NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) With all the critricism that Bush gets for being so religious, how come noone has really brought up Obama's church and his religion at all? Imagine if the following credo was for a white church: 1. Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the White Community 3. Commitment to the White Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness” 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System Substitute black for white, and you have TRinity United Church of Christ, Obama's church. The paragraph that preceedes the list is this one: “Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts: " Why are there two sets of ethics, one white and one black? I agree with you 100% on this one. I can't say it changes my view of Obama in a huge way, because every religion/church/political party I have been affiliated with has some stands I don't agree with. But I do find it a little disappointing that he would be a part of something like that. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) See I really believe the these things runs both ways. If you really want to breakdown barriers, you need to stop making distinctions for both good things and bad things. The more walls you put up, even with good intentions, the more you separate people. Bingo. Perfect. If you really want race to become a non-issue, then everyone has to do that. You can't be racist on things just because there is some good intention behind it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:05 AM) KW just might be keeping his options open. For example, Ichiro said he may test the market after '07. That was one of the two things that occurred to me, reading KW's quotes lately (not Ichiro specifically, but keeping options open). The other being that you still cannot take anything he says about the future as any kind of truth. Its all part of his game. To appreciate KW's actual impact, I think you have to look at the end result.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:05 AM) I forgot to add a prediction to my post: Brandon McCarthy not only has a better 2007 season but will have a better career than any of Gavin Floyd, John Danks and Gio Gonzalez. You are ready to make career predictions on Danks and Gonzalez? A little premature, no?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 10:24 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253400,00.html I am suprised he managed to find 2 Republicans in Virginia. I think its interesting that the assumption is, because this guy dislikes Republicans, he must be a Democrat. There are other options you know. But I did find the article, and Dog's line about Republicans in VA, sort of humorous. People are dumb.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Well, on paper that's what you'd think, but I'm not really sure how the dynamics of this election are going to work out. Right now, Richardson is getting virtually no media attention; his campaign page I believe even ranks below his wikipedia page on Google. Right now, there is some thought that the media have become so totally willing to ignore substance in arguments that the only people who really will have a chance will be these "Rockstar" candidates, just because the media doesn't bother talking about anyone else. Could be. But I think that things are just getting started, like you said, and Richardson will make money better than anyone else outside the big 3 (if his history is any guide). Then, once people start seeing his campaign, things will change. If he's smart, he needs to start spending a lot of time in Iowa.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Pardon me if I'm saddened by this. The Chief stirred my emotions from the first time I saw him in person in 1984. I never thought it was anything but respectful. Of course, I am a white jewish kid from Skokie. To me, there's a very fine line. Chief Wahoo, Redskins, Indians...bad. Why, because those ARE caricatures. If there wasn't ever a Chief, the Illini name would be able to stand, as the NCAA has allowed. BUT, there is nothing but reverence for the Chief. No baby kissing. No mugging for the camera. No speaking when dressed as the Chief. I guess my point is...if an institution is doing it's best to try to make it as reverential as possible, why couldn't the remaining tribes try to find a middle ground. Maybe, in exchange for allowing it to continue...the Chief loses the headdress, has to spend up to a year on the reservation with the tribe, learning customs, authentic dances, etc. In return, the University supplies a certain amount of scholarships, maybe does some research on issues that impact Native Americans, possibly even opening some sort of research facility on the res to supply jobs? Chief Illiniwek is very much a caricature. The tribe's history is in no way indicative of that routine, that outfit or anything else. Its offensive. But you do present an interesting thought - giving them the option of modifying it to be less offensive. I wonder if that was done. I am glad, though, that the Illini name and some other things that are not offensive were left alone. Its nice to see this didn't turn into a PC crusade against all that isn't plastic and boring.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 09:01 AM) I gotta say, I was a lot more impressed with him 2-3 years ago. He was a lot more moderate as a VP canditate, and that did appeal to me. If the Kerry-Edwards ticket had been reversed, I would have paid a lot more attention to it, and considered voting that way. In retrospect, I am glad it didn't happen that way, because now John seems to be in a mad dash to Lefty-ville. I think Edwards played the more conservative route back then because he wanted to be a foil to Kerry. He wanted to be everything a New England liberal is not. So he was plenty lefty on issues like poverty and education, but more centered or conservative on other issues.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) Unless one of these 3-4 campaigns actually makes a concerted, 100% effort to stay above the fray...ungodly long. We barely knew who the candidates were at this point in the 04 race, in the 08 race now it seems like we're 6 months or more ahead of the pace last time through. And on top of that, eventually we're going to be dealing with this level of sniping from both sides, since for once there is no clear standard bearer for either party. Although, the Republicans have something of a niceity in that they can spend some of their time defending Mr. Bush from his disasters instead of attacking each other, but that will only last so long. If Edwards continues to show how little substance he actually has, and Clinton and Obama just keep pummeling each other... I like Richardson's chances.

