NorthSideSox72

Well, everyone knows I'm happy to see Ross back. If big-time options in LF are too expensive or don't work out, I'd be all for Gload in LF batting 2nd. He's a wash defensively for Pods, and may even improve to be better than Pods with some time out there. And he'd be a huge upgrade offensively.

DEBATE FORMAT: After discussions with SS2K5 and Soxy, here is how the Debate will work... --There will be 4 threads opened - 2 by Soxy, 2 by SS2K5. --Each thread contains one question/topic/issue, and is for the discussion of just that issue, by the candidates. --The questions were taken from some combination of suggestions in this thread, and their own warped minds. --Each candidate can make one initial position post in each thread, of NO MORE THAN 500 words. --Each candidate also gets to respond to ONE other candidate's post IN EACH of those threads, with the same 500 word limit. --The candidate who was responded to then gets ONE MORE POST to retort (to each response/question, so that may be more than once in the same thread), again, limit 500 words. --The threads will remain open until Sunday night late, at which time I will close them (the election is Tuesday). This should give people 5 or 6 days, which should be plenty of time. --Soxy and SS2K5 will moderate and ensure that everyone stays in the rules set out here. If you get out of line, you'll have to deal with them. --Any discussion that people (non-candidates and candidates alike) want to have regarding the debates can use this thread. --ONLY CANDIDATES SHOULD POST IN THE ACTUAL DEBATE THREADS. --And finally, to dispel any sort of rumors to the contrary, I do not have any idea what the topics of debate will be. Hopefully, these rules will keep the debates under control and not too long, so that everyone can see clearly people's views. The new threads should appear soon. Good luck to all!

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 02:24 AM) Write in, baby! Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Soxtalk. Do you really think it's going to change anything around here; make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their resume to become a mod. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I won't do anything. The only promise I will make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the Soxtalk government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid threads again! Or don't vote for me... who cares? Don't vote at all! I totally wrote that myself.

UPDATE ON DEBATES: The format is being finalized, and will be announced shortly, along with the rules. Keep your eyes peeled.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) It was a bad trade. And I think it possibly will be one of Brock-for-Broglio proportions (that's right --I said it -- Chris Young has HOF type talent). Everyone can go ahead and say he's just a prospect, but he is the best position player prospect in baseball. All that being said, KW was sure at least one of the Sox starters would go down, and he thought that getting Vazquez (probably the best SP on the market) would get them back to the playoffs. Even though I thought it was bad trade, I understand that. Unfortunately, no Sox pitcher really went down with an injury, if they were hurt they just pitched through it and sucked for most of the year. Plus, it should be mentioned, last year the Hardball Times thought that Vazquez was primed for a breakout/rebound year based on his peripherals in AZ. They could probably predict the same this year since Vazquez always has great peripherals and never actually pitches well. Anyway, it was terrible trade. But other teams have made them too (Boston traded Bagwell for 22 innings of Larry Andersen I think). The important thing is for KW to make the right decision now. Can they somehow get Vazquez to pitch well for two years, or are they better off trying to flip him for Lastings Milledge and hoping that Milledge turns out to be half the player that Chris Young will be. I'm guessing the latter is the better option. Brock for Broglio? Hall of Fame? The guys has barely played in the MLB. Let's get back to this in a few years and see where things are at.

QUOTE(bschmaranz @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) Northside, with the exception of one game (one inning) in CF, he's never played the OF. In that case, I am skeptical, at that kind of money, when we have cheap, in-house options like Gload, Sweeney and maybe even Owens who might be just as good on D (and in Gload and Sweeney's case, could be just as good at the plate potentially).

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) Hmm can't any decoration promoting a Christian-themed holiday be considered "divisive"?? Methinks the homeowners Association opened up a big can of worms on this one. Methinks that if Bob Kearns is the type of person who just fires the board when they disagree with him... that he could care less about opening up a can of worms. Which sucks for everyone else in the association. Which is why those things are dangerous in some ways.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) Until he plays, he is just a prospect. When he hits >300, then gloat, or whatever. I'll second that. And further, just because someone we trade away does well, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad trade. If Vazquez comes back and has a decent year in 2007 as a #2 or #3 starter, for the money... then Young can hit .300 and its still probably a good trade.

