NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:44 AM) You got on me for saying that, "If you watch Floyd's starts, the box score says blank but really, he gave up some incredibly hard hit balls in a cavernous ballpark. It really wasn't that impressive." Now you're taking the opposite position with Owens: "The boxscore says singles, but he hit those really, really hard. Baby steps!" What's the difference? We'll see if he can "string together" some doubles and triples, but I doubt it unless he's significantly changed his workout regimen. And actually, I've kidded wite, among others, that we have a bunch of players in the minor leagues who could use some steroids. I mean, I'm just kidding, but we have some "weak" offensive outfielders. (Sweeney, Owens.) Actually, I am taking the exact same position on Owens I have on Floyd - give them a chance to show their stuff, and they might actually improve. Just like you've taken the exact same stance on those two (and Richar, and Fields...) - they suck, they always will, that's that, I'm done with this thread.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) I have officially jinxed Danny Richar. That picture reminds me - not only did I enjoy watching Richar, Owens and Fields all light it up last night... I loved that whenever the camera was on one of the three of them, they were smiling. Just a good thing to see.

Owens makes a pretty ideal 4th OF. And if they just cannot get a solid CF, but are able to upgrade heavily elsewhere (SS particularly as well as the bench), I am in the small camp that thinks Owens is not the end of the world in CF. He actually did something last night I've never seen him do, and it goes to address one of the two important criticisms of him - a lack of power. The box score shows 2 singles. But if you watched the game, he actually hit both balls really hard. Baby step, but indeed that's the first I've seen that. His swing is different now than it was. I'll be curious to see if Owens strings together a bunch of 2B's and 3B's the rest of the year. He's been able to improve in other aspects of his game - I think there is a good chance he could improve in power as well. The other major problem with him of course is his arm. That is still substandard, but he was also battling an injury. Is Owens scheduled to play in the fall league?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 10:01 PM) Kinda like a news program going on air with forged documents to attempt to sway an election... ooops Yes, I understand and have made improvements. NY Times--ABC/CBS/NBC/------------------------------CNN------------------------MIDDLE--------------------------------------------------------------------------FOX Getting news from a Democrat point of view and Republican point of view doesn't hurt IMO. It would be great if all the major news rooms were totally unbiased but I don't think that is really possible. It is up to the viewer/reader to distinguish what is important and recognize agendas when they are being pursued in the name of news. I would agree that the forged documents thing was almost as bad. But the frequency with which such things happen, even among the clumsy MSM networks, is still much lower than it is with Fox. Thing is, I don't think its unreasonable to expect news sources to be... news sources. Not editorials. It just seems like journalism, particularly with major network television, has become too subjective and punchy. Seems like most of the solid journalism left is in the newspapers. And its not just about political bias - its all kinds of bias, and further, its just low quality.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) There are extremeists in every "religion"... and they are all screwtards. It's about as simple as that. But, it amazes me people who want to jump all over BushCo as making things "worse". I'm sorry... 3000 + people, in basically a blatent act of war, is pretty much as bad as it gets. And that was not BushCo's fault, as much as some of you out there want it to be. Now, by going after them in several different ways, it's "worse"? I'm not buying that kool-aid. Obviously, though, it's not going to change anyone's mind. Who here has blamed BushCo for 9/11? I certainly haven't. I don't think anyone else has. Perhaps the straw man in the corner? And honestly, the only people out there I see saying its not worse are Bush and his close allies. And given their history of laughably rosy descriptions of the war that is obviously going poorly, I tend to think its them selling kool aid. And, again... IRAQ HAD ZERO TO DO WITH 9/11. I was fine with Afghanistan, as was almost everyone else in the world. If we had done that job right, and stuck to it, we might be a lot better off right now in many, many ways.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:06 PM) Giuliani raised 100 million for the new wing. It's hardly an unusual practice to name a building after people who have financially supported an institution. I think the Giuliani wing part is sort of an aside. The fact that Romney used the hospital without permission is more the issue, at least from my view.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) I know, the only real news sources are the New York Times (Jason Blair) and CBS (Dan Rather). Woo hoo, goooooo news! Seriously though, if someone thinks that the O'reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes is news, they are fooling themselves. Those are opinion shows, nothing more or less. As far as the other FOX news shows or outlets, they are no worse than most of the news you consider accurate. Have you ever seen my quote NYT opinion writers (Blair) or CBS/NBC/ABC as a news source? Possible, but unlikely. I usually use CNN or a reputable newspaper (NYT included, but not the edged writers) or something that is actually news. It amazes me people still think Fox News is even remotely on par with the major news outlets. I mean, you just don't see the main outlets do stuff like this article I was pointing out - not in the news section. Fox doesn't know the difference. ABC--CBS--NBC------CNN--MIDDLE-----------------------------------------------------------------FOX Is that easier to understand? And that is just the political bias. Nevermind that the spectrum of journalistic skill and performance looks something like this: Good Journalism-------CNN---------CBS--NBC--ABC--------------------------FOX None of them are where they should be, mind you.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:32 PM) I think it might be slightly worse, but just about the same. They already hated the Jew loving Great Satan (united states) before. Who really cares if the guy suicide bombing you super duper hates you or just simply hates you. You're dead either way Boy, you and Jenks still keep seeing only one kind of person over there, don't you? Of course a suicide bomber type can't hate you any more. The idea is there are now more of those types of people. And there are more types who were moderates but are now more against U.S. involvement, and on down the line.

