cwsox

and of course that was said tongue in cheek - There might have been five there!

CK, you said "And something tells me that the scenes from Iraq today really, to some degree, upset you and your liberal left buddies. You all were so hoping to be able to tell all the pro-Troops/pro-President people, "I told you so." At least admit that this War in Iraq, so far, has gone better than planned..... that Germany, France, Russia, etc. were only against the Coalition because of monetary purposes..... admit that even though many died as a result of attacks so far, that the number saved will greatly out number those that were/would have been killed if this regime was allowed to stay in power." And my friend, wrong on all counts. And to claim "pro troops" for one side is bull. Total bull. That implies that I am "anti troops." And if you imply that, it won't be me, but my Marine son, who will kick the s*** out of you. I would suggest that Bush was in this for monetary purposes and that this is not over and it won't be for decades. And your coalition included such heavyweights as Eritrea and Palau and was a pure pr creation. Admit! Admit! Admit! Or not. But today was inevitable. Was there a question as to who would prevail? There were questions and still are about alternative ways to have done far more and far better with far less ramifications than this so far. But I still love you buddy! You are a good guy and I appreciate that!

only because G W Bush is dickless. Where is bin laden who he pounded on the table for? So the guy who was AWOL with the vice president who was "too busy" and used deferments to avoid service impress you? They are both dickless wonders. And your numbers on those convicted for the first World Trade Center bombing are wrong. And you let others make your decisions last Friday and you left before the game started. Only Democrats stayed, by the way. The Republicans all fled at the sight of rain and sound of thunder. Too bad we can't get the US military to go after the Republican Guard in this country!

I'm not so hard to figure. I am run of the mill post Holocaust Lutheran where things like the Barmen Declaration, the Confessing Churchm and the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are very informative. And that I tenaciously believe what I believe, or will sometimes not shy away from a position of advocacy, is not that hard to understand. What I do not ever expect uniformity of opinion on anything, I will insist on facts being right. And the initial post in this thread is ludicorus and unfactual. Responses to all of those those things were taken, as has been posted. One could make the same glib assertions about anything or anyone. It has no substance. Shall we blast away in the same way at G W Bush because he promised us bin laden "dead or alive" and has not delievered but has distracted the public by video wars on tv against two very weak nations? This one was slighltly tougher than Grenada to be sure, but not by much. It is spin bulls*** in my opinion to say that the American public does or does not rrust a certain party the way you describe. A Democratic candidate has won the popular vote 3 straight elections, the last time with the largest vote ever received by any candidate in US history. But yes, there are certain perceptions out there, right or wrong. And to call the Democratic policies a collassal failure is real bulls*** when you consider that is was 10 years of Reagan and Bush kissing Saddam's ass all through the 1980s and half of 1990. And I could go and list any number of total policy failures from their hands. The foreign policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush has led us to a sorry state. It was Bob Dole shaking hands with Saddam in 1990 and calling him someone we can work with, not the Democratic congressional leader. I could also discuss what I consider to be failures in Clinton's policy, or in Carter's. In reality I do not see the world in the simplistic way that one party is good and one bad, nor do I dwell in the shadow of the past. McGovern? A fighter pilot... and that election was over 30 years ago. Might as well tar the Republicans with Watergate if you are going to charge McGovernism. Or more aptly, Iran-Contra since many of the key players in that are currently employed in DC. I wish Clinton had had a freer hand. Much of what was not accomplished was because of Republican obstructionism in the Congress and their obsession with getting Clinton and their vitrolic responses to anything Clinton said or did. I am partisan though. There is one party that in the areas of congruence there is much more in common than with the other. Simple as that, while I see no party as perfect, of course not, I do advocate strongly within one party. And I am not decided on the next election. I lean towards Dean but am not in anyone's camp yet. When the current outrageous budget deficits balloon, we shall see who America trusts. I think this administration has been a diaster in every way, and contemptuous of anything bipartisan. And its economic polices are woefully ignorant and inept. As far as 9-11 goes - there was no f***ing need for racial profiling or for anything more sophisticated than following then-current polices - when a group of people buy one way tickets oin cash ayt the very last second, that is suspicious. The failure of Amerfican intelligence to give a warning in the weeks prior is well documented. So was Bush's neglect. So was Rice's. And even afterwards,. it was not Bush who supported greater airline security, he just finally when he saw the congressional votes were against him, latched onto the Liberman proposals. And this very day while America is looking elsewhere, 1/3 of the House Republicans went against the president on an airline bill. I find the recent republican congressional dissension from Bush on economoic matters interesting, by the way. I don't see you as nonpartisan other than on your card, unless you are hard right. Which is noit to say that I do not find you as interesting, better informed than most, and a good Sox fan. And you are more rartional than many. I haven't caught you in a disregard for facts, really, just mis-interpretations and maybe some day you will come back to the true fold. But never mistake being for peace with not being tenacious. It is not always easy to go against the contemporary flow. But then, if I were the give in easily type, I wouldn't be a Sox fan, would I?

