NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) Do we have to keep going back and forth on this? I would expect nothing less from a thread subtitled "Suck it, Clinton!" Pointless.

I for one would like to see Twins v Tigers in the ALCS, with Tigers winning and going to the WS. I'll be rooting for ALC all the way.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) ..........and you will be entirely wrong. Well, he is actually right in blaming Bush for those SPECIFIC failures. And failures they were. But to blame Bush entirely for 9/11 is ridiculous.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Give me a sec, here, while I dig up Thomes 2nd half Batting Average, and his average against lefties Show us his overall offensive numbers for the 2nd half. They will be quite good. Those same numbers with RISP will be even better. His average against lefties will be lesser of course. That doesn't make him "not right". It makes him left-handed.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) NOPE. Jim Thome hasnt been right since June. Best hitter since June? I saw a low low average the 2nd half. I didnt say he was a "problem" for this team, I said he hasnt been right since June. Big Difference. Hes been among the best hitters in baseball during that time. Sure, as long as a lefty wasnt on the mound. We'll find out soon enough that he was hurt again ....... Your argument carries no weight when you fail to support it with factual information. The numbers say he's been quite good. OPS and OBP huge, BA RISP even better... what do you see in the second half that is "not right?"

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) This is precisely the type of post I was writing about. Its dumb to blame anyone. When the USSR fell, the paradigm changed. Bush Sr. and Clinton made cuts to military and intelligence programs. The need for large expenditures diminished and this was reflected in budget cuts approved by a Democratically controlled Congress until 1994 and a Republican controlled Congress from 94-2001. For 50 years, the central role of the CIA was to monitory Soviet military and political forces. The Agency had focused heavily on spying on an institutional enemey that suddenly collapsed in the late 80's. De-militarization was approved by both parties as the logical response to the political failure of our most feared enemy for 50 years. So blame is dumb. Its about scoring political points... its a waste of time. We'd all be better off if in this election cycle Dems quit b****ing about the 9/11 report and Condolezza Rice and Republicans would quit b****ing about Clinton. We all blew it... Dems and Repubs. 9/11 happened. We weren't ready. Get on with it. While I applaud your desire to take the petty politicizing out of things, I have to disagree with your sentiment on getting on with it. I think it is in fact crucial that we analyze our shortcomings and why missed this. As I stated earlier, there are lessons to be learned, and yet we continue to avoid acting to change those things.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Bush Has Met Privately With 1,149 Relatives Of Dead Service Members Nice.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) I know a couple guys who think Jim Thome is one of the most significant aquisitions for the SOX in about 100 years. Even a dog can tell you Thome hasnt been right since June Really? Can the dog do math? Does the dog see that Thome's OPS was 1.005 in July? And 1.039 in August? And .993 thus far in September? Yeah, he really hasn't been right since June. He's only been among the best hitters in baseball during that time, hit even better in RISP than is normal numbers, and been one of the few guys on the team to hustle out every ground ball. I really don't know what planet people are on if they think Jim Thome is a problem for this team - he is in fact the 2nd most valuable offensive player in the lineup. Are you just LOOKING for things to b**** about?

Given how many cockroaches are probably roaming Six Flags, I'd say this is a pretty intelligent business decision. Fun marketing ploy combined with reduction in pest control bills. Nice.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 11:59 PM) The last Olympic games which was actually able to turn a profit for the city hosting it, IIRC, was the 1984 games in Los Angeles, which was run with significant chunks of private money funding almost everything. Officially, for example, the city of Atlanta made a profit of about $10 million on the 96 games...but they spent about $1 billion on infrastructure improvements. And that's before the 9/11 attacks and the huge increases in the security budgets that had to come afterwards...new costs which have gotten to the point where it's nearly impossible for a small country, like Greece, to afford to pay for it. It is absolutely not possible to measure how profitable (or unprofitable) an Olympics has been for a city. There are far too many costs, and too many after effects, to measure. Some of the major benefits to hosting an Olympics, such as drawing tourism, simply cannot be measured (how do you know if someone came to Chicago in following years because of that one thing?). Its too complex. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 08:31 AM) I think despite all of the negatives that Chicago's bid for the olympics would be a huge shot in the arm if it was privately financed for the most part. There are a ton of infrastructure projects that Chicago needs done NOW, but can't get done because they are standing in line behind other cities and states who are facing the same crumbling systems. Heck the rapid transit system alone needs huge rebuilding work on a couple of the CTA lines, not to mention the addition of the circle line to better connect the suburbs. The interstates also need a huge amount of work, not to mention the need to untangle the railroad spurs in the southside and southern suburbs. The olympics are a surefire way to get these projects done because the host city has to be first class, and the transportation system is a huge part of a bid. Then there is the civic pride that would come with the entire world converging on Chicago for two weeks and getting to see how incredible Chicago is. And that is one of the big reasons why I like the idea. Chicago is in need of some major transit and transportation work, and this is a great way to spur that funding.

