NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 5, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) Ah yes. Hmmm... 11 minus 9 is 2... just two months left to elections!!! Time to ratchet up the fear mongering and strident overtones! Well sure enough, as a follow up to this, Bush got the bump he was looking for when he started in with this stuff. He got a few of the core GOPers behind him again. Not much movement outside the GOP, though - I think he was trying to grab back some Indies, but failed. So now, of course, the bump will fade. Its just a questions of how much it will fade between now and the November midterms. I think maybe Bush did this stuff a bit too early, unless he has some other tricks up his sleeve (which Rove... I mean Bush... might). Last check on Rasmussen showed their projections in the Senate at 49 R to 48 D with 3 tossups (Jeffords is counted as D). I think its going to be close.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) What do you guys think about Jim Webb? I thought he did a good job on Meet The Press I don't know much about him yet. What did you like?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) But if you're talking about a history of ascendant success....well, let's just say that if Obama were to toss his hat into the race, I think he's got my vote even over Gore already. Here is the thing with Obama. He hasn't even said "maybe" for 2008 - he has said NO. Multiple times. And herein lies the problem for him. A big part of his appeal is as a non-politico, and as someone who is candid and honest. So if he does run, those very same people calling for him to do so will end up disliking him for changing. It would take the sheen off of him. I think he is roaming Iowa because he wants to get in peoples' heads for 2012 or 2016 - that is my guess. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 09:50 PM) Actually, I'm less and less convinced that Edwards would have been a good choice. My pick you still haven't heard from yet. Retired Governor of Virginia Mark Warner. I think Hillary doesn't even formally run. Warner may be a very good choice. I certainly like him better than any of the big 3. And just to be clear, I wasn't saying I liked Edwards. I didn't - I think he is a bit smarmy, and I don't think there is as much depth behind the southern charm as people are hoping for (he's basically a shallow Clinton). I just think he would have beaten Bush.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 07:05 PM) We worried about who was electable in 2004. Fat lot of good that did us. People called him "electable" because he was moderate and is a solid crusader, along with his war record. Problem is, he came off like a fish flopping around on the bottom of the boat against a brick wall Bush. The Dems looked at the wrong factors, IMO. I said it then. Edwards wins in 2004 if he gets the nomination, even though I'm no fan of his. Kerry was too close to call.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) Russ Feingold would be a fine candidate for President in my opinion. A Democrat with balls. And not nearly as radical as many think. I believe, the more that people see him, the more people will be inclined to support him. He votes his conscience more than most. I guess I don't see that in him. To me, if you want a candidate to the left of the Dem center with the balls to stand up for their beliefs, I'd go with Kucinich. Feingold has two problems for me. One, reality or not, is national image is that of someone far left. Two, he is a complainer extraordinaire. I mean, they all complain. But Feingold tends to be too strident in his complaints, almost to the point of being corny. He doesn't come off as a President, is what I am trying to say. If we are asking who the best President would be, I'd take Feingold over Hillary, and possibly over John Kerry as well. But Feingold isn't electable is the problem - he'll get stomped on. So I don't want him getting the nomination. Give me a candidate who is NOT one of the big names that are already muddied (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards), who is moderate but somewhat honest (not moderate by way of waffling), and who has a history of ascendent success (not someone who has been in the same political post forever). That, to me, says Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, they both need a much bigger national profile than they have now to pull it off. But if they did, I think either one would kick any Republicans rear in the election.

in transit.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 03:36 PM) Although his August OPS was good did you really consider him a major threat at the plate? I sure didn't. Seems like clutch hits were few and far between in the 2nd half. I don't have his August RISP or RO numbers, but for the season: RISP: 1.120 RO: 1.167 I'd bet his OPS or AVG for RISP/RO for August are pretty damn good. Seriously, if you think Thome is the reason we likely won't make the playoffs, then you haven't been paying attention. There are some many other more negative factors. People just have short memories - he's had a lousy September so far.

Is death an option? I cannot think of two names in the current Dem Prez pool for 2008 that I'd like less to see on the ticket. They are both sure losers in 2008 against any decent Republican candidate.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) If you can't see how unproductive he's been since July, then you're letting your crush on Jim cloud your judgement. Yeah. That August OPS of 1.039 was really lousy. Worthless, really.

