bmags

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 12:09 AM) How do you take what he said and get the bolded as your conclusion. Did you just respond to what you wanted his point to be? Speaking of the Trump-Russia conspiracy, FBI released that there is no tie between Russia and Trump today. Speaking of MLK, MLK was also a womanizer, not that it makes any difference to me, so why the relativism? Does Trump embellishing his overzealous nature with women crudely to Billy Bush really make the polar difference to you in your polar opinions on this similarly character trait? Last paragraph ... do you know 10 women have accused him of assault or does your polar views on women just force them alll into a box of womanizing.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 12:09 AM) How do you take what he said and get the bolded as your conclusion. Did you just respond to what you wanted his point to be? Speaking of the Trump-Russia conspiracy, FBI released that there is no tie between Russia and Trump today. Speaking of MLK, MLK was also a womanizer, not that it makes any difference to me, so why the relativism? Does Trump embellishing his overzealous nature with women crudely to Billy Bush really make the polar difference to you in your polar opinions on this similarly character trait? But the FBI investigated it... must be something there. FBI shouldn't be investigating a candidate for president for ties to a foreign gov.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 08:45 PM) Seriously. Who cares about emails from.an.investigation ? Did Hillary ever interview with Billy Bush or Howard Stern? So an investigation w/o charges = guilt now? Well, by that logic trump is also a rapist and conspired with Russia to disrupt the election. But yes obviously the only thing wrong with trump is he admitted to sexual assault and then had 10 women accuse him of such. If only we cared about the serious stuff! Oh also MLK was also a real p.o.s., also investigated by FBI.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) Sure, and that had discriminatory intent, I agree (i'm not saying discriminatory results don't sometimes come from actual racist beliefs). But the vast majority of the time that people screamed racism with Obama, it had nothing to do with race. Even the birther crap was more about his religion and secret want to destroy America via terrorism (clearly nonsense), not that he was black. Will someone undoubtedly say something sexist about Clinton? Sure. Does that mean that when the Republican-controlled Congress doesn't want to work with her they're doing that because she's a woman? No. If she fails to get her policies enacted is it because of sexism? No. Will people still play that card? Yes. In some ways I agree with you: I remember driving around the south when I was a kid and random talk radio would come on talking about how Clinton was the antichrist and a threat to all Christians. So yeah, republicans since Nixon have lost their minds any time a democrat has taken office. They throw anything that sticks on them. But it matters that many on right felt comfortable throwing racism at the president and weren't rebuked. It further aligned the minorities to democrats and set up the republican candidate as symbol of preserving whiteness. I'm not so sure Trump becomes nominee if Obama was not pres instead of John Edwards or whomever white male could have won. They accept anything thrown at democrats that excites their base. And their open entertaining (gingrich in 12 with food stamp pres, etc) made that racism the point. The democrats weren't just hippy dippy liberals out to force all churches out and make you worship gov't anymore, it evolved to being the threat to the white male id. Is every bit of obstruction attributed to racism? No, but that they refused to deal with him accelerated something that made preserving whiteness priority 1a) for the republican base.

