NorthSideSox72

Things just keep getting better and better for Blackwater. Now a Congressional committee finds that they delayed and even impeded investigations into the 2004 Fallujah deaths of 4 of its contractors.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) So, I'm pulling out of the research campus today and what do i see barreling down the drive behind me, but The "MittMobile Five Brothers Bus" Meh, they''l let just about anybody into the damn place. I guess the bus is on it's Florida leg of the primary state swing. Its driving around Florida while covered in Iowa themes?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) "I drank WHAT?!?" -- Socrates

Fish up 3-1 on the Flubbies through 2.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) I don't see the Dems winning the White House with any of their big three. Unless Rudy G. gets nominated. That's the only match up I leave as a toss up or slight edge to the Dems. The polls say otherwise. As long as its not Hillary, the Dems will probably win the Presidency in '08 over any of the GOP contenders.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) I commented on this earlier... she IS, which is why I say you liberals out there have been totally duped. Enjoy what you sew, because it's going to be ugly. As long as the remaining Re-pube-licans can keep her from getting her way on health care, whatever. I haven't seen anyone here saying they support Hillary, or that they thought she was on the left or even the center of the party. No one here has been "duped". Now, among some people in the public who are supporting her, that's another story...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) So would this characterizatin of a black wide receiver be considered a racist statement? Is there a restaurant called "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles"?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) I don't think in a Democrats world, you could have a much harsher slam than the bolded comment. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-hillary-i.html And... its probably somewhat accurate. She is showing herself as being something not in step with most Dems. Again, there is a long time to go till Iowa in late January, and I think these comments combined with her perceived unelectability at the national level may end up knocking her off her perch. This is not a done deal yet.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday as saying Barack had to win Iowa, or it was "over". Seems way early to be saying something like that, especially with the very large amounts of money Obama has raised. One thing I am sure Obama should be doing, and maybe is, is to try to convince some of the candidates who have zero chance but still have a bit of support (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel) to get out before Iowa and endorse him. I am sure that Clinton and Edwards are trying the same thing. Those few points they get from those guys could make the difference between winning and coming in 3rd in Iowa.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) That would be great, and easily the best for us, but would the public donate enough money to make them viable? I don't see corporations and special interest groups backing them with enough cash. And to borrow a Watergate era phrase, follow the money. That is one thing I loved about Newt's announcement. Straight to the money. Smart and practical. A combination of your plan and Balta's and a pinch of SS vision and optimism would be awesome. Money is why I had point number 2 in there. You campaign and collect nationally, but run focused campaigns in a few places to begin with. You market it as part of a larger wave to support, and some people will donate even though you don't run in their area - yet. Focused money. It doesn't take $100M to win a House Rep seat. In some places, it may take only a few tens of thousands.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) I wonder if centralist could envoke enough support to actually get elected in high enough numbers. I think a third party needs an almost cult like core and average doesn't necessarily do it, but it would be the best possible world. But then still, Balta's point that they would still need to join together to get anything done is the problem point. So it's a centralist third party needing the outer fringe to help. I still fear a pork fest of the highest calling. I think the best possible strategy for a 3rd party wanting to make real inroads, would have priorities something like this: --Solid, simple platform (i.e. small government, socially liberal) - you can't have a 3rd party that is just "not like them" --Start narrow and deep - pick a few Congressional seats that meet specific criteria (record of recent poor representatives, no big candidates lined up, not a big money area), and target those few places to spend all your money, just to get a foot in the door. --Find a few candidates that are known names, and not necessarily nationally - could be local or regionally famous folks, that would garner loyalty

Does anyone know... For the draft order for the 2008 amatuer draft: if two teams have identical records (for example, the Sox and Royals finish with the same record this season), who gets the higher pick? How is the tie-breaker determined?

Wow. Now its THURSDAY of the last week of the season, most teams have just 4 games left... and STILL NOT A SINGLE TEAM IN THE NL has clinched a playoff spot. Not one. I wonder if that has happened, this late, in the current divisional format.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) But you know the remarkable thing about those systems, the parliamentary ones which allow lots of parties? They rapidly wind up breaking down into quasi 2 party systems as well. Because a lot of times, the new parties that appear are not these magical, centrist, "Everyone will agree with us" parties that for some reason people envision should pop up and make everyone happy. They wind up being vastly farther out on the fringe, and they wind up just making coalitions and governments harder to build, because you have to cater to that fringe party in order to build a government. Give you an example...right now, you could probably get 30% of the vote for a party who's sole goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and which would refuse to join a government without that. If you then wound up with 3 parties in a parliamentary type system, it might be nearly impossible for a government to form without the aid of that party. In other words, you would have to cater to the farthest wing in order to be able to form a government, and you'd have to placate that minority party to keep the government from falling. I disagree, and I think looking at other countries as well as our own shows that. Look at the Congress in this country, up until the current decade. You didn't have any real 3rd party folks (other than whats-his-face the socialist from NH), but what you DID have is sub-groups within both parties that functioned like smaller parties. You had the Blue Dogs - southern Dems who tended to vote with the GOP on social issues. Same sort of thing from Farm Democrats from the midwest. Then there were the New England Republicans, who tended to vote Dem on social issues but GOP on other stuff. And guess what? A lot more got done when you had those groups that were closer to the middle, because that allowed for COMPROMISE. Something the current situation - with both parties hunkering down in their respective trenches - doesn't allow for. Looking at the UK, the 3rd and 4th parties (Lib Dems particularly) usually have a significant enough number of seats that they act much like our Congress did before - those become important voting blocks, necessary to get things passed. Germany, same thing with the Greens, etc. (by the way, I love the German system of voting - way better than what we do). These situations make for much healthier, much more agile and effective bodies. Those 3rd and 4th parties may have some fringe views, but their actual result is to moderate the body. So I actually think that the addition of another party or two to a few seats in the US Congressional bodies would in fact make for a better situation than we have now. More would get done.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) I don't think that's a poorly worded question at all. I think it actually shows where the debate the 70% of the country who is sick of this war is going to wind up. The question is...do we just throw down and get out all the way and let the people there fight it out with the guns we've bought them, or do we leave a presence in the country to try to slow down the rate at which they kill each other after we leave? Personally, I think it's fairly silly to leave a small, residual force barricaded around bases in a country that hates you with long, expensive, and vulnerable supply lines. You don't remove the "The U.S. is holding onto territory in Iraq" issue, you don't remove the U.S. propping up the government issue, and you massively increase the risk to the remaining U.S. forces there. (unless, of course, you surround them with dudes from Blackwater). So are you voting for Kucinich or Richardson in the primary, then?

