jackie hayes

QUOTE(Wanne @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 07:54 PM) Not really. If that statement is based on perception that Ozzie is being tuned out by the vets...it's letting the team know that Ozzie is here to stay and if they have a problem with it...get with the program or voice your displeasure and we'll see where we can send you. Do I agree with that. Yes. The other reason could be for stability and not having that, "will Ozzie be fired" tone the whole offseason...which would probably not be a good pitch for potential FAs. Stability is a good thing. Stagnation is not. And this team is completely stagnant. Again...I'm not saying I agree with the decision at all....just voicing some reasons why it possibly happened at this time. Ugh... I still hate those reasons as "statements". If the vets as a group are tuning him out, then it's time for Ozzie to go. Wasn't Reinsdorf's praise of Ozzie based on the idea that the players are still playing hard for him? And I really doubt that many free agents will join one of the worst teams in the majors just because they 'know' Ozzie will be around for a while. My impression is that free agents want to get paid and want to win. If the Sox win, Ozzie will stay anyway. If they don't, they'd want to stick with a loser just because the manager isn't changing? No, it's not a big deal either way. But I want to see a club sign someone because he's the best manager/coach/player/scout/gm/whatever, not because signing him 'shows' something. I just hate that philosophy.

If Ozzie deserves an extension now, then he deserved it at the beginning of the season. Even if he is completely blameless for this season, he still hasn't proven anything. The only reason I can think of to give this extension now is to make a statement, some statement, which is a terrible way to run a team.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:36 AM) Since that time when I made the first post, and when I made my posts today, I was able to read the entire thing. So, I stand corrected on my original post when I said what I did, but subsequent to that, I read it. And at least I admitted the truth about "context" last night when I originally posted that - it's much more then you get from most of you libs around here anyway. I still stand by the "Democrat talking points" comment, especially after reading the whole thing!! - well what do you know, "talking points" and "rhetoric" are pretty damn close in meaning. Would you like to continue to assassinate the messenger, or do you have ANY point at all? What was unclear about my post? I quoted you exactly. You felt qualified to speak on everything in the clip, without having even read it. That's some real desperation. The thing was only 7 pages long, for chrissake. You said you hadn't said it. You did say it. And you still try to attack me, for attacking "the messenger". What the f*** is your problem? If you said it, ADMIT IT. Btw, with all your "you libs" bulls***, I invite you to provide a few examples of where I blindly supported Dem positions. Like when I've said that we should stay in Iraq at this point, although the invasion was idiocy. Or when I've supported open trade or guest worker programs. Be my f***ing guest. On the other side, I'd like you to do exactly what you said you could -- put full quotes "side by side", and let us all gasp at how terrorist the Dems are. We're still waiting. Vague references about "global warming" are just sad.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 12:51 AM) But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday. For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I even have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there). There's many, many more... but that's a start. Oh, I'd f***ing LOVE the whole list. Global warming? GMAFB, you're going to put anyone who mentions global warming in bed with BIN LADEN? Holy s***... Then you mention soldiers suffering. Who ISN'T mentioning that? "corporations" is not a reference specific to Halliburton. Which is obvious by the usage. Where is the Dem who's claimed that Halliburton conspired to assassinate JFK? "side by side" -- back up your boast. We're waiting.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 12:54 AM) And by the way, I didn't say that either. I said I read the transcript, in it's entirety. And I have also said, now three times, the RHETORIC is the same -- and what Harry Reid is saying is VERY comparable to what Binnie had to say. So again, I politely ask, stop putting words in my mouth. That's the third time in this thread that someone has tried that, and it needs to stop. Thanks - much appreciated. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 08:01 PM) Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. HOW SAD IS THAT? You are a joke.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 11:16 PM) No, that's not what I said. I said the RHETORIC is the same. Read what I'm writing, please, before you just all out assail what I'm saying. Everything I referred to is a public pronouncement and therefore "rhetoric". So, please, do exactly what you said you could do. Put the relevant statements "side by side". And since, as you said, "damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points", please be thorough.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 08:51 PM) Their quotes are all over the place. I'm just lazy, that's all. Come on, people. You know what they say, almost once or twice a week an definitely every Sunday morning on the liberal talk shows on ABC and NBC. Thanks for cherry picking that one sentance out of my whole post. No -- I'd really like to see this, actually. The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all? But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 08:08 PM) To stick to the issue - I've never said that Democrats = Al Queda (at least I don't think I did), but I did say that the RHETORIC of the Democrats = Al Queda RHETORIC. If I didn't say it that way, it should have been said that way. And there's very little that is NOT true about that statement. Again, I could come up with a lot of the transcript and put them side by side as to what was said YESTERDAY by Harry Reid and Schucky Schumer. I about wanted to vomit when I heard what they had to say to the media darlings yesterday. It disgusts me the rhetoric that they use - and it is very similiar in nature to what Binne had to say. I've said this time and time and time and time again. BushCo has handled this TERRIBLY since about week 6 over there. It's been a total waste of effort by our guys because the leadership at the top is too worried about scoring political points then actually taking care of the problem over there. THAT's all political, and it sickens me that the Re-pube-lican leadership won't grow a pair and get things done right over there. I can criticize things beyond party lines. Most around here can't... other then to say that the Democrats have "failed them" because they "gave in" to Bush on the last go-round of funding and other "concessions". What those "concessions" tell me is there is a LOT more behind the scenes then we really know and the camera whoring is nothing but a power trip to get elected by BOTH sides, and in a time of war, that disgusts me on both sides of the equation. I think the Democrats are MORE dangerous because they are clearly on the wrong side of the equation by simply giving up the fight in Iraq at this juncture... and even Binnie more or less confirmed that with certain phrases in his "speech". Man, you sure "could" do a lot of things. I keep thinking I have to actually back up what I say, but your method is way more efficient.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 11:42 PM) I have zero interest in blaming Kap or Genius or any of the other Republicans here for the actions, thoughts or motivaitons of right-wing terror groups even if they have similarities with them, as they certainly do by sheer nature of being in the same party and same side. I think it's sleazy as hell and I won't engage in that. I was just pointing out. -- PS: this thread's title is bad, Heads. THis is far more important than "bin Laden and Chomsky," but this thread wasn't serious from the start. For shame. On the plus side, I've got a party tonight and it isn't even democratic. No, I didn't mean the "right-wing terror groups" comment. Only the "Yeah". I read the transcript, and, no, it doesn't resemble what Democrats say, in the least. You shouldn't even say "Yeah", it may be similar, if it's not at all similar. Even giving that much was giving FAR too much. Fwiw, the "right-wing terror groups" comment is a terrible comparison.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:16 PM) Yeah, but it's such a sleazy thing to say. There are plenty of right-wing terror groups that everything you believe in falls into but you have absolutely no interest in genuine political discourse. You believe what you believe and everything else is a sarcastic crack. That's okay, though. Good for you. That's giving way too much credit, unless I missed the Meet the Press where Harry Reid claimed that corporations killed JFK and called for the death of democracy in favor of theocracy. Don't give common hackery credibility just to appear fair.

