NUKE_CLEVELAND

We're rocking this mother f***er!!! f*** THE ASS STROKES!!!! 3-1 GOOD GUYS AND NUKE IS GETTING WASTED ON JACK HELL YEAH!!!!

DYE COMES THROUGH!!!!!!!!! 1-0 GOOD GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELL f***ING YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COUNT WAS POSITIVELY FILTHY THERE!! WOW!!! GOOD GUYS COMING TO BAT!

WORLD SERIES chat is going on right now. Come join us!!!

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Oct 22, 2005 -> 01:18 PM) Yah I got sucked into seeing that last night as well. I actually enjoyed it for a mindless action film. The Rock kind of sucked which sort of disapointed me but the first person part of the movie was really cool and not overused at all. DOOM>Chronicles of Riddick Nothing like a good action film I always say.

Went and saw DOOM last night. People on here and at work told me it was going to suck. They were wrong. It kicked ass!!!

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 17, 2005 -> 09:11 AM) Hmmmm. How many members do we have on Soxtalk now? If everyone sends me a dime ..... $264.90 As of the time I posted this.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Oct 22, 2005 -> 02:59 AM) Clemens struggles in cold weather and early in games with wildness, Sox need to take advantage...............hell it is 4AM in the morning I am pumped and cannot sleep Thats been the key to our success all post season and its gonna be tonight as well. We get ahead early, even my a couple of runs, and the pitchers can get comfortable and do their thing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 06:12 AM) Wow Nuke criticizes Republicans? Now I've read everything. Thats not what I meant and you know it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 06:36 PM) Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. They can contract that out to schools, both public or private, or handle it themselves in a home school environment. They should not just hand over their kids, dust off their hands and say, I'm out of this, teach them whatever you think is important and give them back to me when you are done. However, while I applaud his involvement, this school is plainly not for this family. They need to find a school that they are more comfortable attending. The one point I agree with him is where is the tolerance for his view? Havent you heard Tex? The people who preach tolerance the loudest seem to have none for views that contradict their own.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 12:18 AM) Ok good find on the owners there, of course less than 50% of them making a profit really ain't that good anyways. I can see you'll never like Wirtz and I don't think any of us will. I diasgree about Yashin though. Remember with Maggilo Ordonez, no-one was going to offer him much and more than a 1 year deal until Mike Illitch (who coincidentally owns the Red Wings) just comes in with a massive offer for absolutely no reason at all. This was pretty much the same with Yashin. He got the $$$$, and has chronically underachieved since. He makes so much, that the Isles were stuck with him even after the lock-out because it would cost too much for Charles Wang to buy him out. At least now with a cap, you won't see those type of huge long - term offers again. As for the Hawks, remember in our last season before the lockout, we had what the 3rd worst record. We may have had a higher payroll, but I'll bet you now that this team (even though their record shows it) is a lot better than the 2004 one. You don't have to spend a lot of $$$$$ to be successful. Teams in any form of sport have shown that. Whose fault is it that those costly long term deals get done? The teams fault, not the players. The owners should not subsidize their own bad management decisions on the backs of the leauge and the fans. You are very right you dont have to spend a lot of money to be successful but this team has a lot of money and chooses to build a mediocre at best team every year. Ownership doesn't care a whit about winning. Thats my problem with them. If they were a small market team that couldn't afford to keep homegrown players that become stars or to sign the best players then I would still be a fan but I will not subsidize cigars and scotch for some asshole owner who can afford better but chooses not to.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) So I re-ask my original question. Do you think it's unfair that the likes of Jaromir Jagr and Alexei Yashin won't be getting huge contracts now (when they don't deserve it) because of what the owners did? Name 5 owners who were making a profit before the lockout. How were the Blackhawks making money when Wirtz was complaining that salaries were too high, and a salary cap was needed? And if they were conmpletely focused on making money, why would they go out and sign the #1 FA goalie, one of the best FA d-men, etc. to improve the team? Forbes magazine went and did a list of all the NHL teams and their basic financial statistics. The data is from 2004. According to this 13 of the 30 teams were profitable. I apologize but I cant get the link to work on here. Google search "Profitable NHL Teams" and you'll see it. The Slacks made 9.4 million dollars off team operations and were the 3rd most profitable team in the leauge in dollar terms in 2004 which is the most recent statistics I could find. Im willing to bet that this excludes the money made from Wirtz's ownership of the concessions, liquor, parking and darn near everything else that has anything to do with the team. Wirtz was complaining salaries were too high because he's a cheap prick who wants to pocket as much as he can while paying his players as little as possible. By helping get a salary cap instituted Wirtz brought the salary bar down closer to his level rather than spend more to be competitive. To answer your question about being focused on money their payroll is down significantly even with the additions of Kabibulin, Lapointe etc etc.. Wirtz slashed his payroll, helped cost the sport a season and for what? Money. To answer your question about "Cashin" and the like, I believe that players deserve whatever they can get from the market. If they can convince an owner they are worth X amount of money then that is what the market value currently stands at. The owners set the salaries bar higher by themselves by trying to outbid each other for the top teir players then they have the nerve to whine about spiraling salaries. PUHLEEZE!!!

