YASNY

From Scott Merkin:

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 10:13 AM) So says Jimmy the Greek. Ah hell. Poor choice of words.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) I see you've made the leap from 'the Sox don't have one of the 5 best Venezuelan prospects according to the book of MILB.com', which is true, to "the Sox have NO good prospects from Venezuela", which may or may not be. Perhaps someone who knows where the Sox' prospects are from can answer that. Do we truly have none? I don't know, but this off season we've signed a few from the Dominican Republic. The DR breeds great ballplayers.

QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) well, my interpretation would be that ozzie doesn't make the draft picks. Kenny Williams does. Sure, Ozzie probably has some say, but Kenny Williams' drafting mantra has been "draft pitching all the time". Makes decent sense, young pitching is the strongest MLB currency, but that would explain why we don't have any of those Venezuelan SS prospects. Additionally, I wouldn't think Ozzie would have THAT much pull with prospects since they wouldn't be playing with him for a few years. He probably has more pull when it comes to free agency and overall managerial acumen. Latin players aren't drafted.

In addition to Tejada's recent steroid problems, he's now had a family tradegy.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:41 PM) first off: His son, Wade, died at age 16. he's had to face and overcome enormous personal tragedy. And yes, his son's death DID set him on this path to run for the senate and really MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the world. Then with his wife's situation, it puts it in even more perspective. John Edwards has NEVER undergone a "convenient change". He's undergone the same changes that affect every American in this country. The loss of loved ones changes people. The prospect of death changes people. Can you deny this? Both of these events in his life have led him to make the decision to take his fight for people who have no voice from NC to the national scale. If he were just saying what it took to win he'd be saying the things that Obama is about hope and optimism and bringing people together. That sells well. Unfortunately none of that is actually practical in a real world situation. Edwards knows this - knows it'll take a fight - and unfortunately he banked on the American people being intelligent enough to realize it too. Unfortunately, they just fell for the good speech. As a father that lost a 15 year old son, I can testify to what a life altering event that is ... not can be, but is. So, yes, I can see where Edwards may have been a trial lawyer for the prestige and profits, then everything changed and he set his focus on making a difference. Is this what happened with him? I don't know. But I can believe it happening that way. Of course, I can also see him deciding that the best way to be influential enough to make a difference was to continue to be successful and ride that success toward his goals. As for Reddy losing all credibility for his comment on Obama's religious 'conversion'? Well, damn, but I've heard snarky remarks about Bush's religious stances for 7 years and how he used religion to get elected in the first place. I guess that would make the whole Democratic Party have questionable credibility.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) YASNY, He's referring to a completely different argument than the current one. Ok, as intersting as this discussion has been ... and it has been very much so ... I'm gonna step aside because I'm getting very damn sleepy. You guys have fun, remain civil, and I'll get caught up tonight.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) If the examples I gave don't tell you that US policy was not supreme at that point, then there is nothing else I can do. You've decided. But isn't his argument such that whether it was supreme at that point, it shouldn't have been due to states rights?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) I'm not sure I understand the connection here. If there is one thing that Bureau has been correct about here, it's that the Union did not originally seek to abolish slavery in fighting the Civil War. I think one can fairly reasonably argue that had the South come to Lincoln in 1862 and said, "we'll come back to the Union, but we're keeping slavery in all the states where it currently resides, however, we will not seek to expand it", Lincoln would have accepted that proposition. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in so many different lights since it's creation that it has really failed to mean much of anything other than that it can be twisted to mean whatever whomever wants it to mean at the time... The only problem with that is that South would then be faced with a situation, where new states coming into the union could not be 'slave states' by virtue of that hypotheitcal agreement. That would have left them with two scenarios, neither of which was beneficial to the South. First, the congress would expand due to the addition of non-slave states, therefore tipping the balance against them at a later date. Also, in the event the first situation came to fruition, then the North would have a much larger area to draw resourses from in the event of a war.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it. touche'

Texas. Moron. I just had a serious case of Deja vu

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) So this is saying that in the next 5-7 years, we should have warmer than average temperatures, followed by a longer period of extremely below-average temperatures, peaking around 2022? This guys is a quack, right? Global warning or Ice Age. It all depends on what you read and what you want to believe. Personally, whatever happens I think it's going to be because of the sun more than anything we insignificant humans can do.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:22 AM) True, but he also hasn't seemed to receive the same level of scrutiny about it, and his teammates don't seem to care about it the way the Cowboys reportedly care. He's also had a ton more postseason success than Romo, so he's earned whatever free pass he receives. He hasn't gotten the scrutiny because he's had the success, which was my basic point to begin with. It hurts Romo's performance, but not Brady's?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:05 AM) Yeah, but that retarded beanbag target should still be available in mid-February and beyond. Maybe you take a few days' worth of beanbagging off and concentrate on the reason that retard noticed you in the first place. Beanbagging hasn't seemed to a problem for Tom Brady.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) No, he didn't -- he clarified and said that while he may not agree with some of his other 'positions', he feels the constitution one is the most important point. You've taken that quote completely out of context. Thank you for that. When he started throwing words like kook and koolaid into the conversation, I politely extracted myself from it and extracted I will remain. I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss an issue with someone that is so .... ummmm .... focused.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-aid. I hear they have both grape AND orange. Thanks for the super intelligent, well thought out response. No need in continuing what I thought was going to be a decent discussion. Have a good day.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) But you can't ignore his other positions because you are enamored with one of them. They all will have an effect on the country were he to actually by some miracel get elected. You may like how he governs in regards to the constitution, but if his financial policies bankrupt the nation faster than it already is going, or his foreign policy ideas cause the worldwide economy to collapse, that is important too. There are other candidates that talk in terms of states rights and the constitution (Fred), that don't sound quite as out there on other issues. And I am sure there are plenty of kooks who happen to believe the constitution is the backbone of our nation and is paramount to the continued well being of this great republic. Having that belief alone does not make you a sane individual. You know what Alpha, I can do exactly what you suggest I can't. I'm a citizen and a voter and I choose to vote for whoever I so desire for whatever reasons I desire. I happen to think that the fact we have drifted away from the letter of the constitution is most pressing issue facing this nation and that getting our focus back on it is the single most important issue of this election. Everything else is just fodder for talk radio and cable news, in comparison.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) That speaks very highly of his management and oversite skills. Nice cop-out answer. You know, while Mr. Paul may have some ideas that sound good, he has some that just sound nutty. And while there are many people on here that are passionate about their candidate , you two on here just sound like total kooks. There is zeal, and there is zealotry. You two fit the latter. I don't know what you consider a kook, but if you consider someone who happens to believe the constitution is the backbone of our nation and is paramount to the continued well being of this great republic is a kook, then I'm a kook. This kook also doesn't happen to give a rat's ass what anybody else thinks of his opinions. There is not one other candidate emphasizing the constitution as they campaign, and after the past 7 years the constitution should be on the front burner for all candidates. The others are just telling me that it's going to be just more of the same. As I said, I'm not totally enamored with all Dr. Paul's positions. However, the one that matter the most to me, the constitution, is the one that Dr. Paul is right on about.

