Soxbadger

Just have to get 9 outs.

haha Vizquel throws the bat at the ball.

I think Jackson has more value, but since hes a free agent hard to really cash in. If you are going to trade Jackson, a guy like Rasmus makes sense.

Was about to post, Rios needs to steal here. Santana has been wild with his throws.

He shouldnt be, Ozzie should trust his pen. No reason to let Jackson get in trouble.

Jackson has no out pitch but had the best k/9 of anyone on the Sox staff. I guess we have really high expectations.

If you seriously are unhappy with 6 innings 2 runs out of your starting pitcher, and say that you wont miss him after a start like that, I dont even know how anyone can take the post seriously.

To be fair, Dunn did hit the ball about 390 feet, just to the wrong part of the park. It should have been an out, but if Dunn is hitting 390+ fly outs, hes going to collect a few hrs on the way.

WOOOOO WOOOOOOOOO

Well here it is Dunn, 2-0 count make some good contact.

Ramirez needed to take one for the team there so that its 1 & 2 and Konerko can hit. That is part of the problem with the Sox right now, they just dont have players who are willing to sacrifice to win games. When you are struggling you have to do anything to get on base. Lets hope Dunn gets lucky here.

Saw Man U today, they didnt seem to be on most of the match, but pulled away in the end.

District court case, lets see how the Appellate/Supreme Court of Michigan Rule. Id say that certification makes sense because unlike the Wal-Mart case, you are going to be talking about a case where most of the discovery would be duplicated if there was not a class action.

Hopefully hes scratched from the line up.

And its my opinion that there are going to be less casualties this way. Im not sure how you can prove this either way. Its not so clear cut as to believe there is an absolutely right answer. People die in war, Im not sure if I ever suggested otherwise. Its a question of how many people would die, and once again, there is really no way to know if more would have died getting involved or not.

Which is easy to see in 20/20 hindsight, but what if the US doesnt get involved and Gaddafi massacres 100,000 people, would that be okay? Because to me its not, so Id rather err on the side of protecting civilians and see what happens. But every person is entitled to their opinion. As of now the US has really not lost much besides for money, and i think people's lives are worth more than money.

Of course they are counted, which is why its impossible to tell. Would more people have died if we did nothing? Were more people killed because we did something? How do you know? How can anyone ever honestly say that one action is better than the other, unless they can go to a parallel universe where the opposite action was taken. Which is exactly why I said "you cant really tell" because I do not have the luxury of seeing what would happen if we never got involved. Now sure there are scenarios where it could be considered a complete loss: in the end Gaddafi takes over and kills all of his people, but thats why betting on clusterf*** is the easier side. You almost never have a situation where you can say "Yep that was 100% better than doing nothing" because you can never prove what would have happened if you did nothing.

It doesnt matter if its a complete mess, the argument about involvement wasnt whether or not it would be a complete mess. It was whether or not the US was going to get involved to prevent what people believed was going to be an imminent genocide. It would be like arguing that getting involved in World War II was a complete mess and then saying your right because World War II took thousands of soldiers lives and cost the US millions of dollars. The real question would be, how much was gained for how much was sacrificed, and Im not sure how you can really tell which is the right answer in Libya.

I never anointed Obama anything, so once again I dont see what the nonsensical "Jesus II" statement is. Im not even sure Obama could be the messiah as he does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Torah.

You can go back and quote me as much as you want, I cant imagine that I ever said that bombing would 100% work. Just because something doesnt work, doesnt mean that it couldnt have been a clear and attainable goal at the time. There have been plenty of military operations that have failed in the past, and there will be plenty that fail in the future.

Im sure Obama knows why he got involved, international pressure, etc. Whether it was the right or wrong move, hard to say in retrospect, I am glad that the US is trying to help the people who have been subjugated by Gaddafi, there is just no promise that they will be better than he is. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I dont really think its necessary to call Obama Jesus II though, Im not sure what religion has to do with this.

Or its just the reality of the situation. At the beginning people were hopeful that a resolution would be quick. It turns out Gaddafi is going to do whatever he can to stay in power. There are plenty of news outlets that report on this subject every day (Al-Jazeera) but for the most part its a civil war with a constant ebb and flow. The US Civil War took years, hopefully Libya can be quicker, but this was the reality from the beginning, you never know how long it will take.

I think that is a really strained argument. People are allowed to have their beliefs.

That is what I Thought, but what Im reading now seems to suggest otherwise. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/22/...n20082008.shtml

So turns out I completely misconstrued the situation. The deal the owners have approved wasnt even reviewed by the players yet. Kind of a screw job to the players.