QUOTE(UC76 @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) I'm very, very, very scared of what we'll get from Thome in 2007. I fear the second half of this year is what we'll get all of next year. The guy is old and falling apart...and that isn't going to get better. Old and falling apart? The guy has had just one season in his whole career that was limited by injury more than a few days here and there. That's a lot better record than Thomas has. Not to mention that, despite his size and age, he still runs better than a handful of our starters. Plus Thome is religious with staying in shape. I'm a lot more worried about the health of Konerko, Dye, Crede and some of our pitchers than I am Thome.

Of all the things on this team which need changes, Jim Thome isn't even in the top 10. People here are comparing him to a miraculously healthy Frank Thomas. Except last year, our DH wasn't Thomas - it was Carl Everett, for the great majority of the season. And oh yeah, pretty much everyone (including the great majority on this board, all Sox medical staff, Frank's independent Doc, and others) was convinced pre-season that Thomas would be lucky to play half the year. Convenient how we all forgot that part. Thome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 months of Everett and 1 month of Thomas Thome isn't the problem.

Here is one thought to consider regarding Ozzie, and some players, for 2007... Some people learn. Ozzie learned - remember his in-game decisions in 2004? They make this season's look like genius. Will he learn about what to do with CF? Maybe. But just as one cannot assume that players (like our SP's) will be just as good from year to year, one cannot assume they will be just as bad either. This can be applied to some players too. People scoff at the idea as a long term solution, but I think looking at Pablo and/or Gload for LF next year might not be a bad idea. Why? Because they both have improved their games markedly, including on defense, despite getting only occasional playing time. Pods on the other hand seems to have shown a number of years of the same trends - and not going in the right direction. The LF situation isn't the only one that shows this either - Vazquez and Contreras have made significant changes this year in their games. Players can get better, even when they aren't rookies. Like any line of business, it is always smart to recruit and hire staff that have shown signs of the ability to learn and adapt - not just having raw talent. Ozzie has done some of that over his short managing career (not in every area, but in some). Let's remember that he had never managed a team before this. So I for one feel like there is at least a chance we'll see a version of Ozzie in 2007 that makes some leaps forward. I'm comfortable giving him that chance, with the positives he already brings to the table.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) So nothing about that Boston series in July troubled you ? anyone else? Hey, if you were more confident in them after that series, more power to you. But I dont think that makes me LESS of a Sox fan. I found that series very Disturbing across the board ........... There is a difference between criticizing the team, even vehemently... and gleefully enjoying doing so. You seem to be in the latter camp. Do you not see the difference?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) And Karma certainly got Kenny Williams this weekend didnt it? Who here didnt smile every time Frank Thomas just Jammed It to the SOX this weekend, playing like an MVP and leading his new team ............ bittersweet to say the least. I love Frank Thomas. You baffle me.

You're old. I've got at least one album from every genre I know of, aside from hard-core gangsta rap. I try to avoid listening to anything labeled as "easy listening", "adult" or "smooth jazz". Anything that might be played in an elevator doesn't belong on my stereo. You can keep your Mannheim Steamroller and your Yanni and the rest of your Muzak.

When mentioning any Congressional member at the federal or state level, I think they should cite the party. They do most of the time anyway. The times they don't, either way, it looks fishy. This one smells like week-old Cod. If it was an oversight, then its a significant one, and I'd hope the editors would watch for it more carefully in the future. If it wasn't an oversight, then its obnixious and unprofessional.