Stay.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 08:57 AM) Believers might have a friend in Bill Richardson http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...GEyOGI5NjBmODQ= Actually, I think that makes me like him a little more.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...TBhOWFmMzQ4Yzk= Edwards is all plastic and mirrors. I see very little under the hood intellectually from him. I really hope he doesn't win.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 07:17 AM) What my point was in saying what I said is there are risks and always will be ANYTIME you go into the military. However, the politicization of the IRAQ DEATH COUNT NOW AT 3,1XX is disgusting, because there's deaths no matter when it is, and I find it interesting that there were more "peacetime accidental deaths" over a 4 year period then there are during "combat years" specifically in Iraq that we hear EVERY DAY in the MSM. That was more my comparison, and I also think I made that pretty clear by saying that I realize the numbers are indeed "skewed" depending on how you want to use them. If its disgusting that the evil MSM broadcasts those death counts, then how do you feel about Bush's obsession with blurting out death counts of everyone in Iraq other than American soldiers?

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) There was a cable access TV interview Obama did right after the Senate vote in which he said he would vote like Durbin, which was nay. He spoke at length about the issue, but he left no doubt that he would vote against it. C-Span re-aired immediately following his Presidential announcement in Springfield. Nay on what?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) Gore's a "retread" as well... but Gore wouldn't be as much of a "pacifist" as some might think, imo. In fact, all these liberals are going to get really giddy on the "war" when they get in office, because at that point, they are responisble and they won't want to "lose" like they want Bush to "lose" now. It's all about power and making the other side look as bad as possible. Gotta love our screwed up country. They want to make the other side look bad, but I have a hard time believing either party is interested in trying to make someone lose a war. In their own way, I think almost all of them, on the subject of war, want to save lives.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Maybe not. Aren't competing cable tv suppliers using the same cables? Yes, and maintenance and growth costs are spread over providers on a customer-base size basis. But I am not sure about satelites bing reusable for different signals. Someone with inside knowledge of how those satelites were built, the software they use, and the nature of signal strength and conflicting signal generation would have to comment on that. If any of those doesn't allow for multple sets of wide band output, than you can't go the same route as cable TV or telcos.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) They don't have to break anything apart. They can grant another satellite broadcasting license. But the truth is that satellite radio is an additional technology. It doesn't replace anything and probably won't. As long as the radio technology makes it difficult for people to have an account for multiple radios in one place, we won't ever have to worry about it. One problem with simply granting another license - the cost of entry, the "moat" if you will, for satelite radio is enormous. Way, way, way, way, way higher than conventional radio. So the only way new licensure is not ridiculously costly is if one of the existing businesses goes into bankruptcy, and the hardware can be bought for relatively cheap.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 12:21 PM) You're conveniently forgetting the other part of the #5 slot. And you're sure the rest of the staff'll match the rest of the 2005 staff? Not sure of anything, and I said nothing of the sort. I'm saying that having a weak spot there isn't a death sentence to the Sox' competitiveness. As for McCarthy's 4 starts, those were great, and better than anyone could have anticipated. Maybe something similar happens this year, maybe not. But it seems likely the starters will improve. And as Mr. Law points out, our offense is far better than 2005's, even if Pods, Uribe and Anderson don't improve over 2006. Therefore, as I said, I'm not overly worried about that slot.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) Which may be XM/Sirius's answer to the monopoly question. There are plenty of pay-radio stations on the net, (and some freebies) that could compete in certain areas. Any agreement may contain just that sort of condition - XsiriuM would need to put X number of local radio slots in their network, or something like that. QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) Another key area that it is different is the TV industry was/is producing profits. How will the public be served if one or both were to go out of business? I guess this is where I tend more towards open competition than others. To me, looking at the alternatives of a monopoly and those two going bankrupt... I think the public is better served with the latter. Ultimately, just like Motorola's Iridium project, someone else will pick up the hardware and put it to market, probably more efficiently.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) And Clinton's not on this list? She should be. Other then that gross omission, that's a good start. Well, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her a retread (which was the post earlier). She isn't much like her hubby. Gore would definitely be a retread. But, I'd probably vote for him well before I'd vote for Clinton, or any of the aforementioned retreads.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) that really didnt hurt us in 2005. I expect whoever it is to at least do as well as El Duque Exactly what I was thinking, and people forget that. Our #5 from 2005 finished the season 9-9, 5.12. And we had the best starting staff in baseball (or very close). As long as Floyd or whomever can do that and stay healthy, I'm not overly concerned about that 5th slot.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) just think if the justice department allowed AT&T and SBC to merge, why not XM and Sirius. Because there are still a number of other telcos.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) Harvard's Hasty Pudding Theatrical Club. Thanks.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) "It's not preppies, 'cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia Who said it? Hint: He is running for office in 2008. And I'm sure he'll get the same scrutiny that Macacca Allen received from the MSM. I'll be curious. Does anyone get the Pudding reference? Maybe I'm just naive on the subject, but I don't get it.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) There are some good ones in there. I thought I called a few things pretty well, but was also way off on some. Snb was pretty right on as well. It's just amazing to see a post like Kalapse, and the standings. At the time, those looked really solid, but you look at what Detroit did, or how disappointing the Tribe was, as well as some other things. Yeah. My team and division predictions were awful, but I got about as many player predictions right as I did wrong. Stupid Royals.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) I WIN!!! http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=47638 Wow. SnB got the W-L record exactly right. That's pretty cool.