greg775

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 04:20 PM) wow. i was watching good morning america and saw that Dr. Ben Carson was running. anyone remember who he is?? HBO made a movie about him , gifted hands. well, the one problem i have is, what other political post has he had, beside touring on public speaking. however, i like him for 2 reasons. 1. he has a legit game plan since 2014. he wants to see some positive things done, some of which i agree with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson#Economic_issues 2. and i hate to pull the minority card here, but it is a great move to split the minority vote that usually goes for the Dem's with Dr. Carson. think about it, he is brilliant and will be running against Hillary . the dem's usually have the majority of the minority votes, i can see the rep getting into this area. now comes what the dems need to do, if it is Clinton running, they need to make the announcement really quick of her Vice pres. the only move will be getting a minority. either the hispanic twin from TX or either of the 2 african americans in the north east states. now this election is going to get very interesting. He's been running for a while now. For some media, the media isn't embracing the fact Carson is African-American. I think it's because he's rich and if you read Jason Whitlock's take on such matters, the average African-American voters don't like rich minorites. They think they are sellouts for some reason. I'm not saying "all." Just read Whitlock's historical takes on the matter.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 04:40 PM) Gregg, please see below regarding Carson. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/...ness-continues/ As to Hillary Clinton, of all the candidates who are likely to win the nomination, she is the most likely to work across the aisle without massive shocks to political institutions. Any Conservative that wins will be expected to work with the guys who keep trying to shut down the government. Sanders is too far to the left to get any of his policies through. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will be pushed to the left in the primaries by Sanders, but has the best chance amongst all the candidates of being able to work across the aisle and get things done. Furthermore, of that group above, Clinton has the most experience - both as a Senator and as Secretary of State. There are plenty of reasons to avoid Hillary Clinton as President. I'm not particularly excited about a Clinton presidency (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton is a bad trend) but she is the best of the options at the moment (in my opinion). Her being mean and her ushering in a Chelsea Clinton presidency (seriously Greg?) have nothing to do with policy... Thanks for the link on Carson. But how come when I link something about Hillary it's immediately dismissed by killing the messenger. Seems to me that author had an agenda. None of that Carson stuff was out of context or exaggerated? But the Hillary stuff I post is just discarded as incorrect. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 06:15 PM) -Trump Trump isn't going to be President. It will be very funny if he's the Republican nominee, though. Funny as in comical, entertaining. Funny thing about Trump. If he won the Presidency I could see him just quitting after a year. If things got tough or he got bored, he's egotistical enough to just quit. Probably same with Carson for that matter. That's what happens when you are extremely rich and capable of being bored by politics. At this point, I'd still go with Carson. I do think if Trump won, he'd tire of the job and the criticism and just quit.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 03:59 AM) Congrats greg. You have lowered the bar SO much regarding the quality of your posts, that you can get away with posts that would normally be considered trolling. I've never seen so much baseless drivel compressed into one post. Chelsea following Hillary as president? lol. I'm just very confused by the lack of posts supporting anything but the "name" Hillary Clinton. I am asking for reasons people want her president and I'm not seeing any. I don't think my comments are that reprehensible. I don't think my post constituted "drivel." Nobody here or pretty much anywhere I've looked is supporting anything but Hillary's name. It's very bizarre that a person is going to win in a landslide and it's all because of her name. From what I can tell, nobody's excited about any of her positions, just the fact it's her turn, hence my comments on her "coronation." Sorry if I've offended u or anyone else.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 09:49 PM) Maybe we are just living in a delusion now that has not crashed, where the whole nation thinks the President can get things done, and the institution is just not set up for that. So if the position is a do-nothing position, I think we should just give it to Carson. He's very intelligent. He's soft spoken and let him represent the USA. You know, personality does matter. There have been enough red-flags on Hillary's temper and rudeness to make Americans fear her being "in charge" of the nation. Greg's quick hits ... • Hillary: Too rude, too mean, too obnoxious to be allowed to be President for 8 years. Please America wise up. Plus her winning would precede 8 more years of Chelsea and do we want that?? • Trump: Too cocky, too intolerant of anybody but himself, too boastful to represent the USA for 4 years (he'd lose re-election). • Bernie: Too nutty with this socialism stuff to be given the office for 8 years. • Bush: Too incompetent in terms of garnering absolutely any support. • Carson: Smart, classy, calm, brilliant, yet not a politico. He'll hire good people in all the key positions and re-energize the country's faith in politics. Give him the office, baby! 8 years. • Florina: Too incompetent in terms of her past jobs. Has a bit of a mean edge like Hillary and is too much of a self-made corporate 'tool' if that's the word. She knows how to impress a room full of HR people. Can't let her rule the roost for 4 years (she'd lose re-election). I would encourage those of you who like politics and have been silent in defending my rants against Hillary or even trying to re-but them to give me your quick hits on the leading candidates. I'm open to changing my mind on Hilly, I really am. I just have a gut feeling from everything I've read and heard coming out of her mouth she is truly a disaster waiting to happen.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 09:37 PM) If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms. In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse. But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation. Well, something has to be done. It's almost sadistic to let these lunatics have their guns and come into churches and schools guns ablazing and trying to kill hundreds of people and nobody can be armed to stop him. If we can't have guns to defend ourselves maybe we could have tazers or bring a set of steak knives and fire them at the killer. It's un-human, un-american to let these people be armed and kill me and my relatives and not give me anything but my bare fists to fight and feet to run away. Let me put it this way to the anti's on here. ... If you were told by an accurate person that in the next two weeks there would DEFINITELY be a gunman at an event you were attending and the gunman would be at one point within five yards of you, would you be in favor of others in the vicinity being armed? Or take your chances? Cause the odds are growing each and every day you will be in this situation somedday. Please answer.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) If you're Balta, you're praying the guy with the knife stabs you before the guy defending himself with a gun shoots you! I don't understand those who are against people having guns to defend themselves against the malcontents in society. Don't forget the growing foreign threat as well as the nutjobs who are blowing up our campuses with bullets. It's just wrong to let some asshole go to a parade or hop on a bus and start beheading people. Though in the case of a knife, there probably wouldn't be a ton of casualties as somebody's gonna tackle the guy and get the knife. I mean in this day and age of violence, I would think everybody would want to sleep with a gun nearby. Think about it. Home invasion, you get tied up and left to die in the basement or even worse, tortured then die. It's Americans' right to protect themselvesl.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 02:16 PM) The leap from Hillary to Chelsea is amazing. Why didn't that apply to Jeb Bush? He's even closer to the office with a resume that is at least on par with other Presidents. Based on Greg Logic we should be having the coronation for Jeb instead of an election. What do you think any President is going to accomplish in 8 years? Our system of checks and balances keeps any one person from doing too much good or bad. Tex do you really want Hillary? You think there's gridlock now? Wait til she takes over. At least Obama is likeable and still he can't rally ANY support. I don't even think Hillary will try to pass anything. She'll give up quickly and just sit there and pout and say the big bad Republicans won't cooperate. She'll take her full eight years cause she won't even have to break a sweat so to speak in winning her second term. Then it figures to be Chelsea time. Why are Americans so stupid? There's no reason to let this very mean person run the country for 8 years? Aside from the D by her name, what are her strengths? Nobody even tries to say what she does well. They just say "Vote Hillary."