Unfortunately, its getting more and more difficult to find a home that is not part of an association - especially if the home has been built in the last 10 years.

If the big name options mentioned elsewhere are unavailable for a decent price, then I think Durham is not a bad idea. But his D in left is probably not spectacular, right? Anyone know off hand? If his D is Pods-like in left, and he brings a .350-ish OBP with some speed, then he's not much different in the end than Ross Gload, who we can get for 350k. But if Durham can play some D, his OBP is more like .360-.370, and if at 35 he can still steal 20 or more a year, then he's probably worth 6M or 7M a year, which might get it done.

Keep those kids in line LCR. Don't want to go creating any new Commies. Have a great one!

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) The chat room CAN be archived. Well, that solves THAT issue. But, I really, really doubt we can get all 5 candidates, plus SS2K5 and Soxy, and at least a few others, into there at the same time.

Great profile article on Rep. John Dingell. I have to say, I had only cursory knowledge of this guy before, but reading this article, I think I like him. Pushes federal agencies to justify their budgets, protects the health of the masses, has his name on the ESA and EPA, is against gun control, and wants to see the end of the GOP tinkering in people's personal lives. Sounds good to me!

Here is the place to post your endorsements of any specific candidate. Remember that when it comes time to vote, you can vote for anyone other than yourself. This is mostly a thread for the non-candidates to post, but if you want to endorse yourself, I suppose you can do that here, if you'd like. The candidates are: Texsox Sox4LifePA GregoryPratt RexKick*** NorthSideSox72

OK, that's it - thread closed. We have 5 candidates (see list earlier in thread). That means we have 5 for the first election, and either 2 or 3 for the second. I'll let SS2K5 and Soxy decide on that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 26, 2006 -> 09:12 PM) Of course you won't find that... DUH. Although, some without absolute blinders (tsk tsk) on even around here have acknowledged that he has done a fair job at the UN for the most part. Pefect? Far from it, but better then many had hoped. Put me in that camp. I have to say, he has been a lot better than I expected him to be.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 26, 2006 -> 10:04 PM) Did you ever witness police corruption? Why did you leave law enforcement? If you had witnessed law enforcement corruption -- say, in a close friend -- would you have reported them? Say, police corruption ala pocketing money or, worse, Police Torture of the 1980s corruption -- would you have reported that? Or are you a believer in the good-old-boys, gotta-stick-with-your-friends line of thought? I did not witness any significant police "corruption" in my brief time (2 years) in law enforcement. I left, I thought temporarily, when I moved out of state. But in the process of getting a new police job in Illinois (which is not a short process), I happened upon a career opportunity that I could not pass up. I've been with the same company in the same field ever since. I saw cops around me, sometimes in the same agency, do some things I didn't agree with. As long as no one was being put in mortal danger, I generally pulled them aside after the fact and talked with them about it. Usually, when their heads cooled, they agreed - and that was helpful in keeping them straight. One guy, though, I did almost get into a fight with over it. I never, ever saw anything I'd even remotely call "torture", nor did I see anyone steal from a subject. I believe the thin blue line to be very, very thin - if I saw something, I attempted to address it. If I needed to, I would have gone up the chain (though it never did). I made it abundantly clear to the officers around me who I was and what I'd accept from a cop - which is very high standards. Every cop goes through that, though. You exude, in your demeanor, your expectations from your fellow officers. Its sort of weird, and I think, peculiar to law enforcement and maybe the military. I wasn't any tougher than any of the rest of them, just maybe had higher expectations.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 08:29 PM) I have a suggestion, although it doesn't concern a particular question. It concerns the manner in which this debate is conducted. Here's what I think -- hold it in the chatroom. Not as if anything else is going on within the world of White Sox baseball. Everyone interested can watch as the candidates respond to questions immediately. Let them feel the pressure (if you can call it that), opposed to the lax conditions posting on a message board present. Soxy and SS2k4 can still moderate. They can even use one of the various chatroom sounds to indicate when a candidate's time is up. You know, mimicking the conditions of a true debate. Picture this -- ELECTION NIGHT December 10, 2006. 7-8pm in the chatroom. It'll be delicious. Good suggestion, and I'd participate. But, there are some downfalls of the chat system. For one, if you miss it, its all over - I don't think those conversations are archived anywhere (tell me if I'm wrong). Therefore, if you miss it at the appointed time, you miss it entirely. Also, it may be really, really tough to find a time when everyone running, plus some of the "electorate", would be able to participate.

