NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 05:40 PM) What would I throw at the Freshman? Ya know, I don't know where you go to school, but your posts have New Trier written all over them.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) It's an FDR joke. Roosevelt was so despised by the richest of the rich (and make no mistake, they were his biggest critics/enemies) that the snoots would call him "That man!" instead of say his name because they despised him so. Heh. Sounds a lot like the Harry Potter thing. "He who shall not be named" or whatever they say. I actually saw a bumper sticker once that said "Republicans for Voldemort", done nicely in the correct colors and layout of the Bush/Cheney stickers of the time. Took me a second to recognize the difference.

Ahem.. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

QUOTE(Slugger Yolando @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) how do i set a darn avatar on this board? i'd like to put up a picture Slugger- See a few posts up, someone gave you the link to follow. Click on it. It leads to a forum on the board specifically for asking such questions.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) But if you remember when we aqquired him, everyone was saying he will regain his velocity. He would have a game here and there were he would hit 96 maybe 97. But for the most part would be at 94 and below. He was saying stuff in the news about how if he had more work in games, he would be stronger and throw harder. He had a medical condition. Maybe Freddy has a medical condition also. He may indeed have a medical condition. That might explain the medicinal use of mary jane.

A recently used car, if bought from a dealer with a certification program and warranty on it, is a good way to go in that price range. In my experience of vehicles where I have more than rumor/media information... Brands I (and those close to me) have done well with: Toyota Subaru Saturn Infiniti Lexus Brands not so good: BMW Alfa Romeo Chevy Ford

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 05:07 PM) Lineups... Tigers Granderson CF Polanco 2B Pudge C Mags RF Guillen SS Thames LF Infante DH Shelton 1B Inge 3B White Sox LF Podsednik 2B Iguchi DH Thome 1B Konerko RF Dye C Piersynski 3B Crede SS Uribe CF Anderson I like it. Now do it. Both going with the starting 9, eh?

I have a good feeling about this series. Really good. I won't say the word, but I think I know how it will go. I hope I'm right.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) The same could be said for Billy Koch. I somehow doubt that Freddy has a bizarre, infectious skin disease which has CNS side effects.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) I'm getting to "That man!" levels with Bush. Care to translate?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) The House vote was 238 to 194. If I did the math right, something like 290 votes are needed to override the veto in that house. So it's almost certainly not going to be overridden with this Congress. If the house vote was that short of override, then yeah, I'd agree. I figured it would be about as close as the Senate vote (relatively), but apparently not. I wasn't aware of how the house voted.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) The Senate Passed the bill, 63-37. Not enough to override a veto. Finally! A Wedge issue! Whoopee! It is PROBABLY not enough. Thing is, some people will vote against a bill but still vote to override the veto, if their party bets big on it. Its happened before. They'd need 3 more. But more than likely, that wouldn't happen for 3+ senators, so Bush will likely use his first veto on this one, where it is highly likely to succeed (and is a pet issue for him personally). Wedge issue indeed.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) Did you try to RSVP? Yeah, I called today and asked if I could RSVP late, and they said no. Full up.

I was out of town and didn't get the invites out of my mail pile until Sunday, and it was too late to reply to the invite. Not happy.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/18/news/penny/index.htm?cnn=yes I came across this while reading the news today and wondered what you all thought about this idea. Personally, I kinda like it. Would save the government money and eliminate some of the loose change that piles up in my car and on my desk. I think this belongs in the pile with all the other crap that Congress is moving on that ISN'T WORTH THE TIME. I wish they'd put this much thought into more important issues, like, I don't know... poverty, the environment, crime.... Once those are fixed or on the way to fixed, then worry about the penny. EDIT: Also, while we might save $40M, there will be all sorts of costs we take on as well. Think about all the administrative costs of dealing with the weird rounding rules, differences between cash and credit purchases, etc. That alone will be a cost burden on private businesses well in excess of $40M.

I get the strong impression that Chris Stewart was set to be the backup C next year anyway. So if we make a change this year, I'd favor bringing up Stewart as a 3rd C when the rosters expand, and play him a bunch. If Widge continues to suck, then you can choose to carry Stewart instead of Widger on the post-season roster. A trade isn't worth it.

