mr_genius

2 down

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 3, 2007 -> 04:46 PM) Don't forget the Sox lost a game because of that precious Ivy on the walls. wrigley field is just an all around crappy ballpark.

Very questionable strike out call on Howard

sign bonds, then all we need is a few more DH's to be really good. Have 4, maybe 5 DH's on the team and we're ready to rock. Defense sucks, so does speed, and upgrading the bullpen is a bad idea. The 2005 sox won, but that season sucked. I much prefer the classic "softball team" white sox lineup. Plus, if Ozzie has any problems with Bonds, get rid of Ozzie and make Barry manager/player.

4-2 rockies

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) I'm trying to find some way to turn this into a pun, I just can't really get beyond the fact that 10% of this nation's pork spending would fund the Iraq war for less than a week. the Iraq war has possibly been the biggest waste of money in US history. I have a feeling the whole thing will end up running about $1,000,000,000,000 and for what? oil? please, i wish. we aren't getting any oil. the whole idea of "nation building" is being shown for what it really is.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) Not fair. The New York TYimes could have published a guest editorial for free A massive, full page, pro Democrat bumper sticker slogan guest editorial... I'm actually surprised they didn't do that.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 2, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) 37 for Giuliani??!?!?! wow. see, you should vote for him

If you can't tell, Newt Gingrich thinks VERY highly of himself.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 07:06 PM) Moveon.org is a regular NYT customer, in that they put full page ads there fairly often to make political statements (i've gotten more than a few emails from them asking for money to do exactly that). It is in the NYT's interest to make sure Moveon.org is a happy customer, just as it is in their interest with any business that buys an awful lot of ad space. Ah i see. so i guess it's ok for any media outlet to get away free or highly discounted ads to any political organization who they value as a good customer we'll see how long you think that practice is OK if FOX's main station starting charging the GOP 1/5 the price for ads, because "they are valued customers"

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) I sold ads for a living. My bet is the sales guy just wanted to make the deal happen. but wouldn't the massive discount have cut into his commission?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 07:56 AM) . Advertising is not an editorial decision. Do you think the editors look at the Macy's ad each week? So you're comparing a decision a sales rep made to Rush's comments? So Rush is equal to a sales rep for the NYT? OK, maybe we can agree on something. actually the NY times has standards for any ad placed. these ads are reviewed before being published. for one thing, personal attack ads are not supposed to be accepted. a lot of people there knew about the ad before it was published. the whole "oh, just some salesman did this" is a pretty funny excuse.

QUOTE(bmags @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:35 AM) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/26mov...amp;oref=slogin huh? Oh yes, of course. my bad. They will admit that moveon.org got a price break that it shouldn't have, but they are using the standard excuse of "laziness and a simple billing error". I should have known better to credit them with any type of transparency.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) I thought one was a paid for advertisement produced by moveon.org and Rush was himself talking?? I guess I'm confused now. It was a political ad that the New York Times gave a massive discount to because they agreed with the politics of thus mentioned ad. That is an illegal campaign contribution. The times even admitted this after they got caught.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) The "outrage" over Mr. Limbaugh's comments are, as far as I'm concerned, a totally fair response to that manufactured outrage. It's actually probably a worthy look at how biased the media is; compare the coverage that Moveon's ad gets to the coverage Limbaugh's latest statement gets, and let's see which side winds up getting the coverage. (Somehow, I doubt that the condemning Limbaugh bill which will be introduced in the Senate on Monday will go anywhere, but we'll see) So are you admitting that the Rush Limbaugh show and the New York Times have basically dropped to the same levels? It just shows the state of that once respected newspaper.... they should now be held to the same standards as a political shock jock.

Well, since 2005 I have pretty much ignored the cubs, don't care if they win or lose. however, my cub hating ways seem to have returned. i am going to enjoy rooting against them in the playoffs. will be fun. the cubs do suck and i hope they lose first round (lose in spectacular fashion, like being swept).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) I think the media is getting the script down for how to embarrass Barack Obama. The instructions are: "1. Ask him a question. 2 Let him answer." fixed it for you. so much for the media generated "super star". i haven't seen a single debate response or speech from the guy that has been at all impressive.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 10:53 PM) I do. Especially if he wins the Peace Prize. Rumor is, if it happens, he drops the hammer on the campaign next month. And he'd crush Hillary. Whoa, that would be crazy. Gore vs Clinton battle. "You can put it on the board, YES!"

Federal Income Tax rates for a single person during B.Clinton presidency 15% for salary up to $25,000 28% for salary up to $61,400 31% for salary up to $128,100 36% for salary up to $278,400 39.6% for salary up to more than $278,400 What they are now 10% up to $7,825 15% up to $31,850 25% up to $77,100 28% up to $160,850 33% up to $349,700 35% over $349,700 When they clam that there were only "Tax cuts for the wealthy" they are basically claiming someone making less $25,000 is "wealthy". Dems will raise everyone's taxes by large margins if they are going to revert to the B.Clinton tax plan. But it's not a tax increase, it's just a rate adjustment according to Charlie Rangel. lol Oh, and those Tax rates were without universal government funded health care and the free $5,000 given to each new kid being born or whatever else H.Clinton comes up with to get people to vote for her. Tax rates could balloon well past the levels during the B.Clinton admin. B.Clinton also holds a lot of responsible for NAFTA, so I don't see why all these unions are so "pro-Clinton". NAFTA kinda screwed them.

This is such a bad idea http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1 So, Hillary's main campaign strategy: offer everyone free money, health care, housing, and anything else they might need. Sounds like when Homer Simpson ran for garbage commissioner.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) R-A-T-I-N-G-S. This guy is a jackass. Thank you, and have a nice day. You think he's the best, don't lie Remember when he was on the best show ever

The best part about the whole thing is the way O'reilly reacts. He goes crazy on his show and keeps talking about it on air, calls CNN and yells at em, and basically just drags the thing out

Imagine if Bill O'reilly started started doing this http://www.ifilm.com/profile/breitbart/video/2829104

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) looks like the Factor is on its way to being Don Imussed. FOX news is not going to fire Bill O'reilly over this. I read the whole thing and I think it's hilarious that this is a "HUGE" deal now. Classic.

Everyone is racist except me.