greg775

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 10:51 PM) As long as KW is here, Robin Ventura will be the manager. C'mon guys he has made progress since 2012! 2012- 85-77 (September collapse) 2013- 63-99 (Hmm quite a bit of a drop off!) 2014- 73-89 After adding Abreu, Eaton and Garcia 2015- 78-84 (Projected final record according to win percentage) In a year where you add 5 key free agents which sacrificed draft picks and add a #2 starting pitcher, you only will likely improve by 5 games? Something is wrong here. Only in the White Sox organization you can have three straight losing seasons and keep your managerial job. Only in the White Sox organization you can have three straight losing seasons and keep your President of White Sox operations job and GM job etc. How will they spin it? I can see the quotes now. "If you look over the past three seasons, we have improved gradually and the arrow is pointing up. There is no point to panic and point fingers. Our job is to put the best product on the field and to obtain talent so we can have a period of sustained success. " Yadayadayada... same old bullcrap! You have all FAILED! Do you your job and get a real manager. As of right now I have zero faith that they will fire Robin. I have zero faith that KW or Hahn will go anywhere. I have zero faith they will make the best decisions for this club long term under JR. I really hope they prove me wrong.... I just can't see that happening. I think Robin is a laughingstock in baseball. Everybody knows he has no business managing. Case in point: Hawk never goes out of his way to support Robin, never. He doesn't ever hint he should be fired, but often says the Sox "have the talent." I can't prove it, but Hawk knows Robin is substandard. He gawn after this season.

Three runs, six innings against the best team in baseball ... not a bad start by Danks in spite of Robin. Let's see how Shark does in this woebegone series.

Did you really think we were gonna win a game this series? Danks did fine.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 02:58 AM) He still massively sucks and his contract extensions is one of the worst deals in Sox history. LOL. You guys slay me. John Danks can pitch.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 02:56 AM) What freaking game is Robin and Cooper watching? Ridiculously long leash here to just about seal this game. Robin's not a big league manager candidate. He got lucky in getting that job. He's overmatched. No doubt about that.

Most managers are ready when a pitcher goes thru the lineup a third time. Robin likes to concede games. This will prolly be 8-1 before it's over knowing Robbie.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 01:57 AM) Considering how much you hate LaRoche and how much you hate KC, post #40 in this thread should make you sick. I saw that. Good find. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 02:03 AM) I swear sometimes I wish hitters had an earphone in their helmet. Don't these hitters know that once Volquez is ahead in the count he's going to just throw junk off the plate? (Abreu/Garcia) . I realize it's more difficult to hit with 2 strikes but damn they swung at crap. KC pitchers know how to get our guys out. No question. Yost would kill them if they don't follow the easy plan to dominate Chicago hitters. QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 8, 2015 -> 02:18 AM) Looks more to me like he hurt it on the fall. Either way, he's very likely done for the year. He had been way more durable this year than he was last year too. You are right; he's been doing pretty well.

I don't care how this game turns out, etc., but it is obvious Danks is a f***ing good pitcher. I don't care what anybody tells me contrary to that. Anybody who can't admit this ... I don't know what else to say.

