NUKE_CLEVELAND

Chat is running for those who want to join in the fun. Follow the link Kap left in the thread.

ITS TIME FOR WHITE SOX BASEBALL!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

God f***ing damn Im pumped. Lets get this s*** going!!!!!

You guys are f***ing killing me. That damn thing better be f***ing operational quick or Im gonna tear some s*** up!!!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) Do you have a source as to the second largest source of income to the Mexican gov't? BTW, there is a large number of Americans living in Mexico. They found their Social Security checks go a lot farther in Mexico. Thre are several towns that are almost 100% American. Ive heard tat number used in the mainstream press quite a lot so its not something that was just pulled out of the air.

If I were you Id forget about the car and take the L down there. You can park and ride out by Ohare and take the train all the way to the park. Blue Line L to the Loop.........change trains to the Red Line and get off at Sox/35th.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) A.J. Pierzynski Predicts He Will Lead League In Offensiveness March 30, 2006 | Issue 42•13 CHICAGO—Although he has already built a reputation as one of the most offensive players in the game, White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski said Monday that he will put on his extremely smug game-face on Opening Day and leave it on for the rest of the season. "I think my antics in the postseason proved to my critics that I'm more than just a one-dimensional jackass," said Pierzynski, who trailed only Barry Bonds and Milton Bradley in all offensiveness categories in 2005. "Whether it means 'accidentally' tripping an opposing player right before he crosses home plate or sliding cleats-up into first base on a routine groundout, I am going to focus especially hard on the 'irritating' and 'aggravating' aspects of my game this year. By the end of the season, I'll finally have lost the respect of my coaches, teammates, and fellow major-leaguers." Pierzynski's comments drew the ire of Yankee offensive force Gary Sheffield, who vehemently argued that he is not only the most offensive player in the game, but that his reactionary style of play will earn him a spot on The Sporting News' 2006 All-Defensive Team. From The Onion I dont care who he pisses off as long as they wear another teams uniform. ROCK ON AJ!!!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) how can this be true? she is a raising political star in the democratic party! haha Conduct like that can only raise her stock within their leadership.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 05:45 AM) http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=168263 I think Cintron is going to be Ozzie's new Timo so at least he's good. ^^^ Infield depth was a huge weakness last season. Thats totally been fixed with adding MAC and Cintron. Once again........... to KW.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) Yea I also noticed Thome running funny around the bases. But maybe thats just his style. I expect him and Pauly to run at the same speed this year. LOL Someone who Konerko can race and have a legit chance of winning?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) Because we totally have the forces to preserve stability in Iraq andand duel with the Iranians! The Iranians are already responsible for aiding the insurgency in Iraq with technical assistance for their IED's and with "muslim brothers" willing to die for the cause. That alone is provocation enough to hit them and if they are truly controlling elements of the insurgency creating a proxy war then its REALLY time to make them pay for it. Oh yeah, and there's that little nuclear weapons thing also.

Rock on guys!!!

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Screw that. This guy has nearly 3000 American deaths on his hands. he should be hung at ground zero. ^^^^ Hell yeah he should. Either that or we should let the victims families stone him to death if they choose. No amount of pain is too great for this cockbag.

There should be penalties for groups or individuals who tie up the courts with nonsense like this.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 11, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) Then I have to pay for their illegal asses. And I don't like it. Again, it's not that I don't have compassion for some of these people, some of them are just trying to feed their families. And I also would welcome a work program. But for them to just cross illegally and funnel money back and then cry about not getting any rights under our constitution, is pure BS to me. ^^^^

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 11, 2006 -> 08:54 PM) Agreed completely. (And I was thinking that it would be a harsher view coming from you.) Do the children that are born here deserve education and medical services? They're citizens, after all. And that has to change. Children of illegal immigrants should not be allowed US citizenship nor any benefits that come with it.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 11, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) Bulls*** excuse...next you're gonna tell me you don't jay-walk and never drank under-age... It may be illegal, but the vast majority aren't here to harm, just work and better themselves. If their were reasonable legal means to get here, then that's how it would work. Bottom line: there isn't. Thats why there should be a guest worker program to allow them to do what it is they're doing but under the auspices of the law. Additionally, the states spend billions of dollars on medical services, education and god knows what else. The positive economic impact that might have by paying a little bit in taxes is swamped by the costs they cause the states and federal government.

Ok here's a little more informed commentary on this deal. There are very few soldiers who "want" to go to war, Id say about 10% or less. Those who "want" to go to war are either green troops who never faced the business end of a gun before or adventurers who most think are s*** nuts. We go to war because its our job not because we want to be there. Most soldiers, as I do, want to see the Iraqi's get their act together so we can get out of there. While they dont want us to be there any longer than necessary, we also believe that if we just arbitrarily withdraw before our work is done then all we've done in the last 3 years there will be in vain.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 07:57 PM) Does that mean for whatever goes wrong in Afghanistan.... Blame Canada? WEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! Kyles mom is a b**** shes a big fat b****...................... KYLES MOMMMMMMM ISSSSSSSS AAAAAAAAAA BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH Sorry, I had to.

Frank said what half the Sox fans in Chicago have been thinking for a long time. Good for him

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:59 AM) Right now, I can see no other way to even begin to clean up the morass of corruption that is Congress and the White House other than to totally remove the lobbyists from the equation. As long as there are lobbyists, then there will be a reason for elected officials to work for the benefit of someone other than the voters who elected them. That is where a huge number of these problems start. ^^^^^ I totally agree. You kick those people out of Washington and the quality of leadership on both sides of the aisle goes up dramatically.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:18 PM) Well since I am a History major I can give some info. The North at no time was going to surrender, there was talk about a peace agreement because of the losses. The Union's biggest problem in 1863 wasn't that they were losing but after big wins like Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Chattanooga the army didn't pursue good enough. The union after Vicksburg could have trapped the confeds to the gulf. After Gettysburg the confederate army was in such shambles that the Union could have trapped them there as well. Finally after Chattanooga instead of just chasing the confeds out of the city and letting them retain their composure and allowing the confeds to retake the city, the union could have kept them retreating to Atlanta and so on. It took Grant and Sherman who had the leadership qualities to finally keep pursing the confeds which ended the war. To add to that point. The Union was taking MASSIVE losses during Grants spring campaign of 1864. He was getting 10-15 thousand men killed or wounded PER BATTLE! Personally I dont think Grant displayed any great generalship during that time. He basically used the Army of the Potomac as a bludgeon and kept hammering away knowing the South couldn't replace the men it was losing. Basically it was a classic war of attrition but it was so bloody that the people wanted it stopped no matter what. Up until Sherman captured Atlanta it was widely thought that Lincoln was going to lose the election, to McClellan of all people, and had that happened the war would have been halted and there would be 2 America's today.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) I'm going to open it up for a new question: Anyone order Pizza Hut? This is Chicago, after all. I was gonna say. When Im home theres Home Run Inn right up Archer Ave from where I stay and it just slaps the hell out of Pizza Hut.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) But if the appeals process allows for a death warrant to expire, the judge would by definition get to reexamine judgment by reissuing or not reissuing a judgment. And let's say its a religious decision. What if the judge said that he wouldn't be cool with putting anyone to death anymore because of it? How would you react? Judge can't cite his own religous convictions is handing down a verdict can he?