kapkomet

*throwing things in the closet* Now where's that damn flame thrower of mine?

Why? Because they like storing bodies in the freezer?

where is that bastard? There's a certain president that wants to know too...

there is a setting on these things for forums for mods/admins only. so put things like this in there so each of you know what's happening and not let the rest of the world know your "dirty laundry". On boards like this (I've dealt with these things for a long, long time as a user and an admin) it's better indeed to let your mods/admins take care of things. If there's a "power trip" going on from some moderator, take care of it internally. Everyone here wants this to be a cool place to come to (yes I'm fairly new and all but I'm sure everyone can agree with this). But if you have to justify everything and air things like this out in public, if I just wandered in here **EDIT (FOR THE FIRST TIME) I'd really question what the hell y'all are doing. Just my .02. Kapkomet

Maggs is a "franchise" TYPE player - I'm not saying he IS a franchise player, note difference. Having said that, the Sox SHOULD ask for a lot. They need this type of trade to stock the pipeline...

so i don't have to go through all these threads like crazy when's the dates again?

Why don't you just nominate yourself, you putz?

I guess what I am trying to figure out is why Boston wants Maggs so bad. Is there that much hate that Nomah has going now that they HAVE to get rid of him? Maggs is a good bat, but what else is he going to offer that is THAT much better then their lineup as it is today? Nomah and Maggs are in the same price range. Ok. But - I'd take a good shortstop over a good outfielder, especially in the situation Boston is in, any day. I just think that this is BS.

Sorry. Forgot to say that how can Boston afford Mags AND Ramirez AND get another shortstop of any decent value. OK. There. I think I said everything for now.

ok I'm jumping in here late and haven't read through everything, but what is Boston going to do with Ramirez? Or would it be that Mags plays another position in the OF? Or am I just totally missing something here?

I was at the game that started the streak. Holy smokes. He had some incredible saves, and he's just kept rolling. Confidence is a funny thing in hockey (well, any sport).

First of all I certainly don't want this to turn into a BS thread. I seriously want to understand your point of view, and you're obviously more toward the left, so a debate should be fun. >These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals: >He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by >numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility. Yet we pour billions into it. I don't disagree with this assessment. However how can anyone say that anything is "impossible"? Granted, not likely, especially in our lifetime, which is probably when we'd need something like "Star Wars". I can't argue with this one other then to say if we don't research it and at least make people think we'll do it, you lose strength in the face of the world. Even Clinton funded it some, but agreed, not nearly like this. >His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane. Absolutely NO disagreements here. That is a pretty scary thought. >As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, >electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been >known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens. Where did you find this? >His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as >governor. I hate the death penalty discussion. But are you familiar with the Texas escapees a couple of years back? These guys broke out of jail, killed a cop (and others if memory serves me correctly although I might not be correct) and got put back in jail sentanced to death. What about serial killers (not insane)? I guess the only thing I can stand on is we shouldn't be that ultimate judge, God should. What about Timothy McVeigh? Just curious what your thoughts are on these examples before I comment. >His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 >million from taxpayers. Schools. Holy s*** is this a bad move. So hell, I can't disagree with you on this either. The Halliburton thing. How much MORE was that contract worth then $63 million? And what did they do when they found the error? They paid it back to the government. 12 billion (roughly in annual revenue) / 63 million = 1/2 of 1 percent. It's nothing in the scheme of things. Oh by the way, the latest news on this is that the pentagon has found that the subcontractor who handled this contract was "fair in pricing" all along. This is gonna be a fun year. I really look forward to bringing up things here - I like to get the "other sides" opinion so I am better edumacated, or something like that.

And the Marlins sucked that bad a couple of years ago too (well not 43-119 bad but they were bad). It doesn't take that long IF you commit to winning in a way that doesn't strap you so far down for cash that you can't make moves (see Rangers). The Sox could win too if they spent just $10 million more. And I bet they'd make it up in revenues too because the on field product would be $10 million better in gate receipts. Oh what the hell, who am I kidding?

which is why the downturn happened in the first place. Remember October 2000, Cheney and Bush "were seeing signs in the economy that it was downturning"? Economics is about 99% psycology, 1% true market forces.

Add two more words for Snyder and bringing back Gibbs (yes, Bill Parcells had a lot to do with this). Penis Envy.

Bein' from the south now, it's a lot more difficult for me to watch the Big Ten. I get the feelin' I'll get my fix here though. Who's predicted to win the conf. this year?

Again, "TOOL" :fyou gets my vote for the JackAss HOF. Nothing more, nothing less. :puke

I hate to say this but all those companies suck for one reason or another.

There's a lot more behind this then just simple economic policy. Stay with me here - I'm not sure I can explain this thought in a well written dialogue here but I'm going to try. Let's look at the US economy since WWII. The computer, cars, oil, machinery, rapid expansion of infastructre (highways, airports, etc). We Americans have made and consumed EVERYTHING. Early to Mid-90's come along, and POOF, Internet becomes the information boom - exchange of information so rapidly that news is all over the world in an instant. Y2K comes along, which was BS from the beginning which helped along the burst the economic/wall street bubble. Let's talk about American consumption of products with all that as a backdrop. We consumed EVERYTHING. And the more money there was, the more we consumed. Where do you think SUV's came from? It's us rich Americans buying up bigger and better. So the economy goes into more of a services/technology mode, and the real goods start slowing down. The economy's ROARING, right? Wrong. It is inflated because in order to keep real, good paying jobs, you have to make something. After all the network infastructure was there to support the information flow, people stopped buying servers, computers, etc. at the high costs. Things stop being made, manufacturing stops hiring, producing as much, etc etc etc. Well, then, there doesn't need to be so much support (services) anymore, and you all see what happened in the early 00's. Again, we Americans have everything we need. The next step is to start opening up new places to sell our crap. But no one wants it because our dollar is too high. We're still having troubles kickstarting our economy. What starts an economy? WAR. So, gov't contracts start flying out like they're water. Our economy starts rising again, and now, because we are over there in a occupational role, our multnational companies have somewhere else to open up a marketplace for goods and services. We HAVE to expand capitalism elsewhere because we Americans have consumed just about all we are going to consume. We have all our neat s*** to play with, now we have to get everyone else in the world to buy into capitalism. You hear on the news how we are trying to promote democracy. That's BS. We're trying to promote CAPITALISM so we have some more market places to open. I think THAT has been the policies that Dick Cheney and GWB have been trying to push through. It's arrogant, conceited, and causes a great deal of heartburn to other "free market" societies. But let's face it, unless we can make the third world come up to our level, we don't have anywhere else to spin off our crap and information. The dollar? We have to make it somewhat weak, as ss2k alluded to, so that people will buy our stuff for cheaper. And lord knows we want to drive up other countries' goods and prices - so what consumption we do have here (which will never boom again until the electric car comes along, IMO) will continue at the slow pace. *WHEW* I hope this makes sense. I'm sure there are some inconsistencies but I wanted to write the essay to see how it looks and maybe to generate some talk. THOUGHTS?

Ding-Ding-Ding==== We have a winner!!! I agree 100%

BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

That's freakin' pathetic. So let me get this straight. He wanted to change his name when Saddam invaded Kuwait cause the name was BAD. Then for a few years it was GOOD because "Saddam" was a name that meant snubbing the US. Then when Saddam got captured, he wants to change his name because it was BAD again? What an asshole. SADDAM FOR LIFE.

since 92-93 i think i heard this morning