Misplaced_Sox

LOL@semi difficult ya

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) So Ozzie deliberately set up Jenks to fail yesterday as well, because he hadn't pitched for a week since the ASB? These are professional athletes paid to play a kid's game, why should they be treated like babies and their failures rationalized? He just didn't get the job done. If there's a BA/Aaron Poreda/Sean Tracey "conspiracy," why does Ozzie keep playing Gordon Beckham, a rookie, every single game? I dont want to gang up on you but that's flawed logic. One is a Veteran who has been in that predicament before and has experience to lean on, the other is a green rookie who has never pitched in a meaningful situation at the bigs coming from a starter to a reliever.

Can we agree how silly though it is to take your least used, rookie, in a situation like that when, Ozzie has never put him on in a situation like that ever prior? This was Ozzie's F you

Pena cant even pitch in a mop up role

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) Oh, so put him in the exact position you criticized Ozzie putting him today? One was bases loaded, one is with a man on, much different situations. Did you really think Poreda was going to succeed int hat situation, never being in that situation, with how much he has played?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) He walked both guys he faced. It was awful. Do you think Ozzie should put him in the rotation so the other manager can stack his line-up against him and do you think that will all of a sudden make Poreda throw the ball over the plate? If he pisses his pants because the bases are loaded on July 18th in the 5th inning against the Baltimore Orioles, he's not ready to play for a contender in the major leagues. He needs to post an APB on the 97 mph fastball he was supposed to possess. I was not advocating putting him in the starting lineup without giving more repetitive chances out of the bullpen. To see if he could gradually adjust to MLB level of play. You know like one of the 10,000,000 times Ozzie goes to Linebrink on zero rest with a runner on, put in Poreda. Build confidence dont break it down, how many times does breaking someone really work?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) There is no excuse for Wise being on this team over Fields. Field can (arguably) play 3b, 1b, and Lf. Wise can play the OF, can't hit, or field, and is not a former #1 of the organization. Where is fields, he was getting hot for a while and then... nothing. Reminded me of the hot streaks Brian would go through and then he would go mysteriously missing.

Well this proves we need a long man, maybe we can audition Torres from within, or see if El Duque wants a crack at it..... no Im not joking.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) So Ozzie is an idiot for not using Poreda and an idiot for using him. This was the exact opportunity I was talking about in a different thread where Poreda would have an opportunity to earn Ozzie's trust. Sorry, getting guys out in AA is a lot different than getting them out in the majors. In fact, Poreda would have an ugly ERA if he were in the position a lot of people want him to be in, that being in the rotation. He had a chance today and walked both guys he faced. I'm all for ripping Ozzie setting guys up to fail, but 2 batters 2 walks, that's on Poreda. So you think putting Poreda in a situation in which he had to be perfect, with location, with the game on a line, needing two outs with the bases loaded..... Is a good test. I would see a little bit of your point if he was getting even semi-regular work in a real game setting, not a spot start in some weak situation every week. If you haven't put Poreda in regular spots with runners on, and the game on the line, why do you make the jump when he has sat for almost two weeks into that spot unless you are Ozzie, just being Ozzie.

Why are people praising Ozzie for this move with Poreda? This was a terrible move and Ozzie just sticking it to the fans media, I cant wait for him to tout Wise lone HR for plugging him in today either. Ozzie is the mental midget, he slams the kid in the media, never plays him. Then says I'll show you and puts in a situation to fail. I dont know many rookies who would succeed in that situation at all. That was seriously classless indeed, and it show that Ozzie Guillen could never handle a youth movement because he always has to prove something to these "kids" always trying to tear them down. I kind of feel the way he treats BA, Fields, the other young players through the years has been terrible and has done more harm, mentally, physically.... then good. We are just lucky that Beckham is such a sure thing and confidence in abundance that Ozzie dumb comments couldn't even dent him.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:02 PM) Listen carefully - you just called another poster "a real ignorant person". You need to tone it down, or you can just stop posting in here. Your choice. Back to your material information... as you have pointed out, the projects were a really poor design for everyone involved. Now we have the new plans, in great part pushed by Mayor Daley, to integrate income levels in housing. I am sure that is no perfect solution, but, be honest here - are you really saying its not an improvement from the cell block-like projects? You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now. You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have. So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there. He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises. I am done with this thread.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) And what does it matter that the developers, which did not even include Obama, paid $1 for the property? I used to work for the Mayor's Office and the City sold vacant/abandoned/damaged properties all the time for $1. The City often can't afford to rehabilitate the property itself, so it transfers ownership to someone in the private sector who is eligible for federal tax credits and they make it happen that way....there's nothing shady about the fact that the land for that development was bought for $1. It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty. You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from. Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 07:39 PM) You know, these are great and all...but honestly, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have had great experiences with all the candidates. The Clinton's are the masters of this technique, and it's been on display since Bill's campaigns and his SOTU addresses. Frankly, I think it's gotten quite old. As for your repeated references to Obama's role in tearing down the projects, don't you think you are oversimplifying things a bit? There are so many factors that have gone into whether to leave those projects in place or what to do with them that we could spend days discussing that issue. Yet you are trying to pin the entire thing on Obama, as if he just strolled in there, snapped his fingers, and the wrecking balls were let loose. I'm not sure what the answer is regarding what to do with those areas, but one thing is clear: they were replete with drugs, violence, and absolute poverty for a long period of time. Whether it was right for the residents to be displaced, I'm not sure. But those were certainly not areas where anything very positive could happen at all. The odds of anyone raised there of living a healthy, stable, and happy upbringing were quite minute. My disagreement with Obama was not with tearing down the projects, they needed to be torn down, but my disagreement was with the initial, and agreed upon by residents that they would have homes in these new mixed income building, at least a 75% mix of former project inhabitants, and the rest sold market to other non income capped buyers. This was a deal that Obama worked on as a lawyer, co brokered with Rezko holdings, and they changed that to 30% housing for them and 20% "workable income" houses. Workable income being loosely based upon 65,000 for single 120,00 for married, which no on at Cabrini Green made. they were brokered out on behalf of Obama and his law firm, and Rezko made much more money. How is this good politics? I lived in the Robert Taylor Homes, also a rezko holding which Obama's law firm brokered from under the inhabitants. He came to our little part of the woods and made a big speech how we wouldnt end up like Cabrini Green residents, but we did. The poor shuttled off to Tinley, Oak Lawn, Cottage Grove. Away from their jobs, their family, their friends, instead of in the planned new mix use income homes they promised. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/4253...obama13.article You need to have lived it, to understand it. I made it out, not so many did.