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 11:54 AM) Heroically defend yourself? You have a very strange definition of heroic and defense. Defending yourself is an instinct, there isn't anything heroic about it. It isn't a fantasy or heroic to raise your arms against someone hitting you. If someone is beating you up it isn't heroic to hit back. It isn't a fantasy to wish you had a stick or a lead pipe. It isn't a fantasy or heroic to try and stop someone from killing you. If someone takes a knife to me I want to be able to defend myself. What are you going to do? Open your arms wide and say stab me? No, you will heroically defend yourself. Unless you have a really strong martyr fantasy then I guess you will allow the person to kill you. After you defend yourself you will feel relieved. If you successfully defend your wife, you may even feel better. I have no clue why you find self defense so repugnant. It is a fantasy to believe that people do not get attacked every day in America. How about this fantasy, you are in trouble and a knight in shining armor, or a cop, will ride in and save you just in time. Your white privilege does allow for this fantasy. The cops will probably rush to defend you. But until they arrive, I want to defend myself. Not out of being heroic, and no fantasy, but out of my natural survival instinct. Maybe it is a fantasy to you to actually defend yourself or someone else. It isn't a fantasy to me to want to save my family if someone attacks. That's more of how I was thinking.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:20 AM) Yeah, I've been there. Try again. Edit: In terms of people having guns out (once) or gun threats (a bunch). Never had one fired. Cool. I'm glad you weren't shot by some nut. I just think if this is the new norm in America we have to let our citizens fight back. When he's armed and shooting and a class of 35 nice students are unarmed and looking forward to spending the next 60-80 years on this planet, those students have the right to live.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:08 AM) Holy hell Greg. The wow is because you're imaging action movie scenarios. At NAU a couple students got into an argument and bam, next thing you know, someone's dead. I don't want guns period. Having more and more people packing won't help anything but possibly cause an escalation. i can understand that, but sometimes I feel people like you don't put yourself in that classroom or movie theatre. Madman has gun. You have nothing. Your life is at the mercy of him. I wish it didn't have to be that way.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 10:57 PM) Wow Greg. Wow. Why a double wow? Sometimes I think you guys are not very sensitive to the victims of these mass murders. Look ... two 20-somethings are sitting in a movie theatre and some moron comes racing in and trying to kill everybody and lets say he kills those 2 20 somethings. Those are two lives taken away forever. Their immediate families lives are pretty much ruined (if you know the victims of murder who are from close families you know this is true), and two 20-somethings can't have kids, married life, summer vacations, jobs, doing good for others. Their lives are stripped away because of some madman asshole who decided to go in and shoot everybody he could. Why am I a bad guy for saying I want everybody to have the right to shoot that bastard to protect their existence on the earth? What's the problem here. Are you, Quinarvy, willing to give up your life at 23 at the hands of some creep with a gun? Don't you want to have a gun to at least have a fighting chance at killing him before he kills you and your loved ones with you at the movie?? Or in class? I could be off base but you don't seem very sensitive to me. Again, I want the good guys to live and the bad guys to die in these situations. Don't you??