Orioles probably going to shut down Bedard. Shame with the season he was having. I was kind of hoping for a strong finish and a CY.

Links to the official court documents are here (at the bottom of the article): http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...rderly-conduct/

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) Staring through the crack, and touching his foot, would be considered pretty alarming. At least to me. I have to say though, I hadn't gotten the impression that those acts themselves were the lewd acts. If they are, that's a different direction than I was going. Jackie, where did you see that? He wasn't charged with lewd conduct, or intent to commit lewd conduct, or anything of the sort. He was charged with disorderly conduct (for the whole ritual of swiping his hand beneath the divider three times, touching the cop's foot, etc -- a misdemeanor) and invasion of privacy (for staring into the stall -- a gross misdemeanor) -- the invasion of privacy was apparently dropped as part of the plea.

The cop didn't have to know anything about his intent. He was charged because his actions were considered alarming (also for violating privacy, but that was dropped). It doesn't matter, legally, if the actions mean, "Let's have sex here" or "Let's have sex at my place" or "I was hoping you could give me the name of a good house painter". The actions themselves are the crime.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:05 AM) The only thing wrong with what happened is that the Senator didn't get charged with the correct, more serious charge that he should have been charged with - and that was probably because of his influence as a Senator. What charge is that?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 11:36 PM) Unless I'm really mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- he wasn't busted for solicitation, at least not legally. I'm still a little confused about this. As far as I can tell, the "disorderly" part is because of the way he asked for sex, not the fact that he asked for it. I was under the impression that he was charged, basically, for annoying/alarming the guy in the next stall. While if he simply went up to someone and asked for sex, point blank, the asking wouldn't be illegal -- only the act that might follow the asking. Right or wrong?

