm a big fan of Kenny, the lack of fundamentals throughout the organization has to be laid on him. Either we are drafting too many players who are fundamentally unsound, or our minor league instructors are incompetent. I think these things can be practiced and learned, so I pick the second. Bell's hoped for changes will largely be made downstream and probably won't bear fruit at the major league level for several years. All the more reason to make sure our offseason acquisitions can already do the things we haven't been able to teach.

I don't think anybody's saying the Sox should turn themselves into the 1982 Cardinals. We are and always will be a home run hittting team tailored to our park. But bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL, just like executing run downs is a FUNDAMENTAL. Regardless of how often you do them (and I think bunt situations occur more often in games than run downs), you improve your chances of winning if you're good at fundamentals, and hurt them if you're bad. The White Sox have been bad at both bunting and rundowns. Is anyone prepared to argue that the team shouldn't try to improve itself at rundowns? Why shouldn't we try to get better at both? It seems to me that a team can get better at a fundamental skill one of two ways; by helping the players you have aquire it, or acquiring players who already have it. The first approach isn't working, so I'd like us to get a least one speedy infielder via free agency who can execute a run down and bunt. I understand the whole Billy Beane "outs are precious and you don't give them up" argument. You still need to be able to lay down bunts to win close games. Again, the White Sox are bad at this and need to get better. They aren't getting better through practice, so they need to get better via free agency or trade. That's all I'm sayin'.

QUOTE (Felix @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 06:07 AM) Who cares? We're in the American League and this fascination that people have with bunts is disgusting. Bunts are designed to give outs to the other team. The whole point of offense is to not get out. I don't get what's so hard to understand here. Yes, they can be helpful in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on second and no outs, but to use them as much as some people here seem to want would be ridiculous and insane when the rest of the team is built on power. Some of us care because its an important aspect of the sport of baseball, and the only guys on our team this year that could do it with semi-regularity were bench players who only started due to injuries (Wise and Uribe). Well balanced teams need guys at the top of the order (i.e., 2 spot) who can advance runners. Hitting to the right side and laying down bunts are typically the two best ways to do that, and we have sucked at the latter for a long time. Remember: "Its amazing sometimes what a bunt can do!"

I join in saluting this guy for his effort, humor and creativity. He is obviously good enough friends with this neighbor to know that he'd appreciate the joke.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) Ayers was proud of his attempt to kill nine-year-old John Murtagh and his family. He said, for publication, that his only regret was that he and his murderous colleagues hadn't tried to kill more people. Can anyone cite this purported "publication?" If this is a reference to the infamous 9/11 New York Times piece, it is grossly distorted and way out of context. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) John McCain actively supports domestic terrorism. How can we trust him? I've said this before, but I think McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy is more analagous to Obama's with Ayers. Both Liddy and Ayers committed criminal acts for political reasons, and Liddy has acknowledged his willingness and preliminary planning to kill Jack Anderson to further political goals. How is the right wing's burglar and would-be assassin any less of a "terrorist" than the left wing's bomber?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) What are your thoughts of McCain and Palin calling Obama unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathizer? Sounds a lot worse than bozo. I think the attacks are desperate and sad. But again, unless I've missed it, even though they have attacked Obama's patriotism and acccused him of sympathing and associating with terrorists (Ayers), I don't think they have come out and said he is quote "unpatriotic" and a "terrorist sympathizer" in those exact words. They have done so much more indirectly and subtlely. Their underlying message, I agree, hits lower than merely calling someone stupid, but to me, Bush I resorting to playground style name-calling behind the presidential seal was a low point in American politics. I think the difference here is largely a technical one, and that you, Big Swert, and I are more in agreement on this than oppossed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 11:18 AM) McCain was quoted as saying that he approved of that message. I get that, and I'm not saying his tagline statement of approval was ok, but to me saying that himself would have unquestionably have been worse. To me, coming out and directly calling your opponents "Bozos" and unfavorably comparing their intelligence to a dog's still takes the booby prize, for now. As I said though, examples like yours make me think that it wont for much longer.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 7, 2008 -> 10:12 AM) You don't think the McCain ad that claims Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergarten students was worse? Maybe, but I was talking direct quotes from the candidates themselves, not merely messages spun by underlings or in ads.

