NorthSideSox72

The TEN pitcher, Holliman, left after 3 innings himself. Which means it may be something like a delayed game, or a fight, or bad weather, or who knows what. But I'd definitely be curious to know.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) they think he will beat Hillary Clinton, thats why he'll win the nod. but we've seen that plan backfire for a party before (aka, Kerry is most likely to beat Bush in '04). If that is the sole criteria, I think McCain and probably Thompson are better candidates than Giuliani. But with so many viable candidates in both parties this cycle, there is just so much up in the air. I think that this coming winter and spring are going to be fascinating to watch in both parties.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) yea, i might be wrong, it has happened before. but i would be willing to bet he doesn't get the nomination, or even come close. I think he is going to make it very interesting. Especially with the current front-runner being so weak. I mean, seriously - Giuliani??? He is almost everything the far right hates in a candidate. He just won't play well to that crowd. And yet, he's apparently the best current option. I still think Romney will end up with the nod, especially if Thompson doesn't run or exits early.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) the front runner? no way. he is a 3rd or 4th. his chances are slim to none. Really? As of June 1st, just as he was hinting at running, he is already 3rd, and he hasn't even announced or started getting around yet. I'd say he is among the front-runners, and if he announces and starts promoting, he'll quickly go up from there. I'd say right now he has the most momentum of any of the candidates in either party, and his spike is likely to put him on top at some point. But, as Rex points out, he may turn out to be a quick jump and quick fade.

I have to say, Biden took a step forward in that debate. He looked and sounded awfully good. And as has been pointed out before, he is the ONLY candidate in either party offering a real alternative for the Iraq War. Something to consider. My guy Richardson is showing the exact positives and negatives that were there going in - great policy ideas and great resume, but he is the least charismatic of the bunch. If he can't smooth out his delivery, he won't last long. Too bad really. He's just so much more qualified than everyone else, and actually brings some affirmative economic ideas to the table. Clinton is so wish-washy she makes John Kerry look like an oak. Edwards is just sleazy. He really is. Obama, I think, made a good step forward. He's hard to dislike when you're listening to him speak. He is loosening up again, and it is helping him a lot. Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd were, as expected, non-factors.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 31, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) Nuke, just something I was wondering about...how much interaction do you have with the private security types that are over there? Like the guys from Blackwater, etc.? How do the army regulars feel about guys like those? I am most of the way through Blackwater now, and I have to say, its pretty staggering.

Well, Lucy had a downright lousy May, offensively. Here are his May numbers: AVG: .213 OBP: .284 OPS: .559 2B: 2 HR: 1 BB: 8 K: 17 SB/ATT: 2/3 And after that, here are his overalls through the end of May: AVG: .259 OBP: .338 OPS: .709 2B: 10 HR: 2 BB: 17 K: 131 SB/ATT: 5/6 The one bright spot - defesively, Lucy's has continued to excel at throwing our runners attempting to steal. Since April 20th, Lucy has thrown out 26 out of 41 (63.4% CS) attempted base stealers. At least with his offensive woes, his defense seems uneffected. June is a big month for Donny. His defense and pitcher handling are solid, so if he can put together a solid June at the plate, he'll still be on track for a possible callup to AAA this year. This year as a whole is critical to how Lucy will be seen by the organization - a serious candidate as a future MLB catcher, or another in the pool of mediocre catchers in the Sox system.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 31, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) WHOA, I'm a little shocked by the above. Y'all would be supportive of No Blacks bars? Supportive? No. I would be OK with any business choosing its customers, and I believe that a bar should be allowed to do that if they choose. But you can bet your ass I wouldn't do anything to ever support such an establishment. There is a difference between what I feel personally, and what should be allowed. I despise racism and other forms of bigotry, but a person should be able to conduct their private business in any way they like. This is one of the reasons I really dislike the far-right social conservatives - you can like or dislike anything you'd like, but keep your laws of people's personal lives.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 30, 2007 -> 08:22 PM) Link So, Thompson is being reported now as all but in the race. This definitely changes the playing field. I don't think he is a shoe-in, but he is probably the front runner at this point. I for one am very interested to see what happens. I have actually been OK with Fred's politics in his time as a Senator, and I think he brings some great stuff to the table. Right now, he is my 2nd favorite among the GOP (behind McCain). But, he is very, very pro-Bush-Iraq. One wonders how that will go over. What do people think of Fred's chances?

