kapkomet

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) Considering how big of a role he had in building up this house of cards... I agree, but only to a point. I'll explain why later. Must go work.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) And the middle is where I want someone to be, but somehow they all seem left of me. Wow, are you kidding? Seriously... OF COURSE they are left of where you are... because they are pandering to the fringe loony bins of the party to get through the primary. Now next spring, after the nominee is all but cemented, both sides will RUN to the center. It's pathetic, actually.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070907/greenspan_market.html?.v=6 Well, if Greenspan thinks that, I wonder when we are going to have our 1,000 point in one afternoon drop?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) To be honest, the only top contender for the Dems I don't dispise is Obama. I do at least respect him. Richardson also seems decent, but he has zero chance at winning. I am not much of a Guiliani fan, but of all the repubs, he might be the most electable because he has some middle of the road positions. Romney has flipped flopped more than an IHOP, and the rest of them hardly merit a mention. Thompson is interesting, as he is really selling himself as a Reagan Republician, but I am in wait and see mode on him. I do wish more candidates had waited as long as he did to declare, but what are you going to do. And that's probably most of America's sentiment - except I will say that Hillary has the Democratic party held hostage. Obama would be a much better candidate, despite the lack of experience... but the Clinton machine has not launched into full attack mode yet.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 06:08 AM) Perhaps, but in the baseball draft, you always take the best player available regardless of position. Unless you're the Sox, and then you take the "easiest signing".

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 05:31 AM) I like how so many people only point to the negatives of illegal immigrants, and how they seem to believe that there would be little impact in removing them from our economy. As has been pointed out, many illegals have valid SS numbers. It may not be theirs, but they are employed, and they do, in fact, pay into SS and the other taxes that we all pay. Unfortunately for them, they won't see the benefits when the time comes to draw the money out. For those illegals who work "off the books," how is it any different from the countless Americans who do the same? Or do American citizens honestly report all of their income to the government? I think we all know people who do "side jobs" for cash. Illegals buy goods (cars, gas, clothing, food, etc) here in the US for personal consumption. Remove them, and how do some of these smaller businesses survive. Illegals rent properties (houses and apts). Remove them, and how do landlords survive? Why should US business owners pay the price because the government failed to secure the borders and control the flow of immigration? Also, it's a bit short-sighted to point out that native Spanish speakers place a strain on the education system because we have to hire teachers to teach them How do we know they are illegal? Many illegals have children born here in the US, and according to the laws of our land, these children are US citizens. They have valid birth certificates and social security numbers. Do we deny these legal US citizens their Constitutional rights? Sure illegals in some ways place a strain on the economy, healthcare, and educational systems, but they also create value. I don't think solutions like massive deportation or building a wall are viable options. In fact, if we do build a wall, it's only as effective as the people we entrust with the job of guarding who comes and goes - and it's a little naive to think that guards can't be bought off by coyotes. It happens every day. Not everyone who entered this country illegally did so by wading accross a river or trekking through a desert or underground through sewer lines. And that law should change, NOW.

Why are you just beating the abosolute f*** out of this long, stinky, dead-ass horse? You have an infatuation with this whole thing, and it's starting to get scary.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 12:21 AM) wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this. Ignorance is bliss.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 11:25 PM) Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach. Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that. Agreed.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:48 PM) Very insightful - we're a lock for it all now. Oh, don't I know it! Ozzie sucks, he has to go. KW is a peckerhead that don't know anything but how to be, um, an arrogant ass. He has to go too. And Jerry, well, that asshole just has to go. It's HORRIBLE the way these people manage this club. I mean, the perfect example is today - how DARE he hurt the trade value of Jenks by putting him out there? I mean, it's obvious that Ozzie did that today just to diminish his value and to keep him on the club next year. Oh and AJ? He told him to tank the game, because they want the #1 pick! Don't you know? We're IN IT TO GET THE #1 pick! LOLZ!

