jackie hayes

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) wow, right. A black preacher getting angry about injustices and poverty is on the same lines as the God hates F**s Church? Talk about a stretch. Come on, to be fair, it's a lot worse than that. The US invented AIDS to kill blacks? He's a demagogue.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) Correct. The FARC is a Belligerent army not a terrorist oranization. Well in mine and other people's opinion. Kidnapping for ransom. That's not a war crime at all, now. Among other activities. That's all nice and everything, but I really don't care what your opinion is. FARC has been recognized as a terrorist organization for a long time. The question is, when that designation is made, can the US not take action against a foreign government that supports that group or attempts to support that group? I guess it was dumb to expect anyone even half moderate to click on a Hugo Chavez thread.

This is nothing, and it won't play in the general election. Obama can point to many times in the past when he's repudiated this guy's beliefs. If McCain tries to go after this, he'll be hit twice as hard on his "spiritual advisor" and the Falwell stuff. It's a nonissue and a nonstarter.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 01:02 PM) I'm not defending Chavez. I think the United States should leave him alone. I think they should stop funding Uribe also. By "leave him alone", do you mean the US should not add Venezuela to the state-supporters-of-terrorism list, even though FARC is recognized as a terrorist organization?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) The evidence against Hugo Chavez supporting the FARC is also suspect. As it also could be politically motivated. It involves electronic files that are physically in the possession of Columbia. It's not some unsupported testimonial, like someone remembering Uribe by his glasses years before he wore glasses. If you want to defend what Chavez did, I wish you'd just do it instead of trying to deflect criticism.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 10:17 PM) Okay, first off, did I ever say it was cheating? I never said pulling all outside pitches was bad. If you are looking for it and can get your arms extended, by all means smash it to whichever field you f***ing feel like. But hitting is mainly reactionary. Guessing which pitch it's gonna be and where it will be at is tougher said then done. And if you try and pull an outside pitch purely on reaction, you most likely just grounded out weakly. When hitting on reaction, you can't be focused on pushing or pulling the ball, you gotta take what the pitcher gives you, unless the situation calls for it like a hit and run or moving the runner from 2st to 3rd. If you get the pitch you want, drive it. But trying to pull everything is stupid, as is trying to push everything. I'm predicting Anderson to be his usual bad self. Does everything have to be based on stats? God, I hate stats. And if Anderson is his usual self no amount of defense can make up for his (again, projected by me) weak stick. If Anderson somehow proves that he is better then my Dog with the bat, then yeah, perhaps he can be worth the spot on the team. But I'll believe it when he actually consistently puts up half-way decent numbers vs. actual pitching in something bigger then a spring training game. You know, to be honest, I don't really give a s***. I think the Sox are going to have a HORRIBLE year this year. I just find it comical that even if the worst of players has a good couple of weeks the automatically become Torri Hunter. I especially find it funny now that everyone has been life long Anderson fans as well. Might want to brush up on the baseball lingo. Just saying.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 05:33 PM) Applause. And if he did, he could probably visit a cheaper one, so we wouldn't find out anyway. (I was going to hell anyway, might as well have some fun.)

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) I just seems like Uribe get's a free pass because he's an ally of the USA. This is a guy who has had tie's to paramilitary terrorist's and drug cartel's. 75 governors, mayors, and Congressional politicians alleged or found guilty of having direct links to the paramilitary under him. The ongoing suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre activists and politicians. I don't think that's as true of Uribe as it is of, say, Musharraf. The "ties" are all in the past, and there isn't much hard evidence. Many of the allegations seem to be politically motivated, many look dubious. The prosecution of all those politicians has been under his watch, and he hasn't tried to obstruct the process. And if by assassinations you mean the killing of FARC leaders, well, of course he's done that. I don't know of any time he's assassinated a pacific leftist elected official, though. The trade unions thing I'd agree with, from what I know. But on the whole, it's a big stretch to say that the US is supporting terrorism by supporting someone who's reducing violence and demobbed the right-wing groups. A really, really big stretch.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) Juan? And remember, he was fightin the Italian navy. It shows you just how deep this thing goes.

I'm not, btw, saying Uribe is a saint. Going unannounced into another country is certainly a questionable move, and I do buy some of what I read about labor trouble. And, it wouldn't surprise me if he was partial to the AUC in the past (though it would surprise me somewhat if he offered any official, material support). But his current popularity is based on his success in reducing violence, overall. That seems better than giving $300 mil to a kidnapping, trafficking, sometimes murderous guerrilla group. And whatever happened, it doesn't excuse giving $300 mil to such a group.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) It was directed at people who foam at the mouth when Hugo Chavez name is mentioned. If you have a problem with him giving money to the FARC army, than you should also have a problem with the American goverment which gives billions of dollars to President Uribe. Who has had ties to extreme right wing terrorist paramilitary groups like AUC. That so? I should be just as angry at the American government for currently supporting a president who oversaw the demobbing of the AUC because there exist rumors of past "ties" as I should be at a government that is currently offering financial support to current terrorists? No thanks, I like my priorities the way they are.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) The evil commies are coming to get us(again)!!! If only Ronnie Raygun was still alive. He would know how to handle this. By funding terrorist contras of course! I think we could show Hugo how to fund terrorists the proper way. Is this directed at me? If so, you're spending yr sarcasm on the wrong person. Left or right, you have to consider that Venezuela is one of our major suppliers (behind Canada & Saudi Arabia). It's a pickle.