The time period for starting a platform has technically closed, but since a couple people hinted and trying to get in, I'll leave it open until Monday. Then I'll close it. Debates start next week - Good luck to all!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 25, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) You used to work in law enforcement. Does that mean you were a police officer? Yes. QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 25, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) Ginger or Mary Ann? Pete Seeger or Phil Ochs? White or Wheat? Toaster Streudel or Pop-Tarts? Ginger I honestly don't know Phil Ochs, so, Seeger I guess (or Peter Gabriel - good call PA) Wheat Pop Tarts

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) NSS: I'd love to see the Kurds get their own state, but the Kurdish region has had its own problems - namely sponsoring PKK terror attacks inside Turkey, a NATO country. Bad enough that a couple months ago, Turkey threatened to take preemptive action in Northern Iraq. We've got a lot of problems with each nationality. The Kurds are the ones we hear about least because their target is Turkish and not American. I'm not just taking this perspective from the lack of news items. The Kurds certainly have their own issues. The difference is, I think the overall situation in that region is much more controllable than the current mess in the heart of Iraq. They have some idea of a nation in mind, they have shown a willingness to work with us, and their desires are much more along the lines of independence, financial stability and security than is true for the rest of the country. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) You don't think it's key to the nature of the Iraq War that their Civil War is going on between two groups of Islamic extremists who are fighting over religion? Okay then. Read my post more carefully. Its absolutely a key. I just don't think its the single most important difference. Its really about personal and national gain.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) Soviet influence? Ho Chi Mihn wasn't exactly a Stalinist. The key difference is that this is a religious holy war. Period. You're welcome to see it that way. I don't disagree that its a major factor. I just don't see it as the key difference.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) Well if you had ever actually been down there, you would understand the sound dynamics of the surrounding area. I fully believe that Tip hear shots from where ever he thought, because sound tends to bounce off of things like buildings and hills. There are much more compelling bits of evidence, than what people heard, as sound really tends to distort and reverberate in city-settings. And further, eye witness accounts (or ear witness in this case) are notoriously unreliable. Human hearing is actually pretty poor at figuring out the direction a sound came from, unless the sound is long and/or repeated.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) I'd disagree with you on their being no side worth taking on any issue. For US interests, I'd back the Sunni. Or at least the secular. We don't want a country too closely allied with Iran. The more I see stories like this though, the more I think we've squandered any opportunity. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...on.com+%2F+News That would be sort of ironic wouldn't it? Or maybe just poetic? We invade, knock Saddam and his Sunni minority out of power, spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to try to set up a secular state, see hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in violence, and then decide to back those same Sunnis in taking back control of the country. Sort of seperately, one thing I haven't changed my view on - Kurdistan should be a seperate state. In fact, if we do pull out, we might want to pull back to Kurdistan, support the Kurds as best as we can. That might help ease the worries of Syria and Turkey about an independent Kurdistan.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) I agree, if we look at it that way, but I also believe that the American Civil War and the Vietnamese Civil War and the Iraqi Civil War are far too different in that what we have today is a religious Holy War. I don't think that is the most important difference. The key difference is that in Vietnam the U.S. could take a side (U.S. v Soviet influence), and in the American Civil War, the Brits could take a side (UK promoting best trade opportunities). Here, we gain nothing from choosing the Shiites or the Sunnis. There is no side worth promoting. Kind of like with Israel and Palestine.