NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 24, 2007 -> 11:12 PM) Because he's the only one who isn't making a complete arse of himself on the war funding. Huh? How about the non-Senators running - Romney, Richardson, Giuliani... and how about the few Senators with some balls? Like Kucinich (who, again, while not electable, is at least principled).

The arguments here seem to pivot around an axis where, at one end, the war was justified by the intelligence, which turned out to be wrong. On the other end, the war was never justifiable and there were no WMD. Except, here's the thing. The reality isn't on that axis at all. The reality, pretty clearly, is that this administration was going to invade Iraq regardless of WMD. WMD happened to be the most politically effective argument to make at the time, to fit their agenda. In case that wasn't clear, look at the lineup of other "reasons" they started dispensing when it became clear there weren't any WMD's. That agenda, right or wrong, was to get a democratic, American influenced foothold in the Middle East. To take the war to them, to take control of the region, and try to scare some regimes straight. And because of 9/11, and the effective capitalization of fear by this government (administration, Congress, et al), the public and even many of our politicians rode the wave to war. And now, because of that weakness that allowed them to be swept away (as well as because of the amazing ineptness of the execution of said war), here we are. Thing is, some people had the courage even at the time to say it was wrong. Not "everyone" in the U.S. thought it was a good idea. 70% support is high, but not astronomical. And sure as heck most other countries who were NOT caught up in the fear wave (read: new red scare) of the time, did NOT support the war. So again, the result is - we're mired in a nightmarish war. Rumsfeld and the other hawks (Cheney et al) who pushed the administration for this war should be #1 on the blame list, followed closely by Bush himself, then Congress. Plenty of blame to go around. This administration, and I mean the entire thing (not just Bush), looks to me like the worst in a long, long time. They were wrong, and we let them be wrong (as the voting public). And now, we've spent a trillion f***ing dollars, killed thousands of our own troops, been responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi deaths, and destroyed a lot of valuable international political capital. Can someone tell me the last time our nation f***ed up this badly? I'm going to have to go with the late 19th century, and point to Reconstruction of the South, along with the Indian extermination policy.

I look forward to seeing some of you there! Gametime is noon, at Armour Park, just north of the Cell. And we'd better get 10 out there - let's have a good showing for Soxtalk!

This whole "who will do the jobs" argument just entirely misses the point no one (well, almost no one) is saying we shouldn't allow some immigration into the country from Mexico and everywhere else. Its part of what's great about this country's history. The point is, for lots of reasons, you don't just let people in willy-nilly. And you sure as heck don't reward people for illegal behavior. Like I said, set the immigration policies to match our economic needs. And reward people who actually OBEY the law, not those who break it.

Wow. After a solid start, this Congress has derailed horribly.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 23, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) It's a plug in hybrid, and will enable to this car to get up to 750 miles on a 12 gallon tank IIRC. If the car itself generates some power, which it would if its a true hybrid as you mention, then that's great.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 22, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) Chevy Volt That's the plug-in car, yes? Cars that just pull a charge from elsewhere and use it up aren't really doing much to help either the environment or your gas bills. It just shifts the energy demand from the road to the power plant.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 22, 2007 -> 09:09 AM) Giuliani is going to be Edwards 2004. The more the American public sees him, the less they're going to like him. That's my feeling on Giuliani as well, but I think Edwards will start to look better as time goes on to the middle of the country. I hope I am wrong.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ May 21, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) Instead of just calling it a bad bill, can either one of you explain what is bad in it, and why it is bad? I just want to hear some thoughts on it since I haven't heard anything actually discussing different points in the bill. What could have been done to make it better? Amnesty is bad. The idea of it being OK if you pay for it is a bad joke - most of them can't afford it anyway, so what's the point? It doesn't add in a reasonable guest worker program (I don't think, but its vague on that part), which should be part of a good bill. It does nothing to change the immigration thresholds to match ECONOMIC NEEDS, which is what it should be doing. It does nothing to address the joke of a bill from last year that said OK to a laughable wall, with no funding. It does nothing to address addition of technological solutions to combat illegal immigration.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 21, 2007 -> 09:01 PM) I'm totally ignorant of the system in which American political parties pick their presidential nominees but my common senses tell me that Edwards could never beat both Clinton and Obama. Tell you what. Since that is 2 on 1, if you give me 2-to-1 odds, I'd take that bet on Edwards.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 21, 2007 -> 07:10 AM) If you put the two most hypocritcal candidates out there for each party, and the most polarizing in regards to common party lines, I have no doubt you will give a third party a golden chance to rush in a sieze the middle. It certaintly enhances their chances. But its still a long shot. A lot of people like Edwards - particularly those who see only snippets, speeches and quotes. Edwards is one of the few candidates who consistently attempts a positive tone, even when he is making a snide reference to someone else. And he's got that my-daddy-was-a-coal-miner routine down pretty good. He has some Bill Clinton in him, and he's going to ride that Southern charm all the way to the station. He is the opposite of a Richardson or a McCain, who lack charisma and presence to a fault but who have some political legs to stand on. And as for Romney, I think he wins the GOP just because McCain has worn out his welcome among the GOP faithful, and Giuliani won't be palatable. Rudy is seen as far too liberal socially among the christian coalition types, and once his failings post-9/11 (and in his married life, and in his business dealings) come out, his name trade will turn 180 and become a chain around his ankle. That leaves Romney, who like Edwards, is trying hard to stick to a positive tone.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 21, 2007 -> 07:05 AM) Oh, you'd be surprised how many people here think along the same lines as him. :rolly About as many as think along the same lines as Sean Hannity. In both cases, people here agree with some of the individual things they say. But I don't think anyone here, that I recall, would say they think along the same lines as either one of them.

