Chisoxfn

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:31 PM) How in the hell are we going to win 3 out of 4 against a team that owns us? Simple, by playing good baseball. Own smown. Every game is a new game. Thinking anything else is a loser mentality.

I still want to know where the hell the bunts of been. Fister was pwning the Sox and Cabrera is a piece of s*** third basemen and they still aren't testing him defensively. Its pathetic.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:29 PM) You got to be a huge optimist to not see what is coming ... a 1-3 series. Tank is really annoying me. Just another Soriano, using a bat that's too big and trying to hit everything out. Twenty homers and 60 ribbies? Blah. Not really productive when you never walk and every at bat you are trying to hit it out. Enough for Tank to keep a job and hopefully with experience he'll improve. But as far as this year? He does deserve to be platooned the rest of the way. Horrible loss. We got the 2-0 lead and Jake sucked. Then the bunt fiasco with Youk. That really deflated me. Hope it didn't deflate the team. I love Robin and he's a big reason we are 2 games up on Detroit, but tonight sucked again and Detroit continues TO OWN the White Sox. We got owned again. Sox are taking 3 out of 4. Book it.

Liriano is there to get outs. Just cause he starts doesn't mean he can't come out of the pen. He's a power pitcher with a hard slider. He sucked, blame him, not Robin. I realize they lost and I'm pissed about the loss, but I had zero problem with the bunt decision (other then Hudson should have been the one doing it). And I think they should have had Dan Johnson in. However, all of that is a moot point since some of you are acting like it was the dumbest thing ever to use Liriano. It isn't like we are talking about some scrub that never pitches. The dude is in our rotation and is paid to get guys out. He's handled pressure situations plenty of times, he just wet the bed, plain and simple.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) No way...base hit Nope. Peralta didn't move at all from Rios running. He was just positioned there.

Some of you need to STFU and enjoy the game. Waah, waaaah, waaah. Give me a break.

Dang, I screamed off the bat. Thought Paulie had it. Bad read. Come on pen, lets hold em and then score some runs!!! Beat the Tigers!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 9, 2012 -> 06:35 AM) Iowa has the dreaded combination of a QB who's not very accurate and takes forever getting rid of the ball, and receivers who have a tough time getting open and a tough time just catching a ball thrown right to them. They looked real bad offensively.

Ooohh Yeeaaah! Great win Sox!

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) I've said it before I'll say it again, I've interviewed at a lot of companies, and a lot of those companies the senior management has had english degrees or odd degrees. This whole "you need a degree in business to be a part of a business" is garbage. But I love how we are blaming laziness as the reason unemployment is 8.1 percent. Not the unbelievable amount of private debt that was accumalated in the 00s by a different generation. I actually didn't blame it on laziness. I said you really can't. There were lazy people 20 years ago just as there are today. I think there might be a few more, but that isn't why we have unemployment at 8.1%.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) I'm not sure why I chimed in, or why I visited the site in the first place. I will disappear again, but if I remember correctly, the catch-all thread happened because the admins didn't know how to handle the waves of new users after the World Series title. It was an understandable decision. Now that things have calmed considerably, it's odd that the system is still there. I don't frequent this place anymore, so you're probably a better judge of the sites activity than I am, but just by looking around and also seeing this complaint leads me to my case. Sure, not a lot of people have spoken out against the catch-all thread. But the community and quality of discussion doesn't appear to be growing either. 10 years though. Very impressive. Congrats Jason. Long time man. How's it going? Good to see you around here. From what I can remember, the catch-all thread was started because posters here wanted it to. I actually am probably the sites biggest hater of the catch-all. I've axed it at times, but ultimately it seemed like the majority has supported/preferred it. Personally I think if a thread stinks or isn't that popular, it will fall and the popular ones will stay on the main page anyway. I've always felt that way, however, it always seems that I (and you) are in the minority on this camp.

In the midst of the false accusations, I think now is as good a time as any to have a nice AJ appreciation thread. AJ has been an above average player for this club for a long time and he's having a hell of a year in what has been one of the funnest seasons to date that I can remember. AJ helped bring this club its 1st championship in a long time and here's to hoping he helps bring a 2nd world series championship to Chicago this year!!!!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...yed-how/256237/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Really? It has been the opposite with me. Most everyone I know with a degree has a decent job, if not a great one. There are always a few on the street at any given time, and it has been a higher number the past few years, but still a small minority. I think I read somewhere that people think the real unemployment rate of people graduating college is somewhere in the 15-20% range, which is pretty high. And that article indicated they thought it could even be larger then that when you consider those who don't show up at the statistics because they took a job at starbucks, etc.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) Plus, we are more likely to know people with a college degree, whose unemployment rate has been largely manageable. Those without have seen much of the harder issues. I'll be honest, pretty much everyone I know with a college degree is unemployed or severely underemployed. Or they have a job and then don't have a job. Now some didn't get the best/most marketable degrees and I'm not going to say they are overachievers, but still, It is surprising cause I think in a normal market they'd be sucked up and would be "average" employees. I bust my ass every single day. No guarantees in life and I could be fired tomorrow, but I'm more then willing to put in whatever hard work is necessary. My average day is 10 working hours a day (albeit, things are relatively slow for me right now, hence why I'm posting on here). I think when you combine hard work and a valuable degree, you will be fine, but the reality is most people don't want to work 50-60 hours a week, so to be frank, I have an easier opportunity to stand out and make a name/reputation for myself within my company.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 08:30 AM) I have to ask, as I think we all know people in similar employment circumstances...how much of that is their own fault? I know I can't speak for everyone, but I'm doing better now than I ever have been...so to answer a oft repeated Republican talking point...are you better off now than 4 years ago? Yes, I am. And 4 years ago I was better off then that I was the 4 years prior to that. And so on... Personally I can't complain. However, I've seen some pretty good and hard working people get laid off over the past few years and some have had hard times finding jobs. Are there people I know that are lazier, sure, but lazy people have found work at much higher rates in the past then now. A top performer is a top performer, but our economy and the unemployment #'s aren't based upon top performers. The way I see it, the % has always included lazy people and while I think to an extent, the younger generation is lazier (and I'm in that generation), I don't think it really explains the high unemployment because there were always those people. I'm also still young and developing though. I think if I were in a more seasoned position, that answer might be different. And I can flat out say businesses are struggling, places are struggling. Talk to sales people and I think most of them will tell you most of the customers they work with are still hurting. God a buddy who works in sales for Heinz. Makes pretty good money but everyone he calls is bleeding/hurting still. Grocery stores, fast food places, etc.