Since DET is still struggling a bit, I think they are the only shot we really have. If we sweep Detroit, we'd be 2 behind them with 10 left, and I'll feel like we have a chance. Barring that happening, or an unexpected tailspin from MIN, I think we are in deep doo-doo.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) "Existence of these words"? Christ, yes, obviously the words exist, that's obviously not my point. It's not HIS statement. I can quote someone in an academic context and not have it be identified with MY beliefs. How hard is this for you to understand? Have you read the entire speech? No, he's not trying to address any such "hatred". He's not addressing Islam or the divide betwen religions or cultures. He's speaking from a Christian perspective to Christians. The use of the quote is twofold -- First, to set up one Christian's response to violence and reason, as he is to explore the natural Christian response to these throughout the rest of the speech. Second, to demonstrate that this is not a universal response -- the Emperor's objection to Islam is based on a misunderstanding of its basic philosophy, one which may be natural for someone with a 'Greek' outlook, but is not in any sense necessary. As for Constantinople, you initially said that noone cared at all, not that it was only a minor issue. But however small you think it is, it's still interesting that such a ridiculous objection even gets mentioned. Finally, whatever you think of the Catholic Church in general, and however often you shout out "stupid!", if you would ever have looked at his record, you would see that he has been quite interested in learning about Islam and undoubtedly knows a great deal more about it than any non-Muslims on this board. He will certainly be more willing to emphasize the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam, something that many predicted about his papacy from the start. But to say he's "stupid" is laughable. Every post you have made in this thread has misquoted me. I didn't call anyone stupid. I called HIS STATEMENT dumb... because it was. It was poorly thought out, and someone in his position needs to know the consequences of that type of thing, even if its someone else's quote. The fact that it was someone else's words doesn't magically make it OK for others to say, anyone more than it makes it automatically not OK. But the context, and know his weak attempt at an apology, make it even worse. If he had quoted it and was then referring to the rift, then it would make sense. In the sense he used it in, looking at the rest of the speech around it, it was not a positive in any way. Of course he knows more about Islam, and all major religions, than all of us here combined. That should go without saying. But that does nothing to alleviate the problems caused by his statement. An additional thought... I have been reading about the apology. On the one hand, I was glad to see him make a specific distinction between the quote and his beliefs. That is good. But his apology for "the reaction" is of course no apology at all. In fact, its putting blame elsewhere. I just wish this leader of people would have the courage to stand up and say he made a mistake. I'm tired of leaders who equate stubbornness with strength, when the opposite it true.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) I have to say that I'm a bit dissappointed in Pope Benedict for giving any ground on his comments. What kind of Pope says he is "deeply sorry" for reading scripture (that was what he was reading right?) What he was reading isn't what I would call "scripture". It was a quote from a Christian Emporer of Byzantium. And he didn't give any ground on his statements, it would appear. He said he was sorry for the reaction. Didn't apoligize for the use, or tone, of the quote. At least not in what I read this morning, though I only saw a snippet about the statement as of yet.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) Hmm... Mind elaborating? If you mean that I don't take any slights to Islam seriously, then perhaps you can explain why, between the two of us, I was the only one who took the time to read enough to know that the reference to Constantinople is an issue to some. Benedict voiced absolutely no support for the quote, but you simply assume that he endorsed it full-bore. ("...the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence.") He didn't say that, he didn't "essentially" say that, it was coincidental to the entire purpose of the talk. He didn't use the quote approvingly, as in, 'here's a reliable guy who supports me in my Christojihad against Islam', but as a jumping off point for examining attitudes within Christianity. But it will be misread as forcefully as possible, because some people find anger useful. Making yet another attempt to make this about a side issue isn't helping your arguments. The Constantinople thing is miniscule in importance, which is what my thought was upon reading about it. And your quote about it from the article, as with the rest of the article, makes it clear that it was just not a big deal. I am puzzled why you keep pointing it out. Benedict did and said something really dumb. Your response is "he didn't say that". If you cannot acknowldge the existence of these words, there is little point in discussing this with you. As for context, I didn't see that quote in the positive light you seem to you. Your saying it was there to examine attitudes within Christianity makes it seem he was trying to delve into the hatred between the two religions, and find some way to address it - which sure sounds good, doesn't it? Except I don't see that. I see instead a subtle attempt to further cleave the two parties and justify the actions of one side. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) That's the one thing that bugs me about Islam... Everytime someone offends anyone, people start to riot and threaten everybody. Christianity faces its demons publicly and often. We hear the priest abuse sex scandal mentioned still all of the time, as well as things like the inquisition and the Papal holocaust ignoring/sympathsizing thrown back at Christians, and do you see people rioting in the streets and callling for Islamic leaders deaths and comparing them to Hitler? No. You see them on TV apologizing for the deaths carried out in God's name instead of on TV screaming for more blood to be spilled over no more than a percieved insult, meanwhile Islamic leaders preach death to America and Israel EVERY SINGLE DAY. Gee I wonder where people get the ideas that Pope Benedict spoke about? And believe me I know that not ALL Islam is like that, and guess what, not all Christianity helped the Nazis or Spaniards either during those killing sprees. And they also don't act insulted when those are mentioned. I pretty much agree with all of this. Although, I do think you may overstate the ability of the church (meaning the papacy and the Catholic church in this case) to face its demons. It does horrific wrongs, and generally tends to stick to its guns until centuries later. Certainly, Christianity on net balance does a much better job trying to right its own wrongs. But all else I agree with. I am not in this thread, nor have I ever, defended the violent and out-of-hand reactions of extremists within Islam towards these incidents. The only thing I was defending was the anger, and frustration, and calls by governments for Benedict to explain himself. Given the statement, AND ITS CONTEXT, I'd say he owes them that.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 06:57 PM) I kind of knew that...I was mainly just wondering what qwerty, or the rest of the board in general too, thought. Gload should so be leading off for this team right now. It'd be kind of like Jeremy Giambi leading off for the A's a couple years back, but dammit would he improve this lineup so much. I'd love to see Gload platooning in left with Pablo. But I still don't know if he is a leadoff hitter. Better than Pods right now, though. I do however think that Ross would be a really good 2-hole hitter: high average, puts the ball in play, can put the ball on the right side well, a little speed, and knows how to bunt. I'll take a stab. I'd bet Gload would have similar steal numbers to Gooch if he played full time. High percentage, low attempts... maybe 7 to 10 steals at 70 to 80% on a full year. If he put an emphasis on it, learned to read pitchers, maybe a little more. I said 15 SB before, but I think 10 is more realistic.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 12:35 AM) Me thinks I read the whole speech, actually. And other articles which mentioned anger over the use of Constantinople. An AP article: Apparently we should talk about the Aztecs' wonderful city, Mexico City. He quoted someone, calls the statement "brusque" (at least, that's the English version), and points out that the source of the quote is certainly doctoring the dialogue to make himself look good. Beyond that, he doesn't judge the statement one way or another, perhaps because the speech has nothing to do with Islam or the accuracy of the quote. He's discussing the role of reason in Christianity, and uses the Emperor's quote as a jumping-off point -- the Emperor assumes that reason must be consonant with God; while understandable coming from someone with a 'Greek' outlook, is this something that we as Christians generally accept? If I quote something without endorsement or criticism, in the midst of a philosophical discussion, that implies that I hold the same views? By what logic? He's "saying" nothing about Islam. What he did was forget that he's no longer an academic, and must color every clause with all the requisite pieties, or else some demagogue f*** will inevitably compare him to Hitler. Constantinople is a side bar here. Its a small, unimportant piece of the issue. It isn't what people are upset about. And before you say it, I do not defend the absurd comparisions to Hitler, or the violent reprisals that may come. This is not cause for such things. As for the main issue, the use of that quotation, it was callous and stupid on his part, plain and simple. And I can see exactly why it might make people angry. Given some of our past discussions, I am not surprised that you would not. You and I see the conflict in the Middle East differently. I don't suspect we can have much other positive discussion on this.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) What objection there is to his remarks has been blown absurdly out of proportion by opportunistic politicians. Comparing Pope B to Hitler is one of the stupidest remarks I've seen in years. Getting upset because he used "Constantinople" instead of "Istanbul" while referring to the city when it was called "Constantinople" is just f'n laughable. He quotes the passage to set up his discussion of reason in Christianity, and the part that everyone's in a tizzy over he describes as "brusque". Not exactly a ringing endorsement. This whole controversy is garbage. Me thinks you failed to actually read the quote which caused the controversy. I don't think anyone gives a damn about Constantinople versus Istanbul. Read it again. The problematic quote from Benedict is: "The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" If you can't see how that would be insulting towards Islam, or how coming from the Pope that might get their cackles up, then you know little of religion. And for the record, this to me is nothing like the whole cartoon controversy. That one was silly, IMO. This is the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence. And considering he was referring to actions around the Crusades, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) Why exactly will the sox be looking for a right handed hitter with speed? I am guessing because podsednik is left handed and sucks which in turn means all left handed lead-off hitters will with us too. Hey Qwerty - what are your thoughts on Gload? Just curious.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) DISASTER He couldn't be worse than the current leader. Seriously. Plus how funny would that be?