PRESS RELEASE: SSRC 1-2008 Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change January 2, 2008 Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era. Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again. “We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.” As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.” When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.” Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.” More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: www.spaceandscience.net The previous NASA announcement was made at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) Here's the problem, we aren't interested in "any" democracy. We're interested in democracy that stands with us. We are more interested in tryrants who align with us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then we are in democratically elected governments (Palestine). And by including Iraq in a broad brush with the rest of the extremist muslim world, you kinda point out how bad of a choice that Iraq really was for the bulkhead of a new revolution. For all its annoyances, Iraq was relatively secular, and not at all an issue when it came to transglobal terror. The truth is, if we really wanted this neocon revolution, the place to have started it would have been Iran. I think IROI support within its own nation is fairly shallow and could have resulted in a lot better outcome. It also would have been strategically better by continuing to isolate Iraq, create a physical connection to Afghanistan. However, it would have been harder to make happen... so not really an option. I don't say this often, but ... I agree with you.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) I read an article on Wired.com that totally ripped him apart and I think it was fairly accuraite. if you want to read it... head on over here. He ripped him in tone and it was an accurate portrayal of his views, but personally I like his views. Isolationism? Not entirely, but we certainly need to pull back and stop trying to police the world. Abortion? Not a deal breaker for me either way, but I lean toward giving that issue back to the states. He then goes into states rights like it's an archaic idea. We have way to much federalism. It's time to get back to states rights, and within the states, back to a local level.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) Claudell Washington He had a lot of talent but just played lazy (or looked like it anyway). 17 errors in RF over about 2 years, and those are balls he got to. There had to be a ball per game than anyone else would have caught but he would loaf and take it on a bounce. Selfish at the plate, he hit 2nd most of '79 and accumulated 2, count 'em, sacrafice bunts. It was all about Claudell, and it always looked like he wanted to be anywhere in the world except Chicago. 30 years ago and it still bothers me. Now that you mention it, I agree with you. Washington always appeared to be dogging it.

He was another Dave Nicholson.

Some players sucked because they just sucked or got too old to be productive. I don't dislike those guys because it was just not case of not giving a s***. Look at Koch, for example. He was bad but he was man enough to say he was sucking and he did his best. Navarro would give up 10 runs and complain about the lack of offensive support. f*** him and any like him. If someone was on this team that didn't produce but they gave the effort and had the right attitude, I can't dislike a person like that. Hell, if I put on the softball uniforms the Sox wore in the early 80's and tried to perform on that stage, I would have majorly sucked. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have given 110% to make the Sox a winning team. I can't hold the fact someone sucked just because they didn't have the talent agianst them. If they gave their all, I appreciate them.

There are aspects of Dr. Paul's agenda I don't like. I don't think we can just pull out of Iraq, and let them deal with whatever happens. We shouldn't have gone in, but now that we have, we owe those people something other than complete abandonment. However, Dr. Paul is the only one I hear that is emphazing the fact that we have a constitution and it should be first and foremost when considering what course of action we should take. One of the big complaints we heard from the left was that Bush continually attempted to, or effectively, as the case may be, circumvented the constitution. I agree 100% with that fact. Bush scares me and I won't stop being scraed until the MF'er is out of office. But, then you consider at the Democratic party and they have also circumvented ... wait, let me call a spade a spade, and I'm talking both parties here .. they didn't circumvent the constitution, they f***ING ingnored it. Bush ignored it by going into Iraq. LBJ ignored it by going into Viet Nam. Bush lied about WMD. LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. Neither party represents the American people. They represent the dollar. Nothing more nothing less. Yet, they have made the dollar almost worthless and yes, both parties are guilty. I'm sorry folks, I'm just going to come out and say it. The powers that be have an agenda and that agenda is undermine this great nation. It is to make the constitution null and void. It is put John and Jane Doe American into virtual slavery in order to line their pockets. Until we stand up and listen to, support and rebel against the status quo by putting someone like Dr. Paul in office, then we are basically f***ed. And when it happens that we are f***ed, and I believe it will, don't say I didn't tell you so.