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 01:35 AM) Kansas City's "plan for success" was simply to suck for a decade and a half. The reason they're in the World Series and the extent to which we talk about them as a success is due to a handful of players. When you suck, you get really high draft picks. In the 15 years between 1999 and 2013 they had a top 9 draft pick 13 times. They had a top 5 draft pick 9 times. Looking at the 10 picks from 1999 through 2010 (the more recent picks' value not yet determined), 6 were total busts or rather insignificant. So they hit on 40% of their 1st round top 10 picks. Among that group of "busts", the most useful player is Luke Hochevar, a #1 overall pick who has amassed 2.8 bWAR in about 900 major league innings. Jake Petricka, by way of example, has amassed 3.4 bWAR in 144 major league innings. The picks that panned out for them were: Zack Greinke #6 in 2002. The 2009 AL Cy Young winner factors into this team because they were able to trade him to get Lorenzo Cain. Alex Gordon #2 in 2005 Mike Moustakas #2 in 2007 Eric Hosmer #3 in 2008 As you see, 3 of those are even top 3 picks. And those 4 players are the reason the Royals are so good. Lorenzo Cain, Alex Gordon, Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer. 16.7 fWAR this year. 4 guys who are young and cheap and hit and play defense. You just need to suck so bad you get a lot of top 3 picks. Anyone who wants to throw Sal Perez in here should note he was worth 1.6 WAR this year. Their starting pitching is nothing special at all. They have a great reliever in Wade Davis and a couple more good ones in Holland and Herrera, but neither of those guys were as good at keeping runs off the board as, say, Matt Albers. I really think this year is KC's last great hope. Gordon will be the first of those guys to leave after this season. They'll lose Zobrist and Cueto as well. I think they're a playoff team but not as good next year. And Cain, Hosmer, and Moustakas are all free agents after 2017. They won't trade those guys to restock with new young talent until their run has ended. It took them 15 years of sucking to wrangle the talent required to make this run, but I don't see how it can last very long. I will say this: If KC offered Gordon 15 million a year for 4 years he should take it. He has a chance to be the third kingpin in this town behind Brett and Len Dawson. I mean, first of all, KC can probably stomach giving him 15 million a year. I would think they could afford that. This isn't like letting Butler go; this is a key cog in two WS teams. At the same time, like Ned Yost said on a pregame show this year, "when Alex is going bad; he really goes bad." He gets in MASSIVe slumps. Now I'm saying he's the best fielder in left in the game and he's a fine player. But seriously will somebody give him 22 million a year?? Alex Gordon?? He's over 30. At what point do you actually give a Konerko discount?? Never?? Again ... if Alex Gordon is dumb enough to go to the Yankees or Red Sox or Dodgers for 25 million a year, I guess the team really wants him by overpaying that much. Odds are very good he'll wind up being booed out of that big market town unless he remains a stud well into his 30s. But again, this is not like letting Billy Butler walk. This is Alex Gordon and I would think 15 million a year for 4 years with a team option for fifth year would be very fair. If I am mistaken, if Alex is gonna get 19-30 million a year for those 'good' offensive numbers he produces, then my bad. I mean Alex Gordon??? At what point does the 20 million dollar club not include Alex Gordon??

