mr_genius

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Dec 11, 2007 -> 11:22 PM) Well, it'll start closing really fast if the make lousy trades like Sheets & Hall for Crede, Mac, and Gio.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 08:34 PM) Sign Prior and trade him to the Angels with Haeger for Garland. KW using recursion as a trading technique. see, he did have a plan.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 06:53 AM) 6 - Trade Jose Contreras (plus pick up as much of the deal as needed) to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Chin - Lung Hu (ship off another prospect if need be). contreras has no trade value right now. the only way you could get anything for him is let him start the season and if has a good first half, then trade him

i would sign him to a short term deal. at least as a backup plan in case Contreras, Danks, or Floyd totally flop. our starting rotation isn't exactly something that gives me a lot of confidence. you never know, he might beat out floyd or contreras in spring training for a starting spot.

QUOTE(JohnCangelosi @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Ok, it's clear the offseason strategy has fallen through. It's too late to make any desperate moves and try to force a square peg into a round hole with some I say we go with BA in CF this year. I really do not think Brian Anderson is a MLB ready player, but who cares. might as well roll the dice. who else we going to get? All the free agent center fielders are signed. you never know, this could be his breakout season and if he sucks, as usual, meh.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 05:42 PM) The Indians getting that closer only helps them to compete with the Sox.....

per drudge Huckabee

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 10, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) I knew they were toast when I walked into a CompUSa needing an I/O card for a PC and the clerk didn't have clue, nor did the manager. I miss Egghead Software haha i remember Egghead. that one and Babbage's.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) So its going to be Huckleberry Hound... Yick. if it is i hope he loses in a total blowout.

here we go again http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/jonesboro/afhuckabee08.asp Huckabee

relying on Contreras and Floyd is a risky move. Hell, if Danks, Contreras and Floyd put up similar ERA's to what they did last season the starting rotation is crap.

anyone else see Giuliani on meet the press? I thought he did poorly.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) Hey the Sox picked up $50k in the rule 5. KW has more than $.50 now. nice now we go out and FINALLY sign Sandy Alomar jr.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) I feel like I'm talking with Steve Forbes when he was running for President. Except instead of hearing "FLAT TAX! FLAT TAX!", all you say is "ITS EASY! ITS EASY!". Where are you getting that? And who said the reasoning is different? Saddam's regime at its worst pales in comparison to the loss of life happening in Darfur. How is that not clear? you are the one saying the it is "completely different", then you come back with "well i never said the reasoning was different". as far as the "easy" comment, you are the one saying it's ok to do with little risk. i'm saying it's NOT OK TO DO EVEN WITH LITTLE RISK. make sense? /done with thread

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) If the money were the same -- which I think it could be -- I'd much rather have Andruw Jones over Rowand. definitely. but i think jones is looking for a lot more.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) I never said, nor ever would say, that it would be easy. That is you who keeps trying to put words in my outh. And I have said since before the war that the "rewards" were minimal, and more than offset by the negative consequences, let alone the risk. You said "low risk", which in a military operation means less casualties and cost. aka, easier than a big blood expensive war. it would be really great if we could go, i don't know, 10 years without starting a war. I know thats setting the bar pretty low, but gotta start somewhere.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:32 PM) Not even remotely comparable. I didn't even make an argument like #2. And 1, 3 and 4 are all about scale. Saddam's regime did nothing even remotely on the scale of the Darfur situation. Not in the same ballpark. so 1,3 and 4 are the same but just about scale... but the reasoning is totally different? that makes absolutely no sense. you are still coming back to your 'if it's easy to do it's ok' argument.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) None of them. None of those applied to Iraq. yes they do. the arguments for Iraq were 1) Saddam is dangerous, should be taken out before he gets worse 2) will be easier to deal with now than later 3) free the Iraqi's from oppression 4) Saddam is a mass murderer. sounds a lot like the invade Sudan arguments.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) LOL. Nice try. That was the Iraq argument, not Sudan. I absolutely think there should be a risk-reward type mindset though, and one based on serious, considered, research NOT LIMITED TO military considerations. With Iraq, the risk was exactly what lots of people, including CIA analysts, Pentagon planners, diplomats all over the world, lessons repeated throughout history and Bush's own father for heaven's sake, had been saying forever. Occupying Iraq is a huge mistake, and was bound to cost thousands of American lives, huge numbers of Iraqis, and spend virtually all the politcal global capital the US had. The reward they were going for was something along the lines of: a democratic regime in the Middle East can serve nicely as a base for out attempts to mete out extremist terror (and some other factors, like getting Saddam out of power, having direct access to oil, etc.). Seems pretty imbalanced in favor of NOT doing it, to me. Sudan does have some of the same risks of instability and terror, no doubt. But, you aren't in the Middle East adjacent to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia... you aren't planning to overthrow the government... you don't have a country nearly as loaded with military hardware... you would have much more non-US support to bear the brunt of the effort... simply put, the risk factors are much lower. And the rewards? Stopping a genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, by itself, is pretty damn big to me. But beyond that, you also have the exact opposite of Iraq - you are seen in a Muslim country, in an impoverished area, as actually doing something positive. That means better relationships with all sorts of Muslim countries, and that means a dramatic decrease in anti-American sentiment, which means a lot less terror and violence risk for us. Further, the US makes a real inroads in Africa, where China has been smart enough for a while now to be investing money in as a great future source of natural and human resources. I am not 100% sure Sudan would have been a great idea, but I have no doubt it would have been a better alternative than Iraq in pretty much every way possible, and at a substantially lower cost of money and lives (in my view). your argument is still 'if it easy to invade, do it'. The easy being low risk. There was supposed to be high reward for Iraq as well. Sorry, I don't think it is our militaries purpose to be invading countries that haven't done anything directly to us. US should not be world police

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) And obviously the US cannot right every wrong. But I've got to tell you, I think its in its best interests to deal with the really big ones, particularly when there are clear positives that can come from doing so. And I'd call the genocide hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions, pretty darn big. sounds like the reasons we got for invading Iraq.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) Stabilization of Sudan with military support would have taken a far smaller force, and gotten much greater international involvement, than the Iraq War. So explain to me how that's worse than Iraq? I never said it was worse. Both were/are bad ideas IMO. Oh, so if it's easy to invade a country that is doing bad stuff we should go for it.. I see.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) 2 days ago weren't people saying that if Sudan did decide to try this person that a military option was the clear solution? I'm sure they were.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) I wasn't so much talking about hindsight with regard to Sudan. I can't say I was out there yelling about Darfur in 2001 or anything. I was pointing out more the fact that the poor decision-making that led to the Iraq War cost us a lot more than just the war itself - it handcuffed us from being able to do other things that could have been really good for us, and for the rest of the world. There is no way we should start invading African countries. Why does it always have to be the US doing all of this? The US militaries purpose is not to 'right every wrong' that goes on in the world. It just amazes me that people still want to do this Iraq kind of stuff all across the world. I really think it's time for us to take more of a 'hands off' approach. ps. It just shows the level of abuse our country is at when it comes to using our military. Even the peaceful liberals want to blow stuff up, invade countries, and kill people. The main point of contention? Which country to invade. This post isn't directed towards any one poster in particular, just the overall atmosphere in the country as a whole.

recent hillary attack sounds like she is talking about herself

For SHAME! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_...ation_in_debt_4 this debt is out of control and spending is horrible. and it looks like the GOP is about to nominate GW Bush II (Huckabee). i wish that one of these guys would think that Jesus told them to lower the debt. seems like that is the only way they would do anything about it.