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:32 PM) And that person would be............ anyone but Ozzie. Duh.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 09:42 PM) You're not crazy, I totally agree. The offense will click and the Sox will have a .500 or better record from here on out and end up with the #9 pick in the draft. Yep. All for nothing.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) Huh? TALKING to a hooker in a bar, if sex never comes up, is not illegal and could never be successfully prosecuted. And sex in a car may or may not qualify for lewd acts in public, depending on where the car was, etc. Slippery slope? You seem to just throw everything remotely similar into the lake. There has to be a line somewhere, and Craigs repeated, complex and obvious actions make that clear. With every subject.

Holy s*** we have a following in the game thread today.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) Me too....as the biggest OMIT hater out there, his at-bats have been rather impressive. He's hit more pitches hard this week than Erstad has since he returned from injury. got here from Anahiem. Fixed that for you.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) That is a very interesting issue facing China. And since, as Americans, we want every non-Christian religion destroyed, good for us. What?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) We are importing software engineers, Doctors, etc. As far as the lowest paying jobs in this country, the economic impact of those jobs is the same if we have an immigrant working the job, or a citizen. The only way to lessen the economic hit is to employ an undocumented worker who will not apply for benefits, and no one wants that anymore. When Dems tried to raise the minimum wage, Reps went nuts, it will kill the business owner. Then when we start talking about how these lowest paying jobs do not contribute to the tax base, in fact they pull from it, no one has an answer. SS, here's the point that you have never addressed, what is the economic difference difference between Joe American working a landscape job earning $14,000 per year Juan New Legal Immigrant working the same job? Really?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) Well, Fred has made it official. Not that anyone doubted it to begin with. Typical Hollywood liberal, trying to make a dramatic scene of it. Oh wait... I actually agree with this statement. Going on Leno to offically launch your campaign is just asinine and describes to a "T" the demeaning manner in which the office of the president has been dragged down to. It drags down my view of Sen. Thompson quite a bit, actually. He's now my "favorite" GOP candidate, but what he did is so cheap and it really bothers me.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) You know what? I don't buy this argument. I think there was little else the Senator was insinuating by playing footsie under a bathroom stall wall and passing his hand through the gap and creepily staring at the guy through the gap for several minutes. I like to think I'm as sex-positive as the next guy, but I don't believe that sex in public bathrooms should be legal, and I do think that propositioning someone to join them in the stall for sex is the same thing, especially when using established protocol to do so. The only thing wrong with what happened is that the Senator didn't get charged with the correct, more serious charge that he should have been charged with - and that was probably because of his influence as a Senator. It sounds like if it were to go to a grand jury, it would have been the more serious charge... but instead he pled guilty to a lesser charge "to make it go away"... which again is bunk.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:04 PM) The poor having too many children isn't a Mexican problem. It's a problem globally, including right here in the states...with American citizens. That it is.

Happy Birthday! I see it's a special 30th birthday... old dude. Hope you have a good day!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) And how many pictures do we have to find of Dems in small crowds to disprove your claim? One? Twenty one? One will suffice.

I heard on the news last night that he is going to claim he was forced into giving false testimony (duress) in that interview that was released by the police. Fat chance, Mr. Craig. Please go away.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) Nor can you prove your claim. The picture is linked in this thread. Pretty simple, actually.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 05:11 AM) This is where we disagree. To me there is a big difference between 66 wins and 86 wins. 86 wins means it was a decent season. My gawd, to some I guess we are at the point unless we have a shot at the playoffs we should just be the worst team in baseball. Sports for me will never be that. I would rather have the Bears contend this year, then lose their final four games and get a s***ty draft pick than lose every game and get No. 1. I'm just saying maybe Gload as the fourth outfielder would have actually hit .290 or .300, put the ball in play and maybe by example help the lineup. I also understand where you draft pick people are coming from, but I really don't understand your position. And it frustrates me (I know nobody cares) to read comments in the game threads from Sox fans so happy when we lose in embarrassing fashion again like tonight (4 hits). I guess to some, when it's September, and you are 2 games in the loss column away from the worst record in baseball, what's the point of going out there and winning 18 out of the last 20 games? There is no point. Moral victories are pretty shallow this time of year, unless it's generated by prospects that can be part of a better package later.