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 08:03 PM) So it's was Wirtz's fault alone that we had a lockout?? Look nobody likes him, but you can't go blaming all of the NHL's problems on him. If you're talking about mediocracy, what about the White Sox before this season? I didnt say he was the WHOLE problem but his type certainly its pretty obvious he played a large role in the strike. Also. The Blackhawks are engineered for mediocraty. The overriding theme that has prevailed there over the last 10 years is that a 500 team is good enough as long as Dollar Bill and his vertically integrated organ-i-zation is making money. The White Sox have consistently been trying to improve their team over the years. If they have been mediocre its not for a lack of effort on the part of management. They have made adjustments, developed talent ( and kept it when it matured unlike their hockey counterparts ) and now they are on the cusp of reaping the benefits. A team like the Slackhawks who is totally focused on their wallet at the expense of winning and the fans is doomed to failure season after season.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 06:00 PM) Actually Nuke, this brings up what I consider a very interesting point, in that there are some things that as a nation we would probably actually want to borrow in order to pay off. One of the ideal candidates for borrowing would be in something like disaster reconstruction. If we put $100 billion (give or take a factor of 3) or so into New Orleans, we'd be doing so as an investment, because there's some economic value in having New Orleans exist as it did before, and if it were back, it would generate economic growth and tax revenues which would pay us back. For this reason, a time of a disaster is exactly the time you'd want to consider deficit spending. Think about your average person spending money. If he or she were to rack up an $10,000 credit card bill just doing normal shopping, what would they do if a disaster struck them? A car accident or something requiring a large outlay of cash in order to get through short term difficulties? They'd basically be screwed, because there's only so much borrowing that can be done. The problem here is not the borrowing to pay for Katrina. The problem here is the structural deficit we've created through 4 straight years of record spending growth combined with 4 years of tax cuts. That has led us to the point where our only solution is borrowing...because we've been borrowing for everything else. We've basically been the guy paying his gas bill on his maxed out credit card and hoping that nothing bad would happen. Well, something bad did happen, it's time for some deficit spending, but our credit card is virtually maxed out. I agree with defecit spending when there is some reason to believe that the expense will be recouped. There is no chance of that happening with this government. We gotta start cutting spending across the board and we have got to get our fiscal house in order. You are spot on with your maxed out credit card theory BTW.

QUOTE(Pauly8509CWS @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 05:13 PM) People still root for the Bears... Ive had my fair share of rants about the Bears around here as well.

