Balta1701

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) It already has, and Mr. Libby is going to pay for his mistake. Others may as well. As far as this particular leak, fortunately, I see nothing in the article of any substance that Iran wouldn't already know we are doing. But that leak should also be investigated, as soon as the Plame leak investigation and prosecution is complete. Actually...this one, if true, could potentially prove some serious harm. It's entirely possible that, had she personally not traveled to a country in recent years, the leak of her name itself might not have done as much damage as it could have done. She'd mainly been in the U.S. for several years from what's been reported elsewhere, doing work on WMD's. If 1 specific country knew that her work was focused on them, it could expose more undercover operations which could have been designed to mislead that country. Probably not nearly as damaging as the leak of her name itself, which would have immediately exposed every one she had ever met or done business with, but the name of her main focus could expose more specific actions she'd taken, like specific phone calls or people she'd been in contact with through other means.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) Apparently during today's Big Ten teleconference, Davis made some pretty telling statements. He's basically accpeting the end's near for him at Bloomington. He was saying something to the effect that we need one of our own, someone that has played at IU that can be embraced to become coach. I knew it wouldn't be long before Dane Fife got promoted. I would have put that in green...but I wouldn't be terrifically surprised if it happened.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) Brand is the man. One of the worst trades we ever made. I think that trade epitomized the last few years of our previous GM, who's name will not be spoken here so as to avoid further cursing. In fact, that trade and that draft say a lot about his work. When people criticize Pax for things like Drafting Gordon, I sometimes just sit here and think "Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich, or Curry, Chandler, and Fizer." Jay Williams wasn't exactly his fault, and Brand was a good but obvious pick, but man we missed some chances with those picks and trades.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Good call on that, I didnt even think of it. I would have guessed Commcast would be airing it, or maybe even ESPNEWS..... If memory serves usually ESPNews and SC will run a brief highlight clip. I'm hoping CSpan or their website broadcast it.

Anyone know what time the meeting is supposed to be @? I'm sure one of the C-Spans will broadcast it.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 09:06 AM) Would you consider all of those players beasts as well? Well, they probably should put up better than 3 points and 10 rebounds in 30+ minutes to be considered a beast, so you're right on that. Just don't take away from how well Brand has really been playing this year. Man it'd be nice to somehow have him in the middle with Chandler.

Bush nominates totally unqualified man to serve as one of the 7 Federal Reserve governors...guy doesn't have any sort of Ph.D. in economics, but has strong Republican connections and has served directly in this administration. Economists unhappy about the choice, White House not allowing the guy to give interviews while his nomination is up. Usual day I guess. Supposedly, when that nomination goes through, Bush will have appointed all 7 members of the Fed. Governors, and 3 of them will have actively served in his administration, possibly for the first time ever, and definately for the first time in recent memory according to bloomberg.

I've been wearing shorts for 2 weeks. It's been constantly 70s-80s.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 07:16 AM) Honestly. That's just ridiculous. I think its impossible to rate presidencies less than forty years old. I think we're just now finally seeing a full and honest picture of LBJ's years and JFK's years. And even though Nixon would have been impeached and probably convicted of it, it's too early to call him a bottom five president. Same with Carter - despite his screwups as well. And we may find that some of his policies may have ended up being solutions to current problems. As much credit as people gave Reagan, some of the policies he followed led to some serious problems in the 1990's and today. The same for Clinton on either side. While I won't argue that there's potential for our current President to fall on either side of the spectrum according to the side you're on, he sure as hell isn't there yet. And we won't fully know for decades. Actually, I would say that we probably know enough about Nixon at this point to consider him a bottom 5 president, now that we've learned more about his wiretappings, his disasterous efforts to prolong the Vietnam war in an effort to find some sort of "Victory", his dealings with the economy which helped build into the inflation mess that helped bring down Carter, etc. Now that he's dead, his full life story is at least written, and can be judged. On the other hand, it's probably too early to judge the Carter admin yet. First of all he's still alive, but secondly we are still seeing some of the end results of his administration, such as with Iran or the modern energy crisis. 5 years ago you'd have said Carter screwed up royally calling for more renewable energy and things like that, but now we're hearing even Bush forced to say in Public things that Carter was saying in the 70's. Carter's story still isn't complete, nor is Reagans or anyone after him. Nixon, we're starting to get a good idea of the results of his years. But not Carter.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) You're right. It's the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. I read the article wrong - it said that Abramoff had previously claimed an invitation to Crawford. However the article did say there was no more than two dozen people there when that picture was taken. He claims he was invited to Crawford but couldn't attend that one. Supposedly he also has some sort of invitation to prove it. Also 1 more thing to note...this is supposedly just the tip of the iceberg in pictures. I pointed this one out, despite all of it's shortcomings, because it is the first direct evidence that the WH is covering something up in this case. Back a month ago or so, I was reluctant to say the WH was not fully disclosing everything because there was no evidence of it. Now we have multiple witnesses saying the WH isn't telling the truth, and we're starting to gradually see hard evidence. That's a new development.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2329109 As an Indiana alum...why do I feel jealous?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 07:16 AM) Usually beasts dont give up double-doubles with 30 pts. How many people have been able to hold Brand under better control this year, with no other inside help?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 07:21 AM) Yep... Sosa - steroids + RFK Stadium = disaster Borchard would probably hit more homers in that park than Sosa. Maybe KW can work another fleecing of Bowden. Bowden likes those toolsy players. Maybe KW can pull another Alex Escobar for Jerry Owens type trade using Borchard this time. Borchard would probably hit more home runs in RFK than Sosa would in Coors field without Sosa having his special vitamins which prevent him from speaking English in front of Congress.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 07:43 PM) Hmm...an "op-ed" used to mean that readers would get differing viewpoints from the paper's editorials (opposite opinion on the page opposite the editorial page). How is this "op-ed" any different from the usual pap from the NY Times? I always thought it was so-called because it was the page "Opposite" the editorial page, and that had nothing to do with the slant of the piece. In fact, our good friend Wikipedia agrees with me. Interestingly, it would appear that FlaSoxxJim is right here...the Op-ed section is distinctly different from the Editorials section of the NYT, and technically I think the thread is mislabeled. The correct way to say it would be "Interesting Editorial in the NY Times"