LaRoche is so selfish. Just f***ing get the run in instead of having this fricking wide open stance that accomplishes nothing. Lexi just was overmatched in his at bat and not talented enough. But LaRoche pisses me off. Get the run home.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 09:46 PM) I wouldn't blame her if she did either. This is a debate to see not only who your favorite republican candidate is, but also, what candidate is the best fit to run for president. What women in their right mind would want to vote for someone like Trump. Their is being PC and their is being disrespectful. I don't get offending much but with as much as that guy has said, when it comes to main campaign season and you are running against Hillary, how are you going to get any meaningful female vote if you are Trump? Sure, their are people who would vote for Trump no matter what (cause they hate Clinton) but you would have a lot of republican female voters vote independent, not vote, or even vote for the democrat. That doesn't even factor in the other issues. Only reason Trump is where he is today is he's hit a chord with the American people regarding the overall frustration (and given his wealth and semi fame) people have regarding politics. I also think their are a lot of people voting in those polls (at least more then usual) who are listing his name because they want him to stay in the race for sheer entertainment value (maybe not a higher percentage but some sort of percentage). But as a republican voter, I want to see how these candidates are going to react to tough questions and I like the fact that they had to address skeleton's in the closet, etc. Fiorina is going to be an interesting cat as I am sure she is going to take more heat now regarding her tenure at HP and it will be interesting how she handles that to the press. She absolutely nailed it though yesterday. Yes, excellent post. Trump is doomed cause no woman in her right mind would vote for him now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 09:22 PM) Unfair how. Those are real quotes that Donald has said and if you don't think that Hillary would use it against him, you are delusional. I loved how the commentators here got to the heart of some of the major concerns / appeal factors that exist with some of the candidates. Whether Trump and some of his comments or Bush (and his well last name) or Carson and his issues with foreign policy, etc. They asked real questions and contrary to what Caufield's nonsensical argument this was like no primary debate in the history of this country. And the questions that were asked were like none that I've seen in my lifetime of following this stuff. I thought she said it with venom but maybe I'm sensitive.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 09:06 PM) People like a circus show. I actually would like to applaud Fox News, btw, and others should too. That was not a bunch of soft ball questions. They were hard on the candidates they were talking to. Trump especially.. Chris Wallace is a cartoon character. Meghan was unfair to Trump.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 03:48 PM) He stood out to me in the main show, just as Trump stood out for being a complete idiot. The one thing I will give Trump credit for is his involvement in this and early popularity shows you just how fed up America is with the same ole same old. They want real changes and they are just sick and tired with the entire environment. Excellent point, except ... Americans allegedly are fed up with the same ol same ol and politics in general and that's why Trump has struck a chord. ... However, in the same inexplicable, totally American light, Hillary is a lock to win the election. And she is a perfect example of what so many Americans hate about "the entire political environment." So we hate it ... but we elect Hilly in a landslide. A totally American non-sequitir. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 08:58 PM) 24 million people watched this debate (I was not one of them). This is more people then has ever watched a primary debate before. What should we take from that? TRUMP. Expecting a freak show from TRUMP. ...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 02:16 PM) I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heroes always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate. When you can start citing some examples of "heroes" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!" I have to cite Jenks as being the winner of this argument. I appreciate the long responses from the others, but Jenks I feel has the right position on this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 07:44 PM) The Royals have lost 6 of their last 8. Hopefully that means we are catching them at the right time, especially with Royal Killer John Danks starting first. I don't mean to anger everybody with my pessimism so instead I will ask you before game time to predict the outcome of this series and hold people to it. Sox ALWAYS (except last Cleveland series) are the cure for what ails struggling Central Division teams so my prediction: 3 losses and the signal of White Flag time (oops, too late for that). But Sox lose all 3. Why? All 3 are sellouts; Royals are struggling and who better to get them well? It's gonna be ugly. It's gonna be frustrating. Greg says 0-3. Give your prediction now and see who is right.

Please play TT all three games in KC. Folks, if we are status quo against the Royals, we lose all 3 games, pure and simple. Royals are struggling and Sox are the tonic before 3 sellout crowds. It's about 95 percent we lose all three games if we play it like normal vs. KC. My suggestion ... please. -- Play TT in right all 3 games (won't happen) -- Catch Soto all 3 games (I worship Tyler but again, I want it switched up for the hell of it, lest we lose all 3 again) (won't happen). -- Platoon Avi and LaRoche at DH and let Abreu start at first. Start LaRoche tomorrow (ugh) since KC is pitching a righty. (won't happen; Avi will stay in right) -- Bat Saladino ninth this series and put Melky second. Give Melky a shot at carrying our team. (won't happen; Saladino is Robin's guy in 2 hole) -- Have relievers ready early. My boy, Danks, is my fave but he's due to get rocked by KC. Rather than concede another blowout loss, simply yank poor Johnny's butt early if need be; really early. (won't happen and we might be down 7-0 in the third) --Throw at the Royals. They are assholes this year and they are trying to bully everybody in baseball. Have Johnny throw at Cain the first time up, hopefully with nobody on base. Plunk him good in the flesy part of the butt so he doesn't get hurt. (only one of my items that might happen; Sox might throw at a Royal, u never know). Please comment on my suggestions. I'm sick of the inevitable 0-3 vs. KC. But really, folks, give Thompson all 3 ballgames!