Another strong piece of anecdotal evidence of Hillary's strength and endeavors for others. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2 Where are the Obama anecdotes? Despite the ones he riffs from Martin Luther King, Langston Hughes, or Paul Laurence Dunbar. Better yet I say you Chicagoan go track down the Cabrini Green residents they moved around the state and ask them about Obama's "change." I am still in contact with ten people from there if you want an address.http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:48 PM) Those last few sentences are hitting what I am going to mention- sure, she gets labeled as a b**** because she can be so focused and ruthless....but she also can get away with crying whereas a man could not have. It's absolutely a matter of what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of women, just as we have been judging men on what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of men... Men cry in office are called patriotic, and brave. Women cry and they are weak and emotional. I remember several media outlets clapping with optimism the tears bush would shed over spicy kung pao meal. Said "it makes him more human, like us."

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:36 PM) John Quincy Adams had one of the worst presidencies of anyone in the history of the United States. I think it is just how you look at it. He gave the first real push for centralized banking, and whole country infrastructure support that helped this country grow so fast and become, pretty wealthy. He should get a lot of credit for building the foundation of our trade lines and having the foresight of the Monroe Doctrine. And Henry Clay is one of the most fascinating politicians ever and I'm a big fan of his, who was a huge supporter of John Quincy Adams so it could not have been all that bad. I think I can rattle of ten worse presidents easily prob 20 and not even hit J.Q.A.

I would also like to point out the dynasty of the Adams Family, no not lurch or thing. John Adams, and yes John Quincy Adams. Sometimes family members are not so bad. They do bring differing politics, and have different views on policy but sometimes it works.. I think the monarchy of Clinton comments is well, pretty dumb and baseless.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson. If Ken Star had 10% the evidence that the defense had on OJ, Bill would have been hung and quartered then dragged through the mud by his entrails. Do you really believe they missed anything. They had the mandate by the Senate controlled GOP. Nothing, Nada, nopers, zeroooooo.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:15 PM) And that was the first time this has ever been done by a President of this country while it was at war... Well, no, because I remember McCarthyism. I was not born then but studied it. It was unlawful then as it would be now. You know how that era ruined people, and others went missing. Just because there was a presidence doesn't mean that taking away our constitutional right is well, right. I also remember the Korean War they rounded up Asian's and put them in concentration camps, U.S citizens at that. Doesn't make that right, more so in the modern world.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:11 PM) Well, look in the mirror - this is a thread about Clinton's positives and negatives, and you are trying to deflect blame for Whitewater by pointing at GWB. I was challenging why Whitewater was a negative, considering they found no connection of wrong doing. It is the media and the GOP that keep that fraud gate floating the conscious of America. It is like being accused of a crime but then found not guilty, yet the public still perceives you as a criminal.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:08 PM) Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios. And a case to go to war should only involve the will of the popular opinion to a limited extent anyway. Actually the basis of the constitution is that the Unified Republic (The States) have the say in the overwhelming say in policy. And thus at the state level/districting open caucusing determines laws or acts which are represented proportionally to appear at the federal level on their behalf. But U.S has gotten bigger and the state's power has been reduced so this process has become outdated. Though we still caucus at some primaries. And I was not basing law on the "majority". I said the majority of support publicly was from their constituents supporting their reps vote on the Iraq resolution. If 20% of your emails are against the war but 80% are for the war, you vote with the majority of the people. That is how modern representation works now.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:59 PM) Don't forget Whitewater and the mystery surrounding Vince Foster's supposed suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vince_Foster Tried that, done that. Kenneth Star and company went through every paper, every note, every person they knew, family and neighbors and found no wrong doing. Trust me they wanted to find it, thats why Ken Star was hired, it was his life mission, when they could not peg jack they went for the sex story. Shows how desperate they were. We have not even given the slightest interrogation into Bush and his leaked CIA informant, or his suprise firing of 7 DA's over voter fraud, or his mass deletion of emails, over his improper use of torture, or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus. But yes lets keep talking about Whitewater in which they were exonerated from. Do you see the mentality that the media has you thinking. Dont look over there, look over here.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) I was 100% against it as was pretty much everyone I associated with back then. It doesnt matter what you think, they dont make laws based on what you and your friends thinks, only the majority of the populace. Go back and google the opinion polls on Iraq after 9/11 into the the Iraq war. You will be surprised. I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) Does anyone vote for a war and hope it will never end? I'm voting for this war and I never will want it to end? No matter what happens? I would hope that everyone who votes for a war also immediately works to end the war as quickly as possible. I can not believe anyone here thinks otherwise. Btw on a separate note, I just want to say how much BS the Iraq war resolution was. The Bill which Hillary voted for is archived on the Congress website. You can read it for yourself. It does not give the power to go to war, it gives the ability to choose war if and only if A. Weapons Inspectors are not allowed back in B. Nuclear programs must fall under UN guidelines and control C. Security cameras must be re installed in Nuclear buildings D. Involvement with Kurdish rebels must cease. E. Must have the confidence and vote of the UN Bush did not follow these guidelines anyway, he declared war when he made up a story that the Iraqi government was close to getting yellow cake uranium. Circumventing all the rules and using his executive power to call war. That is the story. Every viable candidate for President voted for the Bill. Every top official supported the Bill. The American population favored war on Iraq by 75% of the population at the time. Just because Obama stood up in heavily democratic Chicago during a speech and said I dont support this decision does not mean he would not have voted for the same Bill if he was in Congress. Why does this make him anti war? He has openly voted for Ya for ever Bill extending and funding the war. If he was so anti war, why not filibuster against it like Jack Murtha? It is a big Lie. If you Google Iraq and Obama you will find articles praising the vote, and against the vote, quotes for the war and against the war. He is the definition of cherry picking positions.