Just wanted to peek in long enough to say this has been a fun game to watch. Fun watching the "kids" like Fields, Owens and Richar hitting the ball hard multiple times each, and fun watching Javy mow down these hitters. And... 11 runs in one freakin' inning?!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:36 PM) Personally, I would probably have wound up in the booing Magglio group, entirely because of the way his side dealt with the knee injury and the recovery. I'm still unhappy about the fact that his side wouldn't even let the Sox examine him before the arbitration deadline. Like I said - rocky patches. Thus the "kind of". I agree though that it was a very different scenario than Thome's. I don't think Maggs' career service at that time, no matter how good he was, could compare to Thome or Thomas' total contributions, which were certainly ovation-worthy.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) Same bed. Ew.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) I always thought the booing of Magglio was pretty lame, same goes for Cleveland and Thome. Maggs had rocky patches, but I agree it was pretty lame as well.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) I guess what I object to is any attempt to call the Indian fans classless because they boo him. As far as I'm concerned, the fans have the right to boo whoever they want and in Thome's case, in Zito's case in Oakland, in small-markets where loved superstars leave, the fans have the right to object, especially when the player talks and talks and talks about how much he wants to stay and then leaves. People have been booed for worse. Or better, depending. Sure. And I'd have the right to boo Thome for hitting number 500 as well, but that would make me lame. Cleveland fans can boo whomever they want, and they can be as lame as they want. I'd consider it classless to boo Thome on his return to CLE. Just my opinion. I remember being fairly proud of the fact that most (though not all) of the Sox fans cheered Thomas on his return to Chicago, even though he had a much rockier relationship and exit than Thome did with Cleveland.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) I think that the way he left and the MLBPA's role in it was sleazy. Same with Glavine/Braves. So their reason for booing him was because he left as a free agent for a higher salary? Like almost every other player does? Lame.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Well it isn't reason number 3 Why the green?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Ted Williams used to get absolutely ripped by the Boston fans. He refused to show them any affection in-game, he was so annoyed by the boos and disrespect he sometimes got. Williams was a very interesting guy, very profane, very arrogant, so the fans would rip him a ton. Point is, getting shat on is a part of the game. And Cleveland fans had every right and fairly good reason to boo him. He'll get over it, they will too, and so will the voters. What good reason might that be?

