kapkomet

I'm trying to make the point that the Royals and YankMees are on paper good teams that are getting a lot of attention, and the Sox get keyed up for these teams because they were "supposed to lose". Now that they go in to Tampa, they should beat a team like this. Looking back to last year this is where the team had problems. They'd play well in a big series and choke the chicken when the pressure was off. Let's see how they fare this weekend!

Timing is bad of course, seems like he has a knack for that, but he's right in the sense that they should just sign him and move on, but that won't happen with this management.

:headshake Damn, Frank. To an extent, it's about what has happened in the past. But a player on the decline should not be paid as a #1 star in the league CURRENTLY. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. /off soapbox

yep. Fireworks is pretty good software. Photoshop is a little easier to use IMO but they both can do some really cool stuff with pics. Since you've seen dh.com some of the wallpapers on there was done with photoshop and that's it.

seeing how these guys don't play again until August, by then hopefully it won't matter. the thing is, with the Royals and the Sox playing 8 of their last 11 games vs. one another, the season can go to the wire just from the head to head games. Hopefully it will be decided by then. Bigger then KC and the Yankmes IMO is this series. Remember that this team seems to always play to their level of competition. This series will say if Ozzie really has their attention........

That's the coolest thing we ever did. Only here in Texas that crap will get you really killed unlike the puny whirlwinds up there, hehe.

And oddly enough, the supply curve really looks like that in today's 2004 world.

oh yea, I almost forgot. Damn I really am getting old.

If you could just work the plastic a little better...

Shouldn't that be in S L, & P?

I would NEVER do that! It's all good. Every once in a while, when I'm bored, I read the op ed pieces on yahoo. Ann Coulter's stuff is there (she's pretty far out there most of the time) and on the opposite extreme, Ted Rall publishes his stuff. I like to read both of them every once in a while to get the extreme points of view. This week's Rall piece, I was shocked. "Bill Clinton Caused 9/11". Of course, Rall is satire at it's best sometimes so I thought it was a play. Thing is, he's serious. Here's the op ed piece. Remember, this coming from a "leftist." And one more point. In this, I will agree that Bush presents a pretty big "warning" in that he's REALLY doing something to stir these people up, which I think will lead to even more terrorist attacks in the long run. His last line, probably sums it up best. ------------------------------------- Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the CIA (news - web sites) told George W. Bush in its August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, wanted to "bring the fighting to America." The memo continues: "After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." This reference may trigger the memories of long-time readers and listeners to my talk radio show on KFI radio about my September 1999 encounter with Taliban fighters in the Pakistani sector of Kashmir (news - web sites). A travel feature assignment about the high-altitude Karakoram Highway connecting western China and Pakistan turned into high-stakes military and political intrigue when I happened to cross the Khunjerab Pass into Kashmir during the same week that General Pervez Musharraf seized power via a military coup. Unbeknownst to me and most of the world, Musharraf's first act was to invite Taliban and Al Qaeda militias from neighboring Afghanistan into Pakistani Kashmir as surrogates to launch an offensive in his country's ongoing conflict against India. Three Talibs, one of whom spoke fluent English ("NYU! Class of '83!" he beamed), pulled me off the bus at an improvised checkpoint outside a town where a minor battle was winding down. Taliban leader Mullah Omar had recently issued an edict directing that Americans, including diplomatic passport holders, were to be put to death if apprehended on Taliban territory. "We are sorry," the Talib said blandly, "but you are American. Therefore, we must execute you." I pointed out that, when I had boarded the bus four days earlier in Kashgar, the place where we were standing had been more than a hundred miles from Afghanistan. I pointed to my map to reiterate. "Yes," my Anglophonic Talib agreed, "but sometimes Afghanistan comes to you!" We had a good laugh over that. Then, after assuring me that he wouldn't shoot me after all, he invited me to join him for a cup of milky chai. I considered the high-powered weaponry draped over his shoulders, and accepted his generous offer. As is often the case when Americans travel in the Muslim world, the conversation turned to politics. "The worst thing about you Americans," I remember the Talib saying, "is that you never admit when you make mistakes. Last year, your President Clinton (news - web sites) sent his cruise missile against a drug plant in Khartoum, Sudan. He killed many innocent people. Does he say he is sorry? No. The same day he sent cruise missiles against my country. Again: only innocent people were killed." Actually, the Afghan strike had missed bin Laden--who had claimed responsibility for the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa--by hours. He was probably tipped off by intelligence officers of the Pakistani ISI. I didn't bring up these unpleasant facts. "America causes misery everywhere--Iraq (news - web sites), Palestine, Afghanistan--but not in America." His face brightened. "But no more. We are going to bring the war to you, so your country learns what it is like." Bring the war to America: The same phrase bin Laden had used in interviews. My would-be executioner didn't know what was coming; he was too low ranked to have known anything about the 9/11 plot. But a powerful message had gone out to Islamists: the days of beleaguered Muslims hunkering down as cruise missiles rained down upon nations decimated by years of brutal economic sanctions were about to come to an end. The jihadis were going on the offensive. As the 9/11 commission winds down, Republicans are arguing that Bill Clinton (news - web sites), whose presidency spanned eight years from the first World Trade Center bombing to the U.S.S. Cole, deserves far more blame for the attacks than Bush, who had only been in office eight months. But they've got it wrong when they criticize Clinton for not being aggressive enough in the fight against Muslim extremism. If we're to believe the August 2001 intelligence assessment and the word of the jihadis themselves, we know why 9/11 really took place. It wasn't, as Bush says, because radical Islamists are evil or because they hate our freedom. It was vengeance for 1998, for cruise missile attacks that scarcely raised an eyebrow in the United States even as they convulsions of rage surged through millions of Muslims. It's perfectly reasonable, therefore, to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11, but not because he didn't do enough. What led to 9/11 was a clumsy application of excessive military power and arrogance. It's a lesson that the United States, so accustomed to swinging a sledgehammer to kill a fly, should take to heart in its dealings with the rest of humanity.