Imo, the most desperate, unstatesmanlike comment ever uttered by a presidential or vice-presidential candidate was Bush I's swipe that "My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than those two bozos," which he slung at Clinton and Gore in the last days of the 1992 campaign. I have a sad, sinking feeling that this bar will be lowered before this one is over.

My biggest fear this year was that this season would see the fulfillment of the unspeakable horror that was almost 2003: Sox suffer killer sweep in dome, fall short in their division, Cubs take theirs, and storm through playoffs to World Series. Game 163 alleviated most of that; Last night took care of the rest. Why'd I even worry? Now, GO YOU WHITE SOXXXXX!!!!!

Slightly off topic, but is the girl from this show the one in William Tell's avatar? I love his posts!

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 4, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) OJ was the best ever free guilty man.He would walk into a place and have everyone screaming f*** you OJ!YOU ARE A MURDERER!And he would just wave and smile to all of them like they werent even saying anything bad.What a class act he was,LOL. From everything I've read about him and the murders, it seems like OJ is a classic narcissist and attention whore, who never minded what people were screaming while pointing at him, so long as they were still screaming and pointing. Karma's a b****, ain't it, Juice?

QUOTE (zimne piwo @ Oct 4, 2008 -> 05:22 AM) I love watching them wear watermelons on their head. Seriously, what is that supposed to signify, that Cub fans have soft, red mush for brains?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 3, 2008 -> 09:22 PM) Palin's Tax Return Mystery: Where Are The Per Diems? I'm no CPA, nor am I any fan of Palin's, but how is this tax thing even an issue? I don't see how travel reimbursements can be deemed taxable income. By definition, aren't reimbursements "make wholes" rather than earnings? Furthermore, I realize that her receipt of travel reimbursements for staying at home is at odds with her reformer, anti-earmark image, but I don't recall there being any question as to whether they were permissible under Alaska law. For this to morph into an income tax issue seems to require some legal and logical leaps.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Oct 4, 2008 -> 06:58 AM) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/04/...tr=U.S._4501325 Somewhere Fred Goldman is dancing, yet still upset that he'll never get his money. I can't imagine Mr. Goldman being upset whatsoever. On a side note, I think OJ's co-defendant has solid grounds for an appeal. He asked for, but was denied, a separate trial. I don't see how he could not have been prejudiced being tried alongside the Juice.

I bought it even though I have the endings of Games 2 and 4 (which I still watch fairly often) saved on Tivo. I think its cool to have, but if you have the single disc MLB World Series DVD and/or the locally produced team highlight DVD narrated by Hawk, this one might be kind of overkill. I've had the set for a couple years now, and the only game I've watched from start to finish is the marathon Game 3. Also, if you find Buck and McCarver tough to deal with, you might want to pass. To add to what another poster said, the DVDs are "non-anamorphic widescreen," so they will show up on your set with black "letterbox" bars even if you have a 16 X 9 rectangular set (unless you blow up the picture to fill the screen, which imo looks like crap). If that kind of thing's important to you, or if you've gotten used to watching games in HD, that could be a deal breaker, but they will still look better than on VHS tapes. Also, you can save a few bucks here. They have it for $34.98 with free shipping. http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.ht...ategoryId=65456 If you shop around on the 'net, you can probably do even better.

I was fortunate enough to be at both Game 4 in Houston and the tiebreaker on Tuesday. Obviously, nothing can top being present for a World Series Championship. But because of the home surroundings and crowd, the special ambiance of the Blackout, and the absolute do or die nature of the contest, Game 163 came very, very close.