I'm married. What do you think?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) They thought that before, during and after 9/11, so it's really not any different then it ever has been. Similar, though worsened. That is what I have been saying.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) Unless Congress were to cancel MLB's anti-trust exemption, the union really has zero recourse. They could strike and hope to freeze Selig into submission, but legally they couldn't do a damned thing. That is the most frustrating part of Bud Selig acting like he has done everything he can to fix the game. He hasn't. He say on the sidelines hoping it would go away, and acting like it was a players problem. Its not just their problem when he alone as the ability to fix the problem. I think at this point there is zero chance that Congress would side with the players in that or any other fashion. That would be a terrible PR move for anyone voting for such a measure.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) This guy shows that he has zero respect for the law and therefore he shouldn't be intrusted with properly inforcing it. I'm going to have to dig up that thread to see how people actually defended that Chicago cop... Fortunately, I believe it wasn't many. But there were a couple who thought he shouldn't be prosecuted, as I recall.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) Yea, killing 3,000 + people on American soil will kind of draw attention. Exactly. That is yet another example of how U.S. policy has all but handed those terrorists a victory - it now appears to many in that region that U.S. policy is simply a hatred of all Muslims, instead of targetting those who actually caused 9/11.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) Yeah, cuz Bush really pissed off those extremists so much that only NOW are the plotting attacks on us. Oh wait, they've been attacking us for the last thirty years. Try to see through your Bush hatred just a tad. I would agree he's probably worsened the perception of the US in the world, but to say he's worsened the hatred of exteremists is just plain silly. They've reached the boiling point already - they've come to the conclusion that they're lives should be devoted to taking us down. How can anyone make that worse? There is no worse - they're already there. And really it sounds like you're almost justifying their hatred. No doubt the US and European allies have really messed that region up over the last 50 years, but that doesn't warrant murder and the destruction of the country. Take it down a notch. That quote from me is specifically saying that things were already screwed up well before Bush took office. I just said that Bush has made it worse. But again we see that some people see only one type of person in the Middle East - terrorists. That is what your post assumes. Of course the people bent on destruction of the west aren't worse - that's not what I said. I said our relations with the Middle East as a whole are worse, and they clearly are. There are now far more extremists, due in part to the foreign policy tack the U.S. has taken. I can't see how that can be denied. And, the people who are moderates or who might be moderates are taking less and less of a positive stance towards us (see: Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.). Basically, our current way of dealing with the Middle East is shooting us in the foot. One more thing. I have never, and would never, justify violence for any purpose other than self-defense. And I certainly am not justifying what terrorist have done and are doing. There is no justification for that. What I'd urge you to do is study the history of that region a bit. See what has happened over the years. I think you will find that we have made some of the same mistakes that have already been made repeatedly. To think that doesn't have an angering effect in that region is pretty ridiculous - we'd be angry too. But, despite what our wonderful politicians seem to tell us, there are ways of going about this that are not one of the two current models being suggested (one being invasion/colonialism, the other being surrender and leave the scene). If you take history to heart, you will find that the Middle East has repeatedly been willing to work with the west, if the west is actually willing to open up a real dialogue. In other words, its possible to establish a positive working relationship with most countries in that region and root out extremism and violence, without going over there and killing a few hundred thousand of them.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) The Union might not have a choice. Being a legalized monopoly, baseball doesn't have to submit to the will of labor. As a matter of a fact one of the clauses that Kenesaw Mountain Landis had put in as a condition of his accept the position, was that he could have the power to make unilateral actions. The comissioner of baseball has the authority to act "in the best interest of baseball" if he deems the situation necesary. Tomorrow Bud Selig could say you will all be subject to olympic style testing, and the union would have no choice but to agree to it, or to strike. If the union chose to strike because they didn't want to be drug tested, they would be fried by the media and fans alike. Its the reason that I have believe that Bud Selig has been just as complicit in the baseball drug problem as any player who took steroids or speed. He could have stopped this years ago, but he chose not to do so. Now he has to live with the results. ^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Selig is most definitely complicit. And as you point out the union has very little recourse available to them, which is why I said earlier that the only way they could really fight back would be to strike.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) Well the most obvious is threats. I also dont see how this is something that is even debatable about him losing his job. All jobs are different but can anybody say they wouldnt get fired if they did something this severe and it was caught on tape? If I was a tax payer in the city where this happened and they didnt fire him I would lose it. Whats worse is I bet before this tape surfaced this cop probably took it out on a different person. I suppose the threat of improper arrest could be considered assault - threat of injury. If this department digs around, I'll bet they find other allegations or previous problems anyway. And they should do that investigation in any case, just to make sure that if they are firing the guy, they've got as much cause as possible. Here is a question - for those of you who didn't think the Chicago cop who beat up the bartender should have been prosecuted (there were a few in that thread)... what do you think about this guy?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) I'll bet you UNI doesn't walk out of Hilton with a W this year. Back when I was there, even Kansas usually didn't walk out of Hilton with a W. What have you been doing down there, Heads?