The whole lot of them should be tried for TREASON because they didn't do anything to protect our country. No- I really don't believe that but if you say that about Bush, then you need to say the same thing about Clinton's administration. That's why it's so dangerous to paint yourself in a corner by saying something like that - we could dig up stuff all day long to go back and forth on, and my point the entire thread is THEY ALL F'ed UP. ------------------------- WASHINGTON - The CIA (news - web sites) warned as early as 1995 that Islamic extremists were likely to attack U.S. aviation, Washington landmarks or Wall Street and by 1997 had identified Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as an emerging threat on U.S. soil, a senior intelligence official said Thursday. The official took the rare step of disclosing information in the closely held National Intelligence Estimate for those two years to counter criticisms in a staff report released Wednesday by the independent commission examining pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures. That staff report accused the CIA of failing to recognize al-Qaida as a formal terrorist organization until 1999 and mostly regarding bin Laden as a financier instead of a terrorist leader during much of the 1990s. But the U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the 1997 National Intelligence Estimate produced by the CIA mentioned bin Laden by name as an emerging terrorist threat on its first page. The National Intelligence Estimate is distributed to the president and senior executive branch and congressional intelligence officials. The 1997 assessment, which remains classified, "identified bin Laden and his followers and threats they were making and said it might portend attacks inside the United States," the official said. Philip Zelikow, executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, confirmed the 1997 warning about bin Laden but said it was only two sentences long and lacked any strategic analysis on how to address the threat. "We were well aware of the information and the staff stands by exactly what it says," he said. The intelligence official also said that while the 1995 intelligence assessment did not mention bin Laden or al-Qaida by name, it clearly warned that Islamic terrorists were intent on striking specific targets inside the United States like those hit on Sept. 11, 2001. The report specifically warned that civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim extremists, the official said. Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin testified Wednesday that by early 1996 his agency had developed enough concern about bin Laden to create a special unit to focus on his threat. "We were very focused on this issue," McLaughlin told the commission. The commission's report did credit the CIA after 1997 with collecting vast amounts of intelligence on bin Laden and al-Qaida, which resulted in thousands of individual reports circulated at the highest levels of government. These carried titles such as "Bin Laden Threatening to Attack U.S. Aircraft" in June 1998 and "Bin Laden's Interest in Biological and Radiological Weapons" in February 2001.

:headshake Unreal. Do you really beleive that or is that for conjecture on a board? I could list a whole bunch of things that's wrong with previous administrations but point blank it doesn't matter. The Bush's knew that there was a threat. They didn't respond in kind because nothing like that had ever happened HERE. My points about there are all sorts of threats that we see every day is only to suggest that ALL administrations have had to deal with this. And just because it happened when Bush was in the White House, he's committing TREASON? Please think about that before you go too far with it. I think Bush has done a lot of BS things. I HATE the fact that we are paying some of the highest prices on most day-to-day things and a large part of it is the pricing mechanisms he's come up with as president. It sucks. I don't like the Iraq situation, but what's done is done. Now we need to finish it up RIGHT. I'm not condoning him, hell, I'm not even committed to voting for him yet because I truly believe that all issues for what these guys stand for needs to be presented. But to suggest "treason" is a liitle overboard and shows a lot of narrowmindedness with all due respect.

Is that why kids in Canada are so smart? Because they allow their teachers to teach class drunk?!?

BS BS BS BS Even if true, like they would announce it to the frickin' world on a message board. Can we just move on please?

But the heart of the Sox lineup is due as well... c'mon SHUT EM DOWN.

IS that a fact?

Hey we got last ab's. Let's get them like they did us opening day...

Damn it I wish I could watch this... Rally... c'mon

How about 40,617? Or, 40,619? Steff can't be right...

:fyou :banghead Now. Go out there and put my kid in, dammit!

Again ~ they have to get past the posturing and numbers BS and start carving out where they will give and not give. The proposed "cap" is what's going to be the sticking point. If they can't move on that they won't play for months and months and months...

I thought that was pretty funny too.

I'd almost be shocked if it didn't happen that way. Utah is supposed to become Anaheim's new affiliate and rumor has it that Columbus might sign up Cincinnati to be a farm team.