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:39 PM) I'm sick of thousands of people being butchered because people like you fantasize about how you'll heroically defend yourself in order to make you feel better and more important. And I don't want to have to deal with that because of your fantasy. I just want the good guys to live and the bad guys die. Give the good guys a chance.

I know somebody who got brutally murdered and had no way of defending herself. I know how it ruined her mom's life and dad's life. Luckily her sister recovered and has a husband and two kids. But I'm sick of people with weapons butchering people with no chance to save their lives. And now I get ready for 5 p.m. Mass and will check this thread later, hopefully with some supporting me. Bye.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:33 PM) So now you give us the fantasy of shooting somehow to wound but not kill. Pathetic. I really don't understand why very few people take the side of the innocent. Again, sir ... why can a lunatic come in with a gun in my classroom and brutally murder everybody? Why can't I be armed and defend myself? We're talking life and death here. I'm gone forever. Again, if it's a prank it's a ridiculous prank and hopefully I only wounded him and tackled him. Don't you want a fighting chance to save your own life??

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:27 PM) So if someone comes into my class with a gun I can kill them. Good, so what we need to do is allow concealed weapons in classrooms. Therefore I can shoot those students who are carrying when they come in. Your words. Sorry. I erred in my wording. If the person comes in guns blazing and threatens the class or me. Yes I can kill him/her. My life is precious. If some nut has a gun and I don't ... UNFAIR. I'm dead forever. Let me have a chance to protect myself. If the guy with the gun is only pulling a prank, it's a very bad prank and hopefully I only shot him in the leg in that scenario then tackled him.

Please, people, stand up for me here. I can't be the only one who thinks it's only right I can kill before being taken off this planet by another nutjob. These incidents are REAL. Why must I be pacifist and just wait to be killed? These incidents are only getting more common in nature.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:23 PM) Please, can you detail for me which conditions it is ok for me to shoot a student? You've clearly outlined that I should shoot first - I'm the one going to get shot so I should defend myself. Which student should I shoot tomorrow? As soon as the loonie bird comes in the room and takes over the class with a gun you can shoot to kill. I guess there's a 1 percent chance it could be a prank, but pranksters shouldn't go there. If somebody barges into classroom with gun or guns, kill him/her. These incidents are growing at an alarming rate; why can't we save our own lives??

