bmags

The reason I know rabbit has not watched any of Michelle Obama's actual campaigning for Hillary Clinton is Michelle has actually been held up as the one surrogate actually making the case FOR clinton and not just disparaging Trump. Like Lost said, she doesn't even mention Trump, though she makes contrasts and emphasizes the things that make Hillary responsible that are quite clearly basic competencies that Trump doesn't clear. For example https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...onal-convention and: "It's just silly she talks s*** about Donald Trump and she's some deity that we have to bow down to. " give me a break

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 01:18 PM) AND WE ALL AGREE: UNLESS THIS HITS TRESTMANIAN LEVEL DISASTER, WE ALL SHALL STAND BACK AND WAIT FOR BETTER TO HAPPEN (except fathom and jenks who have their finger on the ejection button) Yes but fully on board with #canloggains #loggainunsuccessful #loggaindenied

I wonder how Gary Johnson would do on Sporcle.

She's kind of like, the first lady of the united states and is currently on the campaign trail during a presidential election.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 10:23 AM) I had a positive opinion of Jill Stein prior to this year, and now for the life of me I have no idea why I ever did. She's a clown. Although, she did make a really great point once - she tweeted about Harambe and the need to protect the defenseless, and she was widely mocked for it. She asked "why have you all been giving my Harambe tweets so much attention, and ignoring the times I tweeted about state-sanctioned violence?" Most people would have no answer for that. That's a definite "I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing that this argument fits in with this group of people that I hate, so I'm going to argue at you about them" moment. But she tweeted it at the height of backlash to the backlash about harambe.

I would give this 4 years unless, as with trestman, it unwinds in a way that seems like they have no control. But I would replace Loggains immediately.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) So, are you saying they should have stayed 4-3 in order to preserve Ferguson and Suttons value? edit: nm i see what you are saying. Still though, the Bears switched schemes because they deemed all of their (at that point) current parts to be completely replaceable. Which hasnt been proven wrong Just saying that the climb from Emery is even harder because some of the decisions they made, Emery didn't draft for a 3-4 so his record will look even worse. But, also I don't think Ego is signed anywhere else anyway. Emery didn't draft for a zbs. And the bears coaches decided to go that route even though they know they had no fit. They may very well have made a good decision long term but it makes Emery look worse than if a 4-3 coach came in.

Holy hell just actually read that nightengale story. What a garbage fest.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 09:57 AM) @keithlaw Zach Britton faced Pillar, Barney, Navarro. This is another reason making a one-inning closer Cy Young is just silly. Turn a lineup over. Got to agree with Keith here, pitching only one inning at a time means closers often miss facing good hitters. Plus, a lot of the elite starting pitchers could at least come close to what Britton is doing but the reverse isn't true. How many scoreless inning has Sale had this year? A bit reductive, I know, but this Britton for cy young thing is so ridiculous. It happens every year there is no clear cut winner ->give it to the novelty.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) No, this mess is on Emery and Angelo more than Pace. Biggs was saying this morning that the only players from the Emery drafting era that could be on the team next season are Leno, Jeffrey and Long. You cant judge Pace's drafts yet On the other hand, they decided to go 3-4, which certainly killed ego ferguson and sutton's value in the scheme. The Bears are not much different than a expansion team at this point for how much turnover they've had.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 09:41 AM) Johnson seems like a cool dude, but he's way out of his depth here. Not as out of depth as Trump, but still. His knowledge is superficial at best. I thought the Aleppo gaffe was a dumb story as that is exactly the type of name that someone could pull out of nowhere and people may not find the context. But after that, you'd like to see someone double down on acquiring international knowledge since you know it's going to come up. It's when they fail the second time with no improvement that pisses me off. I'm obviously not voting Johnson, but he does currently have about 10+million Americans who will vote for him. Do them a service and try.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) I don't consider last year to be a real overhaul, though. It was really just Frazier, Lawrie, and scraps. The previous winter was bigger IMO That's his point.

Unless it's all Robin's fault you cannot judge him for any faults. It's the way of the world.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) That quote is also taken out of context. She was speaking about all of the nonsense that was flying around about what was allegedly in the bill Luke death panels and that once the bill was passed, that ridiculousness would die down. She was completely wrong about that of course, but her statement was never that "I have no idea what this bill says" It also hadn't even entered committee at that point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) Really all of these rules are about closing loopholes that certain teams have used over the years. All of these things have reasons for being around other than trying to endanger people's lives. But if you have a rule that's side effect is endangering peoples lives, should really put thing sin perspective about whether that is more important than some competitive balance rules.

So Weld comes out and says Merkel, which I highly doubt, and the 16 campaign where VPs answer for their top of ticket continues.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 07:22 AM) [/b] Exactly how our current administration wants it. The administration vetoed the bill though. So I expect you will see how your silly call back (which also doesn't seem to understand how our government works) doesn't make sense.

That's crazy. In a non novel world where sports writers take the opportunity of a non obvious year to choose an idiotic pick, it would probably be 1. Kluber 2. Sale 3. Verlander 4. Porcello 5. Tanaka

The rumors in 2011 of a player manager of Konerko - would have been a better idea.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) I guess I should add another possible scenario, though an unlikely one: that this was a mole hunt to expose media leaker(s). Which is yet another stupid move, but I suppose it could be reality. That would be an embarrassing strategy for a professional organization, but hey, we saw how the drake laroche fiasco was worked in media. Sounds like the correct answer!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) No, but the outrage is laughable. If you think the Sox don't have the talent to compete, how do you blame the record on the manager? If you think the Sox should be in the playoffs with what they have, then yes, the manager should be fired. I just don't think Shields and Ranaudo and Danks and Albers, and Shuck and Avi not to mention other below average guys, are Robin Ventura's fault. When people are excited about Tyler Saladino, and want him as a regular, it is an indication the talent level is short. I don't think there is a manager managing or a manager in waiting coaching right now that would have had the 2016 White Sox in the playoffs. So, sure. Avi Garcia is bad, but he's not 100% the reason that the sox have had a losing season. We should make sure he's still part of the team next year. Matt Albers was bad, but he wasn't 100% the reason the team was bad this year, he should be in the bullpen forever. James Shields is bad, but, so was everyone, it's ridiculous to think removing him will help. It doesn't matter how you perform, so long as everyone around you is bad too. Then you can't complain!

If this is false, I feel like this is the 3-4 time this season Nightengale has been fed contradictory info. I wonder if he stops using his source.

So, Dick, just to be clear, your main thrust is that there is no way to ever judge whether a manager is good, either by record or by his choices on the field, so we should never fire a manager, correct?

Even though that has rumored to have benefited us, I really find it appalling that we have to risk our scouts lives in order to get a deal on talent.

Even though I said this may be a nice way for robin to go out from sox, they could have easily done it without a press leak. Really dumb.