Im going to start with a short introduction statement and really really think about... The Clintons are anti establishment : Reasoning A: They are never much supported by the power DC families (Kennedy's, Kerry, Daschele and power brokers et el) B: They are democrats from Arkansas and through their white house stay they were seen as Hill Billies from the media and the like C: The establishments pick Of Obama and the funding of him against Clintons D: The tidal flux of Pro media praise for Obama and light look at his own smear. Now let's talk about Hillary's convictions She was worked non stop for UHC. During Bill's presidency she was stopped by drug and insurance companies with help from the GOP, Harry and Loiuse campaign anyone. They put fear in men and women that UHC was a step towards communism and that it could not be affordable. She worked trielessly for childrens coverage and she got it. She had been a staunch supporter for poor people and welfare reform which I am a product of. Her ideas and crusade helped mothers like mine be able to go back to college and survive through not looking at being poor as a sickness but a curable condition. This is not anecdotal, she has always been anti poverty, even out of the political spot light. She is not Bill Clinton politically, and does not have his political weight attached to her, yet the Pro Obama media attaches it to him. Why, I cannot understand. Hillary has done more for me when I lived in IL, then when Obama was State legislature and Senator. What about Obama's convictions? He never marched against poverty like Clinton. Never marched for woman's rights. Never stood up against poverty in Congress. Yet he abuses Martin Luther King's message and speeches for his own ill will. Obama is not Martin Luther King, because Martin Luther King despite being the father of the Civil Rights Movement, was also a strong opponent of abolishing poverty for every man, every man no matter the color of his skin. Obama is too polarizing, he is telling black audiences that the Clintons pander to them and play the Race Card. But the Clintons have done more for them then Obama ever has, despite invoking a MLK sermon from Alabama. I remember when Obama worked with Rezko, and brokered deals with Daly to buy the land from under the projects to turn into nice new condos and leave the people who lived in those homes, either homeless or transplanted miles away. Obama made some nice profits, got to buy land for his house for a dollar, at the expense of his own race. Is that conviction? Look at what happened to the residents of Cabrini Green, the Robert Taylor Homes, and the other chicago projects, just because you send their blackness somewhere else the reality of it does not go away. Also Obama panders too much When he introduces a bill, say against nuclear leakage in ground water, a nice example Exelon. He panders to special interests, gets a nice campaign contribution, takes the teeth out of the bill, making it ineffective, but it looks good on the stump speech. Looks good on paper. That why is Obama is the paper champion. Sorry for going into Obama but he has more dirty laundry than Clinton. I am making a contrast. I am telling you what the media chooses to smear and what they choose to forget. 80% of the World believes what they tell them, either through the media, advertisements, or the news. You need to be able to set out and research for yourself about your candidates. Remove yourself from media bias and feel out your own feelings. There is a reason why poor and older people support Hillary. They remember her and only her. She did a lot for them. Obama has the sermon speech down, it works for kids that dont know better and the 100k earners want the triangulation of the establishment. But look around. You may just see the man behind the curtain.