QUOTE(NUKE @ May 31, 2007 -> 07:43 AM) http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/29/real_estat...sion=2007053012 This is what happens when uninformed consumers are too lazy to do their homework and make big decisions with their money. Unfortunately, the rest of us who ARE responsible for our money will also be feeling the negative effects of this. Case in point - the sudden economic slowing reported today from Q1. This is one I've been harping on for a while now - the strong 2004+ economic recovery was fueled in great part by the housing boom. And since that money was equity - not income, and not renewable - the dropoff will be prolific and damaging to this economy. Too much money has left the table. Not good.

I think they should have the right to refuse anyone they want, so I'm OK with it. On a political/legal level. On a personal level, I find it sort of disgusting, and I would never patronize that establishment.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 30, 2007 -> 05:45 PM) Not that he deserved to have charges brought up against him, but why would someone write that crap in the first place? Arent you only asking for trouble when you write that stuff. Yes. There is little question in my mind that the kid was trying to get attention by being shocking. Therefore, I have very little sympathy for whatever consequences he endured.

Tim Hulett

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 30, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) I say we just send Mexico a bill to cover any costs associated for caring and dealing with the illegal immigrants. And when they default on that bill, we just repossess the oil fields to cover the payment. Or, we could just tax the hell out of wire transfers from the US to Mexico. Considering how much money the U.S. owes the rest of the world, that might not be the best approach.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ May 30, 2007 -> 07:33 AM) I don't agree with this. (a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed. (B) They didn't focus entirely on military aspects. The entire first two to three years were filled with public works projects, upgrading water, sewage and power systems, building hospitals and schools, fixing roads and bridges, etc. And those works are in use today. The military did it's military thing by trying to weed out the remaining Saddam loyalists, and the government contractors, with support from the military, went to work rebuilding the country. And really that's not fair to say because there has been a ton of political work done over the last few years as well. You don't see it because the headlines don't scream "Success! Iraq's government strong, stable and willing to take over," but that doesn't mean there hasn't been an emphasis on it or that no work is being done. I think you are misinformed. There are huge swaths of the country we have no presense in and there is all kinds of violence - we have no real control there. And as for non-military aspects, everything I have read indicates that State Dept, and all aspects of nation building were seen as small afterthoughts in the planning of things. It just wasn't cared about. Yes, there were some works projects, though not nearly enough and now they have stagnated. If you really want to see how the war was planned and executed politically and militarily, you should really read the last Woodward book. If you want to see the military internals, read Fiasco or Cobra 22 (I may have the # wrong).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 29, 2007 -> 10:41 PM) And IMO, there was absolutely no way it was going to last when the people got down to the business of trying to build a country. The flaws were simply too deep to overcome. The Sunnis were never going to accept being a minority, the Shia were never going to accept the Sunnis as an equal partner, and no one was going to let the Kurds secede from the country with all of the oil in the north. The whole country was set up to fall apart, and the only thing holding it together was the strongman. The people might have celebrated that day, but the real issues began when the celebration ended, and there is simply no military way to prevent that. But we might have had a better shot at it, had they listened to the people who said that 500k troops were needed, not 150k (those people who KNEW about Iraq from experience in 1991). Or, if this administration had actually thought through the nation-building part AT ALL, instead of focusing solely on the military aspects. That last part is what really amazes me - its like one company taking over another with no idea of what they want to then do with it. If a CEO did that, they'd be out of a job.