LOL. Hardly any Democratic debates are on tap and the quote in there backs me up about Hilly's "coronation." Seriously, Democratic party should be ashamed of itself. Hillary does not want to get out there and speak so they've cut the number of debates dramatically. She and the Demo hiararchy knows she's already won the election barring her doing something monumentally stupid - something she's not going to do. http://news.yahoo.com/why-democrats-callin...-192004677.html

I do agree with the one candidate who said it's sad the country is mourning the death of a lion and unwilling to embrace this issue involving developing human beings bodies more deeply. Trump said he'd shut down the government rather than give Planned Parenthood any money at all because of this issue.

OK I took a long walk tonight and listened to the recent Anderson Cooper interview of my man, Trump. Cooper did a nice professional job. I like him. Anyway ... Trump was specific on all issues. He reiterated he did not hate all Mexicans. He acknowledged many work for him. In fact some illegally. He said if he could find the illegals he'd fire them. Yes kind of a cop out, but anyway, he did say he loves Mexicans who rent his properties, etc. He also said he'd build an impenetrable wall that Mexico would pay for, not the USA. Anyhow, the panelists who commented on the interview blasted Trump as being a wacko for wanting to bomb oil fields in retaliation for ISIS, etc. But Cooper did to his credit make a good point in comparing the entertaining/willing to answer all questions Donald Trump to the reveal-nothing, meanish (Bob Dole-like) Hillary. As I suggested she do earlier, Hilly indeed is running on being a woman and her name and being a Democrat. She will not comment specifically on any of her policies except say stuff like "we will not go backward" on women's rights, etc. Anderson Cooper pointed out she won't say ANYTHING. She is so boring even the liberal panelists admitted she should never be interviewed. The interviews are too boring and awkward. Hilly recently would not comment when asked which actress she liked the best portraying her on SNL, etc. OK, look. Hilly knows because of demographics of our country now and voting patters in all states (electoral college) that she wins the election as long as she does nothing completely stupid -- completely and utterly idiotic. She will make very few appearances, will reluctantly debate the Republican maybe once and that will be that. She wins. I think it's very sad but it's an effective strategy by Hilly. Reveal NOTHING and win because she is a Demo and she is a Clinton. I think she will be a disaster. You think Obama has trouble with the Senate and House. If it remains a Republican majority, she will be fought tooth and nail for 8 years in a vicious manner by the Repubs, cause she is too old to change her ways and work (compromise) with her enemies. Look folks, the SNL depiction of her is MEAN, ANGRY and that doesn't fly with the people who will have to work with her. yet we will elect her. It's Hilly in a landslide! Comments? ps I put this in Republican cause it started with me listening to Trump, whom I still like.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 09:32 PM) Do I have a right to protect myself by not having people like you armed and randomly firing in dark rooms? "People like me" is kind of an insult but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I am an educated, moral, law abiding citizen. I've been ticketed for speeding a handful of times in my life but that's it. Plus if I am firing randomly and hit an innocent person, I go to jail forever. Law abiding citizens will be careful as their freedom is at stake. You kill somebody besides the killer u are going to jail forever. I think you are not considering the fact deeply enough that I deserve the right to not die in a movie theatre. In a free country shouldn't I have a fighting chance to live?? QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) I believe I did respond to your basic premise. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself in a life-or-death situation. Does that right mean you should be able to carry a firearm everywhere you go? No, I don't think that's your right. Let me put my phrase my argument another way - you having a gun in a movie theater actually makes the environment MORE dangerous, even in the event that an active shooter enters the theater. Why? Because the shooter is moving in a dark and chaotic environment - an environment that non-military and non-police (and maybe not even the police or military) are adequately trained to properly, and accurately respond. Now, instead of one shooter, you have two. The likelihood of more innocent bystanders being hit goes up. Every one of your posts assumes that you, because you are armed, are more likely to help the situation rather than hurt. But I am extremely skeptical that is reality. Thank u for a more thoughtful response IMO than Baltas. But your first two paragraphs are contradictory. You say I have the right to defend myself in a life or death situation. My point is going to a movie now is a life and death situation in many instances. It's a pretty darn popular way of causing havoc. You say I'm making it more dangerous with my gun. Yes. And I'd hate one innocent person to be killed or harmed by "someone like me ... or Tex." But like I said, I go to jail for life if I make a mistake in protecting me and my family sitting at the movies. I have to be sure or I pay the price. Please respond.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 08:16 PM) Because tens of thousands of movies are shown in theaters in the US every week and there have been (to my knowledge) three shootings since Aurora, CO making it such a statistically insignificant thing that it doesn't mean going to a theater is unsafe or requires an armed populace. Because no one has actually been bludgeoned with a hatchet in a theater in the US (that's in response to Greg). Because people who are paranoid about mass shooters in a theater, and arrive armed, might be trigger happy and mistakenly respond with gunfire when there isn't a threat. Because if the military (extremely trained with firearms and high pressure situations) have people killed by friendly fire, we probably shouldn't assume that an armed and less trained populace will necessarily be able to subdue an active shooter in a chaotic and dark theater. Because we don't require specific training in high pressure situations to conceal and carry, so we can't expect any of the armed populace to be able to properly assess the situation and help it rather than hinder it. It's not that the armed populace will snap and go on shooting sprees of their own, it's that I don't buy the argument that an armed populace makes anyone safer in an active shooter situation. But please respond to my basic premise: Don't I have the right to protect myself and my family from lunatics who come to a darkened theatre to kill me?? I mean is it not my RIGHT? It's unfair to let a madman have such an advantage. Risk of Death is a BIG DEAL IMO.