One thing that really burns my ass about Congress ( and this goes for both parties ) is their complete disregard for spending discipline. There seem to be fewer and fewer members of Congress who care about the fiscal health of this country and thats very troubling. When are they going to realize that buying votes with pork and spiraling entitlement programs is going to bankrupt this country? One thing that really bugs me about the Bush Administration is that every time something comes up that we need to take care of ( I.E. Disaster relief this year ) the answer is always..........borrow it. I want to see a Congress that shows some integrity and passes a budget that cuts spending across the board with no program or outlay sacrosanct except for interest on the debt. The government has to learn to do more with less because even after the tax cuts of the last 5 years this country is still overtaxed and I don't believe that the government has any right to ask its citizens for more until they prove to us that they aren't just going to waste it all.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 18, 2005 -> 10:40 PM) No, "Dollar Bill" should spend a ga-bajillion dollars on his roster! Who cares about the cap! Blah blah blah, yada yad yada! :rolly Yeah, the same cap that he helped get a whole season cancelled in order to get put in place. I cant believe how people like you can support a man who cares nothing about the fans and everything about his wallet. I think your loyalty for a team which season after season is built for mediocracy at best is really hilarious.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 01:10 PM) You equate an extramarital blowjob with the s*** Cheney's office is "allegedly" involved with that led to knowingly ovberstating the case for war and the tresonous outing of a CIA operative? Alrighjty then. god love ya'. :rolly Id rather focus on the fundamental weaking of the nations defenses that went on during Clintons watch. The gutting of the military & the restrictions placed on the intelligence agencies to name a couple of things. Id rather focus on the lack of action on the Kobhar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the near sinking of the USS Cole which signaled to Bin Laden and his cohorts that we were weak and opened the door for 9-11 to happen. Id rather focus on the fact that the US had numerous chances to eliminate or capture Bin Laden, a man who formally declared war on the United States, because they either didn't care or worried about whether eliminating a known terrorist was legal or not. Id rather focus on those more fundamental problems with the Clinton Administration than some stupid blow job.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 01:03 PM) Not sure about all that. But I'm sure the Guardsman could have used the $15K they were promised. Are you saying that guardsmen are being cheated out of something they were promised? Evidence please.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 01:04 PM) I don't think he was saying they were 107% up, I think Nuke was saying it was 107% of the goal, which means they hit their goal plus 7% over that number IIUC. Thats exactly what I meant.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 12:53 PM) My question in reply to Nuke would be whether or not the Army is being totally honest when it says it is at "107% of it's Goal" in terms of re-enlistment. We already know that when the Army really started having major misses in terms of it's monthly recruiting goal of over 8000 troops a month, last June it just decided to reduce its recruiting goal to 6700 soldiers per month, thereby leaving it with fewer misses and smaller overall misses being reported in the press. Does anyone know for sure that the military hasn't done the same thing with re-enlistments? Also, to what (if any) extent have stop-loss orders kept this number from dropping? Here's the thing though. The annual goal for recruiting new soldiers rose from like 70,000 a few years ago to nearly 80,000 now. Nobody talks about the fact that we have raised the bar for recruiting in order to grow the size of the Army by 30,000 troops. They also fail to mention that even though the higher targets havent been met that we are still bringing in more people each year than we were before. Also, stop-loss orders have nothing to do with re-enlistment. Thats apples and oranges. The number that Stop-loss has an effect on is the final end strength or total number of troops in uniform.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 12:47 PM) I have no idea. Just going from what my uncle told me. "Re-up" = "re-enlist" correct..? Those tax bonuses are huge. Decent article with some re-enlistment details. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v...p-4547341c.html Re-up = re-enlist. Yes How much money you get primarily depends on your job. If you're in a field that is under-strength and hard to retain then you can really cash in. Over-strength fields you wont get as much but they can still make some decent money, especially if they make the commitment in a combat zone. Thats where the tax free deal comes into play. It doesn't surprise me that people are staying in in greater numbers though because the military is finally realizing that if you want people to do dangerous work then you have to give them greater incentive to stay on. Also, in addition to paying out larger bonuses to troops they are also talking about making the GI Bill benefits transferrable to your spouse and kids.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 12:40 PM) Anything to do with the tax-free bonuses, educational opportunities and other benefits...? Yes. But if life was so horrible in the military and they were so fed up with it then what would a few thousand extra dollars mean? Tax-Free bonuses are given to soldiers who re-up while deployed in a combat zone. 100% Tuition assistance and the G.I. bill come standard and have been for a long time.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Oct 19, 2005 -> 11:38 PM) http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11d...000e2511c8.html By Edward Alden in Washington full article Like Dicky needed more problems full transcript http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11d...000e2511c8.html I think you can watch here http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520 After reading all that I have just one question. If the Army is "demoralized" and "voting with their feet" then why are re-enlistments running about 107% of plan? Just curious.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 18, 2005 -> 07:45 PM) Maybe that has something to do with a thing called the Salary Cap? No way Yawney gets canned. Would you prefer Brian "How many times can I punch Tyler Arnason because he's younger than 30" Sutter back? Read the last line of the post you quoted. Bill Wirtz helped cost the sport a whole season so he could get the salary cap you mentioned.