QUOTE(fathom @ May 29, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) Just pray that they either start playing well or they fall 10 games or so behind the Tigers/Indians. The last thing we want to see is a team that can't catch the leaders who won't trade their impending free agents. I can't believe I'm saying this, but... I agree with Fathom. I really want this team to either play up to its offensive potential and stay healthy (the picthing is fine), or to fall apart so we can move forward. That said, this is NOT some awful team the way some of you are putting it. Its a slightly above average baseball team, even with the hitters slumping. If the hitters get back to their career averages, this is a team that could still make the playoffs. So, that's what I'm hoping for. But if that's not possible, then I hope they fall deeply into 4th place.

I thought we were going to hear about Brian Anderson complementing the Sox organization. I was prepared to be shocked.

QUOTE(fathom @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) Javy Vazquez for Chris Young I knew someone who pick that one. Amazing. A trade that has worked out fabulously for us, and its somehow one of the worst ever. In five years, sure, we may look back and wish we had Young. MAYBE. Or maybe not. Either way, we got an above average SP for a big question mark, so its kind of ridiculous to even mention it as one of the worst trades ever. QUOTE(fathom @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) That signing went far beyond Pods, and had such a dramatic impact on this 2007 team. I do agree with you here, though. The signing itself wasn't the big negative - its the fact that the signing meant we were passing up on other opportunities. ANY other opportunities.

Let's try to keep the ad hominem stuff out of the thread, everyone. Thanks.

QUOTE(WCSox @ May 29, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) I remember a mediocre Sox team getting into a bench-clearing brawl with the Tigers back in 2000 and going on to win 95 games that year. It's amazing what a good, old-fashioned fistfight and a chip on a team's shoulder can do for team chemistry. Gardenhire indeed did look like a tool at the time, but he looked a lot better after his team stomped the Sox in the bottom half of that inning. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ The real game isn't like a video game. People's emotions come into play. Gardy was trying to fire up his team, and it looks like it worked.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 24, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) GOP folks...just like to say...Thanks. Really appreciate your help on this one. Wow. Congress remembering what makes things work, for once.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 28, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) Is Richardson making up stories now? http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view...ticleid=1002403 More at link. Apparently the mother wants him to stop using her name and her sons name in his speeches and demanded an apology. When asked about it on Meet the Press, he did the usual politian thing and started talkign about other things, but once brought back to the point said" Well, I’m sorry for the way she feels, but I believe I acted honorably." and then launched into a few lines about how he raised the death benefit for National Gardsmen. Show transcript here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/ Well that doesn't seem very bright. This combined with his fuzzy memory of his baseball background makes one wonder a bit if he one apt towards exaggeration. I'm not ready to back off this guy yet, as he still looks like the best candidate to me. But if he is going to have a habit of poor recollection, he is going to get nailed by the media left and right. So, here is a discussion question - if a politician is going to use someone's name in a campaign speech like that, even if its for a good cause (which I think his program clearly is), does he/she need to ask permission first?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 28, 2007 -> 12:13 AM) I think I'd have to take that bet. What shall we wager? Do a sig bet maybe? Though I don't see how the odds would work there.

Great game, thanks to everyone, particularly the 5 Soxtalkers who showed. Shorthanded, we put up an impressive victory. But the best part was, it was a lot of fun. I'd definitely do it again. Big thanks to SS2K5 and Molto for setting things up! And to WSI for doing it with us! QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 26, 2007 -> 04:44 PM) How the hell did you field a team with only five players? We had five players, and picked up two older guys who were practicing little league with their kids. We played 7 - a pitcher, 3 infielders, 2 outfielders and 1 IF-OF rover. WSI had 9 I think, so they played a standard softball team setup. Both hitting teams provided a catcher. QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 26, 2007 -> 04:44 PM) I'll suggest right now that we set up a future game sometime in early August. Sign me up too.