US military casualties nearing the 4k mark, and a car bomb killed 11 in Baghdad. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oY...s98w8wD8VCHSSG1

Hugo Chavez is now being financially linked to FARC after Columbia seized FARC laptops after a raid. Supposedly, "Angel" (a code name for Chavez) offered up to $300 mil to these nice activists. There's no evidence that any support ever actually took place. Now the US has to decide -- on the verge of a recession, do you put a large oil supplier on the list of terrorist supporting nations? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:19 AM) I think there are two different sliding scales at work here. One is the size of the community, as you point out. The other are regional differences. If you want to compare similarly sized cities... Memphis and Milwaukee. I've spent a lot of time in both. The pace of life in Memphis is a lot slower than Milwaukee. You can also pick two cities in the same region of different size and get that - Chicago is faster than Des Moines, for example. I think both sliding scales have an effect. I think it has much more to do with the general area. Milwaukee is very close to Chicago, for instance. Indianapolis is further removed from a massive urban area. I lived in Dallas for a while, and I don't think life there is any 'slower' than in Chicago. And Austin is friggin nuts. (Though, college town, so that is always a difference.) I just don't buy this connection of pace and geography.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) I've actually lived in a southern city, Memphis, which has a million people. And yeah, its a waaaaaaaaay slower lifestyle than Chicago, for example. And I noticed it was similar in other cities in the region I visited like Nashville and Little Rock. I have yet to decide if that slower lifestyle is better or worse - probably better. But its not just the rural vs urban thing. There is a real difference in my experience from the south to the midwest in those terms. Compared to smaller midwestern cities, or Chicago? I would say the same thing about Indianapolis, for example. Do we put that in the south, now, or just say that smaller cities are different than bigger cities?

QUOTE(max power @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) I think we should just have a war to settle this whole argument. It'll be like nothing ever done before. Just tell me when and where, and I'll be there with a picnic basket to watch the north stomp down the south. Pfft, not even a challenge.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) Which? I lived in Iowa for 5 years. My opinion is that the culture is an interesting mix of southern and midwestern. I realize the southern part doesn't make sense geographically, but... it was like midwestern friendliness mixed with southern hospitality. They were in less of a hurry than midwesterners though, more like my experiences in the south. But a very strong, midwestern work ethic and attitude. Southern illinois? Just feels like the south to me. It sounds like you're confusing "rural" and "southern". People are in just as much of a hurry in Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, etc. (Maybe not NO, but that's an outlier in every group.) So do we northerners get those cities? Cuz that'd be awesome if Austin suddenly got closer, I'd love to visit again.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 08:12 AM) Iowa is culturally similar to a southern state in many ways. And southern Illinois is definitely the south. How?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) In my northern liberal school they taught us to chew with our mouths open and slam the doors on people's faces when they are entering a room. You had to be taught that?

QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:37 PM) As someone who lives in Montana for over 2 years I don't give a s*** where it is geographically the people in that region are far more like southerners then northerners. It's big cowboy culture up there. I can't remember the last time I saw cowboys roaming around Chicago, New York, or any other major northern city. So we can take parts of the north and say they really don't count? If the point is comparing north and south, we should compare all the north and all the south.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) The south still elects people like Sally Kern who said homosexuality is more dangerous than islamic terrorists. She also compared it to a cancer. She really didn't catch much slack for that. When the south stop's electing people like that, than I think people in the north will start to think differently. That's weak. PA elected Santorum (to the US Senate, no less) and Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 11:06 PM) s*** happens, though. I lost both Carl Crawford and Tim Lincecum during the playoffs last season*. Carl didn't go on the DL, and Tim got shelved without the NA designation, IIRC. That type of stuff occurs every year, though. We definitely need weekly transactions in the playoffs. *I still would have gotten slammed by jackie, regardless. It was a monumental beatdown. Damn right. I don't like the idea of having different rules for the playoffs. It just seems somewhat arbitrary. Streaming in the playoffs doesn't seem any worse than streaming in weeks 21 and 22 in an effort to get into the playoffs. (Actually, personally, I don't have any problem with streaming. But a LOT of people do, so...) So, it SEEMS that most people would prefer to go to a weekly transaction limit, but NOT weekly transactions. Is that right?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) His father is worth several hundred million. Okay, then it's that much easier. I'd seen something that he came from an "affluent" family, but I didn't know how affluent.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) So are there some here that are just really against one of these 3 guys being the starter? I mean I have my pick on who I like, but I'm not against one of the others if they are out performing. It seems some here are totally against Owens, Anderson or Quentin regardless how they perform? Is that the case for some of you? Perform in st, you mean? In that case, yes, I'd be totally against Owens starting over Anderson. It's not that I have anything against Owens, but his ceiling is much lower than Anderson's. For the Sox to compete this year, a lot of things have to break right, and Anderson breaking right would contribute a lot more than Owens breaking right. I don't believe Owens, at his best, is much more than adequate. Not to mention that a productive Anderson would be better for the years ahead. Not that I think it has any chance of happening, just saying. Also, if Quentin were healthy, then I'd have a problem with him being benched, but that doesn't seem to be the case.