What is that supposed to mean? What's wrong with the usage of spewing? Is it not the same as "sending out", "churning out", "emiting", etc..? before making a grammar assumption check your thesaurus. Who's casting stones? IMO, if Saddam was to remain in power, stones may be the only weapon of choice. Words have connotations. Not all words are equal and mean the same thing. There are shades of meaning. Get yourself your own thesarus. And I will consider everything you post from now on to be "spewing." :puke

I agree 100%.

we play 3 there this weekend. Don't jinx us. You know they are going to win some and I sure as hell hope their first is not against us.

that is a very false presumption of facts. To do so in this country would be unconstitutional unless a crime had been committed. The arrest of that dude in minnesota should have been a huge tip off but it wasn't followed up - however, all of the plotters of the first WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted very properly. The very point of the the anti-terror initiative that Rice and the Bush administration ignored was to take action against al queda. And under the Clinton administration moves were made against al queda. They have been discussed here before and I am not going to go over old ground for a cheap shot. If you think the only way to deal with anything is to wage war, well, that is your problem.

"Spewing"? That type of wording tells me what the perspective is. Maybe if Bush had paid attention in nthat famous August briefing to the terrorism situation rather than the Enron and his buddy-contributor Kenneth Lay situation, he could have been more focused on reality than politics. Lapses abound everywhere. Before anyone casts stones, get out of the glass house.

Winodj, thank you for your very wise and informed answer. I would have been much more intemperate in my response. I would note, that you said "That completed plan was given to the Bush administration with the proviso from outgoing NSA Sandy Berger "This is the most pressing issue facing the security of the United States today." It sat on the Bush administration shelf." It sat ont he shelf intentionallky because Condaleeza Wright and the rest of the incoming administration made the intentional decision to ignore anything from the Clinton administration. And as for "A panel of former senators, congressmen and intelligence experts advised the Republican congress that the threat of terror in this country was high and that the US was extremely vulnerable to it. The Congress ignored that warning." Of course thery ignored it; they were obsessed with real matters of national security such as blow jobs and blue dresses.

I have not been noticing a lack of good players coming up from the Sox farm system.

It is going to be a long time coming if it ever happens. They have a lot of really bad contracts to recover from, the farm system has been robbed blind, and the attitude of the organization is just terrible as I understand it. Plus they have alienated most of the fans up there and attendance is terrible. Even if they can find the talent enough to start to win, I don' think that they can rebuild a fan base quickly enough to keep those players. I agree that the Tiger franchise will be turned around in time. Trammel is purposely doing what he is this year to prepare the team for the future. The Tiger fan base will be back too. They have away just waiting for something to happen but when it does they will be back. Not that I will enoy that living in Tiger country - but once they have a reason to go to their games they will go.

I always liked Parque and his arrirude and I wish him every good thing in TB except when he plays us - he's a plucky guy and I hope it works for him

G Bell gave us a good enough season - Earl Averill, Jr. caught well (didn;t hit well enough) that would be it, I think I always have tredidation over the exCub factor

agreed except maybe Ginter might be ready to - I think he earned it in ST but we had White who made it on history

Today's game between the Royals and Tiggas is PPD....... good thing I think. Cool off KC. wonder why - not that cold in Michigan today - bet their advance sales was a crowd of 6,500 - I am rather hoping Detroit gets a win off of KC both to slow KC down as well as the Tigs have to win sometime and I want that out of the way by the time we get there. Need to sweep them again - I am 5% thinking of going to Detroit for the Saturday game and see our guys - sure would be nice if someone wanted to go too; Comerica is a lonely park to sit alone at.

I like our outfield now - and it will get better wuth JB in the wings but we have a fine outfield right now. And seeing the farem system being able to keep it coming - that was Atlanta's strategy and I hope we can emulate that and keep developiong out of our system rather than have to make trades.

Mark I emailed you saying yes of course and also that way giving you my email address - any time, whatever I can do - I will take the time always for a friend - if you didn't get the email let me know

cluger and everyone, thank you, thank you very much for your being here and posting - makes me feel a part of the soxtalk community - I appreciate you all, for the play by play and the game related comments and for being here - shared experiences make a community and you all are wonderful

Koch K all 3 or how did last out come?

bring it billy bring it

how many dumb ass base running blunders has St JosE6 made now, 2 or 3?

thnaks Frank! Now Maggs, crank one - please

thank you St Jose!

these types of recaps are what I am living for at the moment thanks guy!