EvilMonkey

C'mon, you stated your opinion, why don't you stand by it? If that is what you thought, don't be bullied by everyone else here. I also happen to think you wedre wrong, but hey, maybe when your balls drop you can make a statement you can stand behind.

What are you smoking? You have to give something to get something. A GM that gets horses*** prospects for someone like Garcia will soon be an unemployed GM.

If the Sox make the playoffs BECAUSE of Garcia, will you change your sig again?

I like the deal. I have had enough of can't-miss prospects, I want to win now. I will miss Olivio, but if that is what it took the get him, so be it. Now, go and get ortiz as well!

Yeah, I bet you do. Poor, West side community screams for jobs, tax dollars, any help they can get. Walmart steps up and wants to build a store there. Would provide jobs, tax revenue (which currently went to a Walmart in a suburb, just over the border), and will make use of a few blocks that so far have been just wasteland. Enter the players: Unions, Jackson (and other minority interest groups) and the city council. Unions say "The jobs are too low paying, not up to union scale!". Jackson says "We need guarantees that minorities will be hired, and not just in the lower rank and file jobs!". The council says"If you build it, they (local businesses) will go!" First, Target has several stores in the city, paying wages similar to Walmart. Yes, they do not have the pending suits against them for unfair labor practices that Walmart has, but those matters have yet to be brought up in any of the complaints here. Where is the Union outrage at Target? And why is union wage necessary? If a person can go from unemployment, to $10 per hour, why not? Who cares if another corrupt union doesn't get any dues from that person? As for the hiring of local residents, Walmart agreed to that long before it even went to a council vote. The various groups like Jackson's just wanted to get their faces in the paper. As for the council, it just depended on who they owed most, as to which way they were voting. The ones voting against were in with the unions, the ones voting for were not. As for the usual complaint that Walmart shuts out mom and pop stores, the only complaints were coming from local grocery stores, worried that they were going to open one that also sold food. Walmart had already agreed not to sell food. As for other businesses in the area, other than currency exchanges and liquer stores, not much else to worry about! Sorry to get off on Walmart here, when the topic was Moore, who hates America. Go Sox!

The Walmart situation I was referring to was the city Council, Jackson, union leaders and anyone else who didn't stand to gain from Walmart opening their first store in the city, being vehemently opposed to it opening, at least until they get their piece of the pie. Guarantee a higher percentage of jobs to minorities, and PUSH backs off. Maybve a campaign donation, councilman A skips the vote. Higher a lobbyist from firm B (who has ties to the mayor) and the council shuts up. While Walmarts labor practices seem to be drastically different from their general public perception, that is not what I was referring to. On those areas, we may actually agree!

After last night, ask Mike Jackson. He seems to give up enough of them.

While I tend to vote more on the Republican side, I always thought that Paul Simon was an honest politician (is that even possible?). I met him a few times, and he always striked me as a person interested in doing good, for the sake of doing good. C'mon, he wore a bow tie all the time. How bad could he be?

So is it also a bad thing when Jessie gets his Rainbow gang together to boycott Walmart because they aren't giving him a kickback? Or when a feminist group tries to picket the Masters and boycott their sponsors? These people are expressing their opinions just as much as Moore is. In fact, they are being very honest about it, saying what they will or will not buy, etc. as a result of it. How is that deplorable?

The problem is that alot of these players equate money with respect. Newsflash: Money does NOT equal respect!!! They are two totally different things. In fact, I will respect him less if he goes to someone like the Yank-mes over a little money. Yeah, I know that $2 million isn't little, at least to us, but to a player, what is that actaully? Maybe half that, after taxes? And agent commissions? And I think NY charges a payroll tax on anyone working in the city as well.

I heard that today on my way home on the Score. The guy said that KW told them they are still talking, and that the Sun-Times guy was just flat out wrong. The Score reporter then mentined the "Vlad-money" that Mags wants, and how he wasn't offered that by the Sox, but WAS offered $12 million for 4 years with a 5th year option. IF, and I repeat IF, that is the case, why is Mags holding out for $2 million more a year? He isn't Vlad, no matter what his agent whispers into his ear. If he really wants to play here, that that deal seems fair. I love the idiot reporters last line "The spin will be Ordonez made the choice to walk away. Don't believe it." Why should we believe him? If Mags walks to $2 mil per year, no spin needed. He wanted to go.

As Hawk would say, 'you can cancel the post game show'.

And all the while, Crawford is stealing his way to 3rd base, so that a simple fly ball, which our guys are very capable of doing, will score a run. With Crawford's speed, pitchers would do almost anything to keep him off the bases. How many teams have a stud catcher that can throw out a runner like him? How many pitchers actually hold runners on well? Not many.

I have no problem trading 'potential' for 'proven'. Crawford would be killer in CF for the Sox, especially with his speed. Reed for Crawford? Sure. But I am not so sure if I would throw in a TOP pitching prospect also. Rausch can go, but not saure on Diaz. All in all, sounds like another grey hair for KW!

THAT we can both agree on.