Buying out Uribe and signing him to a lesser deal is another possibility. Just saying. If Tejada and Furcal don't work, I'd rather have young crap than old crap.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) What a dick Nope. (Edit: I mean, he IS a dick. Just about the image.) http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/michaelvick.asp

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) Here's the difference, in my eyes: hunting is a natural process. The predator doesn't always get the prey, so the prey may wander off to die somewhere due to its injuries. Pushing animals to fight and kill is not natural. Dogs (and their non-domesticated cousins) don't act like that towards one another unless trained to do so. I tend to think about it that way, too, but I sometimes wonder if that's more of a justification than a real belief. It's real tough to define what's "natural", and it's not clear that something is more justifiable just because it's "natural". And of course that doesn't touch on foie gras, etc. Anyway, I didn't mean to take the thread off-topic. Back to Ron Mexico, and pass the venison.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) I agree there is definitely different treatment, and some choice of denial. Animals that people think are "smarter", or are just cuter, get more rage on their behalf if they are made to suffer or die. Cock fighting isn't seen as being as bad, even though that makes little sense. I do understand what you are getting at. But I still think that someone who goes out and shoots a deer, and uses the whole animal in some way, is not in the same ballpark as someone who tortures a dog (or even a bird) into being a fighting animal, and then kills it or lets it be killed. I agree. But in deciding what should and should not be legal, you have to consider all the possible outcomes, not just the successful one. It's possible the hunter could injure the deer and not find it, leaving it to die in pain. Obviously, that's not the intent, but any attempt to legislate against cruelty should be aimed at the actual suffering that would result, not the small amount of suffering intended. (Again, I'm not advocating any sort of legislation against hunting, I'm just talking about what we seem willing to accept.)

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) Pushing past the "quality" of suffering, the other huge difference is purpose. If one kills something to eat, I think that is an entirely different thing than one who kills for sport. And even worse if that killing for sport is cruel, and follows months or years of torture. So I think the motive behind the killing is also a big factor. I don't agree with that. In principle, sure, killing for sustenance is different. But both hunting and foie gras are very inefficient ways to get nutrition, for the most part. (Hunting maybe a little less so -- partially depends what you hunt.) The reason they persist is pleasure -- hunting for the pleasure of stalking and killing something (for "sport", really), and hunting and foie gras for the pleasure of eating a different sort of meat. Why is the latter pleasure inherently better than the pleasure of "sport"? And I think that, even if it were true that killing (or gavage) for eating is better, there's still a lot of arbitrariness left -- in the different treatment of cock fighting (historically), in the differing attitudes towards eating different species.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) How Atlanta Falcons fans feel Hmmmm, one action involves the regulated hunting of an animal, which normally results in instant death. The other involves betting on one animal to completely maul the other until it dies or gives up fighting back, and gambling on the outcome. I cant see why this is such a bad thing Is there anyone who feels that this is a race-fauled witch-hunt who posts regularly here? I would just like to hear a different opinion on this matter. The way i see it, if Taylor, Phillips, and Peace werent dealing drugs AND fighting dogs, Vick would probably be fine right now. But Vicks boys got in trouble because they were busted dealing, and when the authorities showed up, they saw the grand scale of what was really going on. I DON'T think that's the case. But there IS a lot of arbitrariness in the way laws treat different forms of animal harm. Hunting may "normally" result in instant death, but that's hardly a defense. It's certainly common for an animal to be wounded and suffer. Foie gras production is not a nice business. Bans on cock fighting have come much more slowly than bans on dog fighting. It may be that the 'quantity of suffering' from dogfighting is greater than that from other sources -- but that's an awfully hard thing to pin down. Now, I'm not trying to pass judgment here. I had a foie gras dog at Hot Doug's just before the bust, I've never once asked about the conditions my meat came from, etc. Just saying, I can understand the argument.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) I do a fairly mean bologna/grilled cheese combo sometimes that I enjoy thoroughly. Man, I could go for one of them right now. Regular bologna, chicken bologna, beef bologna?

Finished.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 08:25 PM) And stats mean nothing right Jas? He has struggled against the AL in interleague play from the moment he started in the league. his "stuff" is good there is no doubt about that, but he benefits majorly from the pitchers spot and the piss poor competition in the NLC. I would venture to say that in the AL (most likely the east) he wouldnt crack a 4 ERA. Also here is a pretty good article with statistical references to the switch from league to league. http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/20...al-than-nl.html Just about the article -- it makes me think that the difference is higher than I thought. Not quite 1 run, but closer than I thought. Maybe 3/4. Good cite.