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) FWIW, I was close to giving Thome an A....but I was also close to giving AJP a D. Agreed on both.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) I just don't think it's fair to bash people for not being capable of doing things we knew they were not capable of doing, that's all. B = above average Also, I think grades are probably conditioned to that anyway. Thome was hurt on and off, had some big slumps, and struggled in close & late scenarios early in the season. Oh and, I think its interesting you choose to bash people's grades but aren't willing to provide your own input. Its all just for fun - give it a shot, and take it easy.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) The big issue with a third party is the "big two" shut them down faster then a blink of an eye. You ever notice how the voter laws change so quickly after a "scare" from a third party candidate? Oh I'm not saying it would be easy - but it can be done. Ross Perot showed that, and he didn't even have a party.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) 2004-2006 Thome is a .226 hitter against lefties. So he would've gotten an A if he would've just hit .226? We knew he sucked against lefties going into this season. In fact, many of us were crying for a semi-platoon against lefties. I don't see how it's fair to grade Thome hard because he's not "playing up to his capabilities" if we acknowledged preseason that he sucks against lefties. We didn't get Jim Thome because of his ability to hit LHP! Perhaps you could provide your grades.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) Eh, I wouldn't read too much into party differences. Remember the Democrats have Lydon Larouche, Joe Lieberman, and Harry Reid all under the same umbrellas, and the Republicians have Dick Cheney and Ron Paul. The Libertarians just haven't been relevant in so long, they are forgotten about. A "new" party with the same ideas has a much better chance of success. That's probably true. Seems to me the time is ripe for a third party to get in there. The Unity party doesn't have a specific platform, just "we're not them". I think a new party, one who is fiscally and intergovernmentally conservative and socially liberal, could do really well if they had a few known faces out there. Want to start one?

oooooohhh, fun... *Added Gonzalez, Bukvich and Cintron to the list... Mark Buehrle: B Javier Vazquez: A- Jose Contreras: D Jon Garland: C+ Jon Danks: C Gavin Floyd: C- Bobby Jenks: A- Mike MacDougal: F David Aardsma: D Boone Logan: C+ Ehren Wasserman: A- Mike Myers: F Matt Thornton: D Ryan Bukvich: D AJP: C- Paul Konerko: C Jim Thome: B Iguchi: D Richar: C+ Juan Uribe: D Josh Fields: B+ Scott Pods: D Erstad: C- Jermaine Dye: C Jerry Owens: B+ Toby Hall: D- Andy Gonzalez: F Alex Cintron: D Ozzie Guillen: C Kenny Williams: C- The Fans: A-

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) IMO, no. And FYI neither MLB or individual teams make the schedule. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1936328 So a company in Pittsburgh seems to constantly pick the Pirates to play the Sox? Interesting. And I am sure MLB has some influence. Its not like they just say OK, pick a few teams to play each other. They have requests I am quite sure, as to what interleague teams play each other.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) why is Horatio Sanz running for President and going by the name Bill Richardson? I actually think he looks a lot like Graham Greene...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) I think the Libertarians are done as a party. Actually I think the best third party chance we have now is the Unity Party, and that is if they can find a good Presidential candidate or two to bring them some attention. They have taken up many of the same mantles, and are a lot more moderate than either major party is right now. I have been following their stuff out of curiousity, and it is interesting, but I don't think they really have much of a chance at anything. If they could rope a Michael Bloomberg or a Joe Lieberman, they might get the ball rolling. My impression from what little I know of the Libbies is that they are a split party at this point. I think some see small government as being like the GOP model, but others are of the mind of a MUCH smaller government - like military and courts and that's about it. And those folks are not electable.

I think there are a lot of people out there who generally fit that mold - small government and fiscal discipline, social issues equate to staying out of people's lives. I think if the Libbies could field a name candidate for Prez or a Congressional seat or two, someone people know and like, they could really shake things up at many levels.