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) Good Widger should the personal catcher for Vazquez. Give Pierzynski a day off As long as the Widge doesn't catch Jose. For some reason he just never clicked with the Cubans all last year. The Widge also did a dandy job of catching MB last year. He was the catcher for that 1:43 game if I remember right.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 09:14 PM) I'm still a bit concerned about middle relief, and just a touch concerned about the closer. Nothing specific, just a vague worry about the possibility of "the league catching up to Jenks" and a more real concern about the state of Hermanson's back. It's very nice when these are the only real concerns I can come up with. If things line up the way they are now...Middle relief is vastly stronger than it was last year...since we have a long guy. Last year, when we got into an extra inning game or a pitcher had to come out early, we had no innings eater in the bullpen beyond Viz (until Jenks came around) and the most we could get out of Viz was 2.1 innings. Now we have a guy who we can put into the 8th inning who can still be on the mound with a shutout in the 14th without a single pitching change. That's gonna be NICE. There were a few times in the middle of the season last year where the bullpen got a bit tired just because we had an extra inning game and had to use almost everyone. And I still think you can catch up with a 100 mph guy on occasion, but even if that's all he throws, he's still gonna have an ERA under 3.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 08:30 PM) Why isn't George W. Bush on there? I am not sure whether I would vote for him but he has f***ed things up pretty bad for 2 countries. You guys really think there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? What about the CIA agent who had her cover blown because her husband (who worked for the President) discovered there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and that this was all for oil? The only reason Bush is in office is because his f***ING BROTHER IS THE MOTHERf***ING GOVERNER OF FLORIDA! I'll field this one...George W. Bush isn't up there yet because we're not even close to seeing the end result of his policies. We didn't know how much damage Eisenhower had done in preventing elections in South Vietnam in 1956 for 2 decades afterwards. We didn't know how much damage Reagan had done by funding the Afghan rebels in the 80's or by putting us into heavy debts, and we still don't know how much damage Bush 1 and Clinton have done by cutting off Afghanistan, etc. I don't think it's likely, and I think it's pretty close to impossible, but until Bush 2 is an actual part of history, there's still a chance some of the things he did could turn out right. Say Iraq causes the U.S. to finally develop an alternative energy source to oil? Or Iraq somehow does actually spur democratic movements somewhere in the Middle East. It still is theoreticall possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that some of those radioactive materials that were looted from Iraqi sites could show up along with some looted Iraqi HMX in the middle of Manhattan. We don't know how history will judge people until history is actually written.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) Perhaps they couldn't be sure of every gathering Abramoff attended. It was known he attended holiday events, whereas other dates his presence couldn't be verified. It's not the White House's obligation to prove they haven't crossed paths. Let those who are looking for any semblance of a connection collect their proof. If the evidence is located--and not just grainy photos rivaling Zapruda's film--then you have all the material to completely humiliate the administration (even more). So wait 1 second...you're actually telling me that the White House has no idea who is showing up at White House functions? Well, I guess when you let a male prostitute toss you softball questions in the White House press corps, anything's possible, but Jeez, if there aren't records of exactly who's showing up in close proximity to the most powerful man in the world, I'd be very very worried. They sure better know who the Hell is getting through security. Otherwise we ain't too damn secure. Secondly, you're also forgetting that the White House told the press corps that they would provide a full and detailed accounting of all of the times the President met with Mr. Abramoff. They have refused to follow up on that promise. My real question is this one...when the Enron thing broke, the White House was out in front saying "Yes, Ken Lay called for help, we said there was nothign we could do" and "Yes Ken Lay had a nickname but we didn't have a clue they were breaking the law." That is the exact opposite of their response this time. Why is this one so different?

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 04:39 PM) I was the first one to vote for him. Go me Forgot another Truman one...he also integrated the Army. Good man.

Is Davis unemployed yet?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) That was a "Jordanesque" like performance. Did anyone see that 360 in the air layup Wade pulled off in the first quarter? That was an amazing move. You'll see it on SC tonight, that I guarantee.

I just hope Jim Thome is more honest than people here think Bagwell is.

The first photo of Bush and Abramoff in the same room has been published. This photo does not come from any of the holiday parties which the White House was claiming were the only times Bush ever came into contact with Abramoff. Hence, it comes from a meeting they claimed never happened.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) Pretty good article. Just states what everybody already knew. If all goes well, this is a 100 win team. This team could well be a 100 win team if even if everything doesn't go well....just as long as things don't go TOO badly. If everything goes well, this team could run away and win 105+.

"I plan to take over the state of Texas and turn it into a park where I will hunt the most dangerous game of all. MAN!"