Good SNL skit really going after the Clintons with comedy. I can't see Hillary thinking it was funny. She's "demanding" to be president and Bill says, "Can you imagine if cell phones could take pictures when I was in office? I'd be in jail." Glad to see them hitting it hard and not being kind to Hillary. They play her mainly as a mean B-word and Bill as the sex-loving buffoon. I know it's comedy but can't imagine Hillary likes it much.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) I love going to the movies but if I start getting patted down and going through metal detectors every time, I'd stop going so often But it is proven to be a risk now to go see a movie. Are you at least going to bring a knife? There is a real and present danger and we should be allowed legally to arm ourselves. Scary to get bludgeoned by a hatchet when wanting to watch Trainwreck. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 05:51 PM) yeah but if everyone in the theater had a gun, then the situation would have turned out even better! Yeah there were 8 people in there so the guy with the hatchet woulda been shot. I don't understand why some of you don't want a level playing field. If some asshole wants to behead me in a movie theatre, I should be allowed to arm myself to make it a fair situation. It's pretty terrifying to be sitting there unarmed when some bastard decides to kill 50 people then kill himself.

QUOTE (LDF @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 08:09 PM) i remember the sox fluff spin doctoring on how Kotsay was going to be the dh.... all that bull crap. another wasted yr. The Ozzie haters blame Ozzie for Kotsay.

Flowers is one of Soxtalk's main whipping boys. The reality is he's an OK catcher. He gets in too many funks which seem to hit a lot of catchers. Believe it or not a radio guy here was ripping Salvador Perez the other day. Said he's worthless in the lineup cause he was 2-for-25. We should take a poll of yay or nay on Flowers. I'd give him a yay because he's average.