Yes, I have kids. And while that mom should be mad as hell (I would be if it were me), from a 3rd party point of view, while the guy acted like a jerk, he didn't 'trample' the kid. Nor did he 'push him down', or 'run him over' etc. With all the crazy assholes out there, who knows what someone might do to him, over a baseball. Will you be happy if someone beats him up with a bat a week or two from now, because of this? How about if he ends up in the hospital because of the beating? I will stand by Juddlings remarks that what he did doesn't deserve the treatment he is getting. As for "A 4 year old can't take the force that an adult can.", you must not have kids. I have seen my kids fall off the swing, run into walls, or each other, and get up laughing. They only seem to cry about it if someone else saw it happen. You would be suprised what kids can take. This is getting more coverage that the firecracker incident in Oakland last year did. In that one, someone DID get hurt.

ok...by now we've all heard about (and maybe all seen) the incident in Texas involving a guy going for a foul ball and bumping a kid. When i first heard the news story on the Score it was reported that the the guy "pushed down" the kid going for a foul ball. Hearing that...i pictured a kid going for a foul ball and being pushed by a guy also going for the ball. Like everyone else...i thought "What an asshole". :fyou The last couple days i've heard a bunch of differnet newscast both local and national who describe the incident as a guy "shoving" a boy....a guy "trampling" a toddler, a guy ran "roughshod" over a kid, and three or four other descriptions about this heinous act. Yesterday..i finally saw the video of the incident and you know what......the kid was hardly touched at all and the whole thing (in my opinion) has been blown WAY out of proportion. The guy dove for the ball over the seats and his calf bumped the kid who was about 3 or 4 empty seats away. The guy was reaching under the mother's seat for the ball. (if anything..the kid would be scarred by the vision of the guy looking like he was reaching under the mom's skirt) the kid stayed a couple seats away while the guy got the ball. standing up, the guy's butt bumped the kid into the row a chairs ahead of them. Granted on TV, you can't tell how hard it was but to me it didn't seem too hard. After listening to the fans and the announcers vilify the guy, i hear today he's apologized (which i think he should have done) and given the kid the ball (no way) and buying the kid tickets. THE KIDS BUTT NEVER EVEN TOUCHED THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!! Does anyone else think that the guy is getting a raw deal. Getting the "Bartman" treatment when it realy isn't deserved???? i was glad to hear he apologized but in Texas news reports are reporting his name and he is getting harrassing calls just like Bartman. I just think the guy is getting a bad shake and wondering if i was the only one or not??? :fthecubs FYI, Juddling wrote this using a computer that I was logged into, but I basically agree with the post, just the same. E.M.

Have you no respect for yourself? Why did you torture yourself like that?

You need to watch Bubble Boy while drunk. It adds a whole new dimension to it. But the absolute worst movie I have ever seen was My Own Private Idaho, starring, you guessed it, Keanu Reeves. 20 minutes and I left the theater. That movie holds the distinction for being the only movie I have ever walked out of. :puke

No, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy orchestrated by Karl Rove behind the back of President Bush, so he has verifiable denyability!

While I am not 100% sure, I believe that Illinois switched to drivers license registration as the list for potential jurors. Either that, or added that list as an addition.

Is the whole country a holy site? I wonder if that is just a legal designation, kinda like 'historical district'? No wonder the whole country is a s***hole, just imagine the paperwork they must have to go thru to do any kind of remodelling!

I get called EVERY YEAR for the last 10 years, but so far have never been selected. What gets my goat is that I keep having to go to the courthouse downtown, instead of maybe Markham. What a royal pain in the ass it is to get there. Some people (my wife!) never seem to get called.

OK, first, I was referring to Novak being against the war. However, giving his political leanings, it would not be a stretch to say that the diplomat is also against the war. OK, for #1, going back to the original question I asked, how can you say diplomats are non, or quasi-political? They have even formed a PAC! http://www.hillnews.com/news/112702/pac.aspx Sure, they say that they will give 'equally', but only time will tell. And just how diplomatic is it to publicly say that you don't agree with your President's actions? How can you then go do your job, when the whole world knows your heart isn't in it, because what your bosses asked you to do is not what YOU want to do? Good thing they are all RETIRED or FORMER appointees. Could they possibly be out of the loop? Maybe angered that they are now EX-diplomats? I would be interested in knowing what specific intelligence they have been made privy to which would allow them to express informed opinions. #2) I tried to enlist in the Navy back in 1984, but was rejected because of my very bad knees. Years of trying to be a jock, and 3 surgeries, rendered them very unstable. The fact that I did not or am not serving does not diminish my opinion in any way, and I am pissed that you feel that way. You sound like a cut-rate version of the idiot on the MLB boards who repeats his catch phrases over and over. If your son is serving in the armed forces, he has my sincere gratitude and prayers for a safe return. However, because he is there, does not make your insight any more important or correct than mine. Please don't ever question my patriotism. 3) Novak himself disputes that his wife was 'outed'. "'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this,' Novak said, saying the information was disclosed to him while he was interviewing a senior Bush administration official.... Novak said the administration official told him in July that Wilson's trip was 'inspired by his wife,' and that the CIA confirmed her 'involvement in the mission for her husband.' ... 'They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else,' he said, adding that a source at the CIA told him Plame was 'an analyst -- not a covert operator and not in charge of undercover operators.' In a Time article, it points out how he contradicts himself in his reporting. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,465270,00.html "...Bush Administration officials said that Wilson's report reinforced the president's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. They say that when Wilson returned from Africa in Feb. 2002, he included in his report to the CIA an encounter with a former Nigerien government official who told him that Iraq had approached him in June 1999, expressing interest in expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The Administration claims Wilson reported that the former Nigerien official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. "This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters last week, a few days before he left his post to join the private sector. "Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it...reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales." of course, he has his own spin on what happened, and the really sad thing is that we will probably never really know, and it will all just be one big he said/she said.

Yes, that is the guy. But whereas there is evidence that he did a hack job in his 'investigation', there are only accusations that the White House leaked any so called info, which was readily available thru other sources. Her name was known before that article ever came out. Novak cites TWO sources for his inof. Why would two people risk their jobs and/or jail for 'revenge'? And he is anti-war himself, so why would he side with Bush? But the specifics in that case are discussions for another thread. He is merely an example of a VERY political diplomat, who has his own agendas.