You cannot blame Clinton, or W, or HW, or Reagan, or any other single American leader for the rise of Middle East-born terror. The factors contributing to it had been simmering for, literally, centuries. And even to have a more modern perspective, if you want to know why we failed to see 9/11 coming, the biggest single reason was the breakdown in our foreign and domestic intelligence gathering. More specifically, the CIA getting away from HumInt in favor of SigInt (which started primarly under REAGAN, for the record), and the FBI/CIA schism which has been there for decades. Those failings can be blamed on thousands of different politicians and government officials. And the really sad part? We're only making snail's progress on changing the CIA, NSA and FBI as institutions. This whole DHS debacle (oh I know, I bet these agencies will work even better with MORE red tape and administrative overhead!) makes them worse off, the FBI is still a broken down old boys' network, and the CIA's progress towards better HumInt is going to take a long time to complete.

The guy was wounded in combat. Just give him a dishonorable discharge and send him on his way.

There is something about that too, this drive some women have to be absurdly, sickly skinny, that I just don't get. If the motivation is to look skinny for someone... who is it for? Because in my experience, most men prefer women with at least a little bit of curves. Something other than skin and bones. sure, some men like more or less of it, but its pretty rare to find a guy who likes the stick figure on the right (with one exception - the extreme control freaks). So who are they doing it for?

From a purely business point of view, it makes sense - its marketing. We have signs here that it is being targeted to those with more expendable income. Add to that the fact that existing season ticket holders will no longer get special access. And who is the target audience? Those with money, and without season tickets... yet. And that is their key, I am sure. Why throw an event for people who already have season tickets? They already have the Grinder Bashes for that. This is targeting growth of the season ticket base and other individual ticket holders. They want to make sure they have enough new inflow to be at season-ticket capacity every year.

Pablo chasing the squirrel into the tarp.

First Muslim in US Congress, as well as the first black rep from Minnesota, is ahead and likely to win: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_...uslim_support_2 Just interesting.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 09:09 PM) Kalapse = Android Brando = Artiste Chisoxfn = Nanny JimH = BigDog Queen Prawn = Bliss Ninny Hi8is = Bong Evil Monkey = Troglodyte Steff = Coffee Klatch Anthrax = Compost LCR and samclemens = Ideologue SNB = Eagle Scout YASNY = Ent IWin4prep = Fanboy Northsidesox72 = Philosopher Gene Honda Civic = Picador SouthsideIrish71 = Godfather OldRoman/Clu/BMR = Godzilla Rex Kickass = Kung Fu Master SoxFan1 = Rottweiler Puppy Flash Tizzle = Rebel Leader Texsox/Dbaho/Heads22/Kapkomet = Royals Fathom = agent Witesoxfan = Big Cat QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 08:09 AM) Iggy = Klaxon All nicely done!

I'd like to see a new SS with speed and OBP and at least decent D to leadoff. Then put Gload in LF and hitting #2 (Pods-like defense, but way better offense) until Owens or Sweeney are ready (which they are not). Alternately, if Fields looks ready, bring him up for LF and to spell Crede at 3B. Either way, we need that SS. Who is the best out there that we have a chance at getting?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 06:33 AM) I guess someone forgot to tell the Yankees that you are suppossed to play, week, no heart baseball if you played in October of the last year. Apparently... since as was shown earlier, they were the exception to the rule. Other than the $200M Yankees, virtually no one did well the year after a WS championship.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) So, someone want to tell me why Medicare is forbidden from doing this? And so Walcare was born...

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) If Im not mistaken, this latest bill includes funding to help defray the cost of getting these people state IDs. With all the accusations of fraud that Democrats make you would think they would welcome something that helps stop election fraud. Oh, wait, This means no voting 3 times and no illegal aliens voting either so we cant have that now can we? I'll say again, I don't think those sorts of activities (voting fraud) can be attached to one party. Nor do I think it is terribly widespread.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) You know what will happen next, right? Now we will start to hear about the poor local pharmasists who are going to go out of business because of those low drug prices... Actually, Walgreens already took care of that.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) do think a potential voter should be able to show any ID, proof of residence or social security number to register? IMO, allowing someone to just give a name and then be registered to vote is almost asking for fraud. I answered that questions a few posts ago. I am OK with requiring ID as long as ID's can be had in that state (or at a federal level) free of charge. I will never accept the idea of charging for a right.

This is actually pretty great stuff. Its like two negatives making a positive. Walmart is really great at "pushing cost out of the system" as they put it, and one of the main ways they do that is use their distribution size and network to hold suppliers over the barrel on price. Drug companies make absurd profits by charging differentially and pushing their drugs through medical professionals. Now Walmart comes along, engages them as "partners", and one company's questionable but effective tactic cancels out that of another. And the consumer, ultimately, wins. As much as I despise Walmart, I have to say...

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 02:41 PM) the main reason democrats don't want people to show an ID is because they know for a fact that many of their constituants aren't legitimate voters. I'll take issue with this part. The reason the Dems don't want ID shown is because their constituents tend to include the very poor and the transient, who are less likely to have IDs. I'd say that neither party lays sole claim to illegitimate voters or questionable voting tactics.