Thought about how Tim Anderson was compared to him when I saw this.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 11:02 AM) Rose also was not the type of point guard that would reliably create plays for Gasol either. Not much of a distributor or outside shooter. Yes and no. Sometimes they'd have a great series where rose would drive and swing back to wide open gasol on pick and roll. But Rose predetermined most of his moves, wasn't as creative or able to improvise vs a paul/rondo that see what's happening and take what's given.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 09:01 AM) I think he's right. All 3 guy's have had their value hurt. And he means Todd Frazier pre-2016 season than the current one. Oh, okay, so it only matters if the white sox ex prospects lose value. Got it. That's the perfect rebuttal to criticism that it doesn't matter if sox sold high on prospect if they made the wrong decision.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) During the game, my friend said "why doesn't Loggains do that with Cutler more" after Cutler did a bootleg and picked up a huge gain. I said "why doesn't (insert every Bears OC since Martz) do that with Cutler more?" It really is crazy.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 10:19 AM) lol, fair point shack. In the current form he exists as a NBA player, Rose used to choke the life out of the offense so that they would live and die with how well he was playing. I don't think it's just Rose. Gasol was a ball hog that demanded getting his 20-25 isos a game.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 07:29 AM) I was referring to this thread specifically. Yes it is. All the Trump voters I know are doing it because of Hillary, and that includes females. They don't even like Trump. Majority of republicans stated that Trump best stated the values of the republican party over Paul Ryan. The soxtalk idea that nobody supports trump is false. He has a huge number of support, including the backing of the republican leadership.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) Did anyone know that Rice did it at the time though (I also would have been upset to hear that, but I didn't know). And then when people did find out, did Rice delete emails? And then after that, did she make up about 5 excuses and lie to people about why she did what she did? At some point it moved beyond the stupid mistake of having the private server and moved into an "i'm above the law/position" situation. I'm not sure Rice did use a private server, Powell did. And the RNC server that did not properly preserve 22 million emails and was deleted was I believe pre Rice or would not have been a specifically state dept issue.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) I live right by DePaul and hadn't even heard about this. Really doesn't bother me. I'm tired of self righteous jackasses who care about the fetus up until it's born. After they, they don't give a damn. Sounds like BIG MEDIA is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) Not sure what that has to do with the post you responded to. I was talking mostly about the already-known stuff. But what the FBI was looking at could have been applied to her all the same had she used the .gov email address. It's unlikely they would have started the investigation, but it was clear the private server was not an attempt to remove classified information and hold it in her server, as the report even has a line that is vague, but seems to implicate that she did not start any of the chains with classified emails, and they were all coming from cleared personnel. And to me, that's what is frustrating about this. The pressure to make this seem out of context like the biggest outlier in the history of the world. That last sentence means that other officials also were mistakenly communicating classified information in email. ANd it gets more convoluted with the continuous nature of throwing "EMAIL" in unrelated information and making it seem like one big pot of issues. And it's another part where the FBI director does this crazy stuff. We know that the private email server wasn't even technically against state policy. We know that she wasn't the only one to use a non-.gov email. So my criticism of her now that it's fairly clear that she did not avoid FOIA even if she had intended too, is she should be the example for all in state. She should not have been doing easier things that weren't the best things to do. But that's not a historys greatest monster crime, and that's consistent with the FBI report. She would bring her phone into the SCIF but would store it in a specific drawer. That's dumb! But it's clear that she was under assumption that solved it, and was not showing obstenance by doing it. She had her email all in one, but had a team assigned to review work and private, showing that she did not go full Powell, and did provide the work emails to state. It's "you can do better" but the idea that she is corrupt because she had the FBI investigate her is crazy. My whole life has been remarkably thin clinton conspiracies, except for one : Cattle futures. But that was in the 70s. We have had her email leaked, her campaign chair's leaked, 20 years of investigation unveiling every part of their lives, and members of hte foundations leaked. We know more about Clinton than pretty much every politician ever. And the most you can put on her is she should be more forthcoming about her non-illegal activities and that sometimes in private her team says things that aren't front and center in their campaign. To be honest I'm not even sure she has anything as bad as buying a plot of land from Tony Rezko, she just isn't as good as Obama about letting the steam out of the pot and saying "here's everything" unless forced.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 08:38 AM) The Frazier deal defines the big picture plan for the White Sox. They constantly believe they are one-two big name players away from competing for the wild card, and that failing to compete for the wild card every year is a mistake, so they should sell out whatever they can to get a big name player at a position of weakness. Put everything on the line and put as many big names on your big league squad as possible regardless of what it does to your organization. That's the Samardzija deal, that's the Frazier deal, that's the free agent signings of the last couple years, that sums up this team going as far back as bringing in Dunn and Rios, with the notable exception of 2014. Except there's a caveat to this, they are willing to trade for a "star" but only a star without providing their top prospects. And they are willing to dive into free agency, but not willing to compete for the top names.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 04:15 PM) If the White Sox offered Trayce, Micah, and Frankie in a package this offseason, they would get nothing close to Todd Frazier. I think you are way too sure of this.

I know vikes are banged up but amazed the holes that backup guards Kush and Larsen got on them. That and it was about as good of a development game as you could hope for. Floyd/white hair looked great.

No, it isn't.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 09:02 PM) Nobody is even supporting Trump. How long into the Clinton presidency will the "at least she's not Trump" card be played? One month? Six months? Two years? Will she be untouchable her entire term because of him? It's likely that up to 46% of the voting pop is going to vote for him. He is very close to the presidency.

I can't figure out how to just get the vine URL but check out the passing in the first vine here: http://www.blogabull.com/2016/10/31/134838...-out-of-the-gym

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 09:06 PM) Didn't look like he put much effort into catching the ball and given the way he's played since then I'm inclined to believe this is the case. He's playing like dog s***. Touchdown Jeffrey

this ball movement is insane

This is wild.

Partially because Trayce had an incomplete season so his WAR would be lower. We may have sold at right time, that we received the right piece is again questionable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) Huh so better sourcing than the all of the hysteria surrounding Comey's letter from Friday? Good enough for me. sorry for the hot takes. Well there have been a lot of "other end" stories justified by a single FBI official. And that's like half of Greg's news. I can't find the WSJ report, but there seems to be an internal group frothing at mouth to investigate anything clinton, and their presentation to the DOJ to investigate clinton foundation was supposedly embarrassing for it's thin support.

Yeah, I have to say, I understand why considering stakes and confidence she may have granted, but I don't think anyone should be put in that position. Obviously with the warrant supposedly being granted they have cleared it by now, but at face value I'd have wanted to ensure 4th amendment wasn't violated.