Unfortunately, I have been thinking more and more that Romney v Edwards is precisely what we'll see in November of 2008. Its too bad really.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 19, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) I don't get why anybody would NOT want to debate Moore. Moore is a pretty ignorant tool, and if you know your stuff, a debate with him is an easy victory. Because then if you debate him and then not every other whack job that challenges you, you look bad. Moore has no standing to speak of - he holds no office. And Moore's suporters will stay that no matter what happens. Where is the upside for Thompson? There is none, so he made the smart move.

Best B-Day Thread Ever. Hope you had a good one.

Since when is taking the worst parts of both sides' ideas and combining them a compromise?

Some of the players may deny that this series means more than others, but its been pretty obvious the last few years that it does. These series tend to be turning points for the teams, one way or the other. If the embarrassing play today kicks off two solid wins, that could be a nice boost. Then Thome returns, and we're at home again for a little while. Let's hope it comes together that way.

People here seem mostly to be complaining about the weak offense, Ozzie's managing, and MMac's inability to pitch in the clutch. To me, the biggest worries are the lousy defensive play, and wondering whether or not Hall will really be effective as a backup C (if he is healthy enough, specifically). MMac worries me a bit too, but not as much. We lost against a tough pitcher on the road, and we are just now getting back a couple key pieces, so I am not gravely concerned about the offense right now. They will come around (some of them at least).

QUOTE(Iguchicago @ May 18, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) This board thread is completely ridiculous. Fixed. But I agree with your point.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ May 18, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) So AJ gets hurt with Toby at DH, how much fun would that be? Might get to see Paulie behind the plate. I was under the impression that in that scenario, Hall could catch, but the pitcher would hit instead of having a DH. Not really a huge loss for part of one game.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ May 18, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) It's not that big of a risk. How often does AJ actually suffer any sort of injury? If he had to be taken out of the game Ozzie would have to pull some strings for the rest of the game. Halls ability vs lefties playing over Thome's suckitude vs lefties outweighs any apocalyptic situation that may arise. Very good point. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ May 18, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) PABLO FOR CATCHER Heh. Anyone else remember the Jenks warm-up story?

There are obviously two schools of thought here on the use of the term "rivalry". To me, players play the game as professionals, so rivalries are less meaningful. Rivalries are all about the fans. Therefore, yes, the Cubs are the Sox' biggest rival. And I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Who knew? QUOTE(jackie hayes @ May 18, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) Hey, I agree with you on something! The Sox-Cubs rivalry is perennial. Even when the teams played just one exhibition game, it was important. And it doesn't matter how good or how bad either team is -- it just IS important. That's how I think of a rivalry -- how important is it in isolation? Not by the influence it has on your team reaching the playoffs. Cheers, A proud moron Awesome. The morons. Better than the idiots (wasn't that what the Red Sox called themselves in 2004?).

Just to add a related point... ComEd tells me (when I asked) that in 2008 they will have a consumer-choice program for electricity generation. You'll get to choose your source. Just FYI.

QUOTE(Damen @ May 18, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) Right, but that's my point. Fans are retarded. So far, you've labeled me as a moron, retarded, and that I deserved to be punched. And I am not the only one who sees it this way. Not makin' a lot of friends. QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 18, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) We dont have a real rival, it seems like we are the main rival of the Tigers/Twins/Indians but for us we are kind of split among them. Also the Cubs series are always very fun and emotional to play and it gives bragging rights of the city kind of, so I dont mind it. QUOTE(YASNY @ May 18, 2007 -> 10:04 AM) You nailed it when you capitalized the word FANS. That's what this is all about. Sox FANS biggest rivals are Cub FANS because of the constant antagonism between the two groups in the area. The teams certainly don't consider each other as the biggest rivals, because from a successful season perspective, these games aren't all that important. The FANS make it a rivalry. The players enjoy the atmosphere generated by the FANS, but that's as far as it goes. Well put, both of you.

I actually agree with the 37%. I don't obsess over the Cubs like some, and I'll even catch a game occasionally at Wrigley. And our games against DET/MIN/CLE are indeed more important to the season. But I agree that the Cubs are our single biggest rivalry. I guess I'm a moron.