BigSqwert

Great. A swing away from losing.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 07:35 PM) sweet DP and as a bonus, we bean swisher Meh. We hit his shoelace.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc. The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context. Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it. So what is the definition of voting for the candidate that you best align with?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:29 PM) Actually, that's the definition of a protest vote. The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change what it is. And apparently you are in fact, loose on your principles as you continue to vote for people who do little to nothing to address issues you've been advocating on this site for years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works. I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate. I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate if they were proposing progressive change.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) So...yes, you're doing the "Including 2007 and excluding 2005 trick". Wouldn't the 2007 stats be more relevant, seeing that only 3 members of the 2005 squad remain on the team? Maybe we should go back to 1983 since they were awesome. Besides, he included the 2006 team which won 90 games.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) Sqwert sed me the link where I can buy those Sox bikini strings you have showing on your avatar. If my wife won't wear them I will. That's actually a picture of me standing in thigh high, oil-slicked water in the gulf coast after the BP disaster.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) In a 3 way race between Obama, Trump, and your ideal candidate, where your ideal candidate was likely to split the vote with Obama, would you be content with Donald Trump as your President for 4 years? It'd be pretty sad if Obama couldn't secure enough votes on his own to beat out a birther.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) I'd rather see DeAza playing than Pierre....wouldn't care if Beckham went down to AAA for a spell...wouldn't care if Lillibridge got released and Milledge came back up and Rios went to the bench. It's a damn shame that Jordan Danks can't hit. Love the new avatar. LOL

I look forward to all the DNC calls asking for money in 2012. I can't wait to laugh at them over the phone.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Thats fine, but its the equivalent of sitting on the sidelines while the game is being played, hoping that by yelling enough youll change the game, instead of suiting up and actually having an impact. The only way the system is going to change is by some one in the system. The US model was not created with the idea that there must be 2 parties, it just happens that there are only 2 parties. Why it went this way, who knows, but it has. And Im not even sure that I like other systems more, Im not necessarily fond of lots of small parties that the bigger party sells out to, to get the few necessary seats it needs for a majority. How is voting for a 3rd party candidate considered sitting on the sidelines?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more. They controlled everything from 2008 to 2010 and were complete failures.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) I will. Feel great when a bunch of old people die because your candidate wasn't perfect. I hear all of these "The sky will fall!!" predictions every 4 years. I heard them when Kerry was running in '04 and lost and somehow we're all still here.

And I hope there's a Dem primary in 2012.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) not compromising your beliefs does not mean you cut off your nose to spite your face. You can either be productive, or a petulant child. But when president Palin rolls into office and starts passing archaic s***, defunds health care and education, and anything remotely progressive just because it's progressive, I don't want to see you complain one f***ing time. Because you put her there. I will never again vote for someone just because of their party. And I feel great about myself knowing that. Call me whatever name you want.

QUOTE (Andrew @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) In the name of the Kenny, the Ozzie, and the Walker......Allin.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) I'd rather not compromise my beliefs and ideals to end up with a slightly less-terrible-than-Republicans alternative. Democrats do not represent my politics in theory or in practice. Continuing to vote for Democrats will not get us closer to any real progressive agenda, and so I won't vote for them. ^This. Who the f*** are they even trying to court with their actions? Conservatives?

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) I was being sarcastic (sorry about the lack of green), but it's hard to have a good feeling at all about this series. You're telling me it's difficult for you to have faith when the team is playing .364 baseball?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Ballots arent for being pragmatic, they are for winning and losing. Then I won't help either of the 2 main party candidates win. I guess that equates to them 'losing'....my vote at least.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) Honestly, I would rather see roster moves than coaching changes. I think it sends a more powerful message, imo. I wouldn't mind a combination of both.

I pray for the day that someone like Kucinich is considered a favorite. I don't care if you think I'm crazy.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) Na, I see plenty of vaginas covered by Sox logos when I watch the games. It does nothing for me anymore.

A sharp decrease in votes from progressives for Obama could also signal to the party that we're fed up with them ignoring us.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) How did this go so bad so fast? And how can you say you're not going to call a team meeting to address the death-spiral because then it would "seem like you are panic"? Well Ozzie, sometimes it's good to panic, like when the house is on fire, your girlfriend's husband comes home early or your team has suddenly gone into a cataclysmic funk and people face the very real possibility of losing their jobs. Maybe "panic" is exactly what this team needs, cuz "no panic" ain't f***ing working either. I'm convinced that they could get rid of Ozzie, stick a mannequin in the dugout with a Sox cap on its head, and manage the game asking viewers to text lineups and game decisions via the Aflac poll and get the same or better results.