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:11 PM) From the perspective of the person at the front of the class, F*** no F*** no absolutely not and you're going to get me killed. Go away. What do you mean? If you are at the front of the class, the lunatic killer will probably get you first. Devil's advocate please. Put yourselves in the situation. Don't you want a chance to kill the coward intruder?? We've got more and more of these incidents. Why can't we fight for our lives. We are talking being killed here. Gone forever. Why must I be left to be slaughtered. Give me a fighting chance to kill before being killed. Isn't that only fair??

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 08:10 PM) This rant is so light on details other than "I hate Hillary and will string angry words together" that it could well have fit in the hearings. You've provided a perfect example. Congrats. How can you defend the Katy Perry thing? This is a serious matter and she's in Katy Perry mode? Granted that's a Limbaugh-ish thing for me to point out but it is rude of Hillary. I just don't see why the country is so Hillary-crazy. What do you think she is going to accomplish in 8 years? And whether you believe it or not, electing Hillary probably paves the way for 8 years of Chelsea. If Hillary is entitled to be coronated, why not Chelsea after her? America is hooked on the Clintons for some, very odd reason. GIVE ME CHANGE.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 04:30 PM) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/texas-guns-on-campus/ This went relatively unnoticed here at soxtalk. Texas is making it easier for college students to protect themselves from crazies with weapons. They also just made it easier for those crazies to bring a gun on campus. One student I spoke with basically called his college campus the worlds largest bar and felt that since guns are not allowed in bars, they shouldn't be on campus either. I also read of a few professors who said they would seek employment in other states. Which is a bot of a hollow threat with faculty jobs so hard to find. At least Texas will give these kids a chance to live. If a nutjob brings in a gun and starts executing people, you have a fighting chance to live. Devil's advocate in me says we all have a right to protect ourselves from lunatics who want to commit mass murder. The worst feeling would be to be one of those crisis situations with no gun. In that situation you are killed at the hands of a coward with no means of fighting back.

Just a few seasons ago when I went to a Royals Sox game we had the whole row to ourselves and nobody in the row in front of us. And the seats were about 10 rows behind the visitors dugout. About 15,000 fans at a midsummer game. I don't see how anybody from Chicago can root for a NY team. I don't see any harm in KC winning it all. But New York? Ugh. Think of all the bandwagon fans out there.

QUOTE (High Mileage @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 04:16 PM) I don't know how you can say that. This years' Royals team is MUCH better than last years'. What made the Royals special last year was the bullpen. Herrera to Davis to Holland. Now Holland is gone and there's no eighth inning bridge. Madson and Medlen and Young are done. So you can get to the bullpen. Luckily for KC Herrera and Davis are as good or better than last year but that missing piece makes the team worse. The starting pitching right now is a hittable mess. You are gonna get five innings max out of these guys with Volquez their best pitcher right now. All 3 are not gonna give you more than five right now. Rios is a black hole in right, making them worse. I'll give them credit for different hitters getting some key hits and gutting out big postseason wins but they IMO are way worse than last year. KC's hope has to be Cueto returns to form against the NL team. And another hope would be that the Mets don't play as well as they did against the Cubs, that they choke, if you will.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 06:56 PM) The fact is the guy you are referencing is a moaner and a KC fan. He mentioned in another thread how he hated when the White Sox used to beat up on the Royals. He said that? Caufield? He does appear to like KC but did he say that? Wow. I didn't see that.

Tough call. I'd say the Mets' pitching is pretty nasty. Royals definitely aren't as good this year as last year. The Royals' ONLY hope is if the Mets have cooled off. If the Mets are just as sharp as they were in the Cubs' series, it's the Mets in four or five. I mean the Mets' pitchers were great. Throwing bullets. But baseball's a funny game. Maybe they'll have returned to mediocrity. The Royals' bullpen isn't nearly as good as last year. They have only 2 good relievers this time around and Ned doesn't seem too intent on going two innings apiece every game with Herrera and Davis. Madson and Medlen blow chunks. Duffy sucks. KC's starters don't seem too apt to go more than 5 2/3 innings. Logic tells me Mets in five or six unless the Royals' batters try to take that heat to the opposite field and have professional at bats.