8.1% unemployment....that is bad, California at 10.7% and the actual real unemployment rate is significantly worse, imo. It blows my mind how many young people I know either can't get jobs or are getting minimum wage jobs. Pretty sad. Definitely makes me appreciate the opportunities my wife and I have had thus far in our young lives.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 04:30 AM) I didn't realize until after I posted that there was two seasons. I don't have Cinemax; my in-laws taped the shws for us. I was happy to find out that there's a second season that started in August. There have been comparisons to 24, and I can see that. It's funny how with 24, Jack's catch phrase was "Damn it!" while on Strike Back, Scott's catch phrase is "f*** me." It is what replaced my 24. I don't have cinemax either, but they had a free preview when they kicked off the most recent season and during that preview, they had a rerun of all of the prior season episodes so I DVR'd them all (while I had my free cinemax). Watched the whole season really quickly. Thoroughly entertained. No nonsense action flick with some pretty cool scenes for a TV show. Plus I dig the characters a lot. Scott is awesome.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 07:47 AM) The debates are usually worth watching, but they do what they should do and respond to most things ideologically. "What will you do with taxes?" Romney: "I will empower job creators to grow their business and hire people instead of paying for welfare" Obama: "I will get those evil corporate elites to drown in their tax obligations! Go middle class!" ooooo, ahhhh That won't win the election for Romeny. If Romney is going to win, he's going to have to really pull out all of the stops in the debate and really lay out a policy plan that people can get behind. Until then, he has no chance winning over those undecided.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 07:34 AM) I guess it is becoming tradition now that I show back up in the Buster every few months... I don't get where people say Biden's speech was good. I thought it was pretty terrible. He's just not a gifted speaker. How many times did he start a sentence with "folks"? I thought his speech was oddly paced, thin, and badly delivered. Grade: D Obama's speech was good but nothing special. And he didn't get into any more specifics than Romney did - but he delivered better. Obama did what you need to do in the conventions, which is spark the base. Grade: B Michelle's speech was very good, I thought, but as with Ann Romney's speech, it just doesn't carry much weight since she's not running for office. Grade: A- Paul Ryan is a better speaker than I had previously thought, he gave a pretty good speech... except that it turns out a metric f***-ton of the supposed facts he espoused were just utterly false. Grade: C+ Romney improved over any other speech I've seen him give, so that's a good thing. But he is still not terribly charismatic, and that will hurt him in the debates. Grade: B- As for the debates... I am pretty sure Obama will crush Romney, but I am also pretty sure Ryan will crush Biden. Romney can't beat Obama in terms of speaking ability or relatability, so his only real shot is a combination of wilting attacks on the current economy, and providing some specific policy ideas that are his own. The only chance the republican's have is if Ryan and Romeny really hit them with specifics during the debates and just attack them on the economy and what should have been done and what they are proposing. Without that, Obama will win.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 07:02 PM) He's down to .225 with a .290 OBP this year and .214 with a mid .600 OPS during his time in Toronto. Yep. He's been quite bad.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 04:21 AM) Watched the first episode of Strike Back on Cinemax last night. Good show. Hopefully the pace keeps up. Its a great show. I've gotten caught up and watched the whole 1st season (technically, it is the 2nd season; there was a 1st season done only in England).

Well, with MLB's flat out denial, I've updated the title of this thread. It should be very clue to anyone that stumbles by that the rumor was FALSE.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 09:33 PM) I suppose I'm far more cynical on the subject than most. But it's based off of what I know, what I've seen and what I've been told. A few years ago, I had been told the majority was juicing. From everything I've been told the numbers have been drastically reduced. Still not to where it is perfect and there is probably on average 2-3 guys per 25 man roster using, but that is down significantly from what I had always heard the use was. And this is still all speculation based upon what I've heard from various people within the majors/minors.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 09:30 PM) Except these criminals are harming innocent people. Players using PEDs aren't harming anyone else. They are harming those players who aren't using? If your success is solely related to drugs, then you are taking the spot of another player who could be up at the majors making that paycheck (without cheating). If I was a clean player, I'd be livid. And from everything I've heard and can tell, the majority of players are clean.