Wow did my predictions suck (see my sig bet). Yikes. Only teams I was close on were the Twins and us. I was dead wrong on the other three.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) i haven't read the thread...but i'm just hoping someone else took the time to show why this is a poor comparison. Perhaps if you read the 2 page thread, you'd see that multiple people pointed out differences (myself included) - and at least one person dismissed it in its entirety. Also, if you read my post, you might see that there are indeed some significant parallels, to go along with those important differences.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) Of course, I for one might think it worth noting that the reason much of the native American lands were uninhabited in the 17th century was that contacts between Europe and North America in the 1500's brought over diseases that killed over 90% of the population of North America within a century or so. Most of North America was not "uninhabited" in the 17th century - there would still have been millions of natives at that point. And disease was just starting its big run at that point. Some areas, like the northeast, were devastated. But other areas were left mostly untouched by disease in the 1600's. I'd bet the 90% level of kill-off wasn't reached until the 19th century. Heck, even in the mid-19th century, there were still Indians walking the trails in central Illinois (so goes the stories from my family).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) But here's one counterpoint...a lot of the targets Israel has hit are not genuine Hezbollah or military targets. They've hit bridges around Beirut. They've hit the Beirut airport. They've hit factories in the northern part of lebanon, in areas outside of Hezbollah control. They've reportedly killed something like 20 Lebanese soldiers, but killed something like 150 Lebanese civilians, which is an abjectly bad ratio with the technology available to the Israelis. Yes, they have gone after legit Hezbolla targets, like their leadership compounds, or TV stations, but they're also going after targets which have no relationship to Hezbollah, but are key parts of Lebanese infrastructure. Why, would you guess, that is? Because they are afraid of the movement of certain individuals?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) MD had nothing to do with Europeans. That's just a fact. And while you mention that Israel is attacked, you did not mention that its attackers controlled the Palestinian areas themselves, which is an important detail. I'm not going to get into a big thing over this. I find your "parallels" superficial, and it would be easy to find random things in common between any two groups alive at any time. Somehow I feel ancient, maintained claim to a nation is fundamentally different than purely economic exploitation. Somehow I believe clearly defined nations are fundamentally different than people who happen to be living in one place, as the Cherokee nation is different than the Chicago suburbs. You disagree. Okay. You asked for discussion and I gave an honest answer. I thought you were totally wrong, I said that bluntly, and I gave reasons. For that I'm blind? Bulls***. You're just arranging things to see what you want to see. Blindness looks pretty good in comparison. OK then.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Just, no. First of all, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America had a divine mission to expand across our continent; it has nothing to do with European colonization of the Americas. Did I blend the two? If so, it was more symbolic. If you want to get into that level of the argument (which I doubt the Indians gave a damn about), then yes, MD was an American thing. I basically made that point. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Now as for the supposed parallel -- while the Native Americans were clearly defined nations/peoples, it's hard to argue that about the Palestinians. There were a significant number of Jews in Palestine, originally, who were very much pro-Israel. And the fractured nature of the population makes it hard to say that there was a right to the land -- whose right? This is certainly a good point. The situation is not at all black and white. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) And while you admit that the land was taken as a "defensive buffer", you fail to mention that it was taken in response to an attack on Israel by the countries that controlled those areas (there was no 'state of Palestine' that Israel overran). That's war -- if you use something against me, or if you can, I'm gonna do something to neutralize that advantage. Hardly "Trail of Tears" type stuff. Actually, read my post again. I very specifically mentioned the attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Finally, I don't know how you can seriously compare explicit exploitation for economic reasons, under a "manufactured banner" of bringing Christianity to 'heathens' (not MD, but okay), to a claim of landright that dates back millennia. Just, no similarity at all, none. I can seriously compare them because they are more alike than not, for the reasons I listed. You have blended the Chirstianity drive (more a Spanish and French thing) with MD (American thing) that you earlier criticized me for blending. Are they related or not? For you to say there is no similarity at all is kind of ridiculous and blind. If you feel they are different in a lot important ways, I can see that. But to say something like "Just, no similarity at all, none" is inaccurate on its face, unless you can tell me how each parallel I drew is non-existent.

QUOTE(sti3 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) Israelis stole their land? I thought it was given to them for that stuff they endured at the hands of the Germans. Correct. I'd say the land was stolen by the people responsible for creating the state of Israel to being with, which was catastrophic for the region and is the primary reason that things have been so ugly there for the last 50 years.

I just got back from spending a week in the wilderness of Wyoming and Colorado. For those who haven’t done that sort of thing, when you get out there in the wild, you start to become a lot more thoughtful of those who lived in that wilderness for generations. You think about how those tribes (in the case of this area, the Cheyenne and Yampa) survived and even flourished, in a seemingly inhospitable environment. And you imagine what their world was like, before and after the arrival of the white eye. When we came out of the mountains, and arrived at the hotel to clean up, the news was blaring of the suddenly increased tensions in the Middle East (as discussed in multiple threads). Sort of a rude awakening from our peaceful saunter. And while this particular flare-up is mostly between the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Israel (as opposed the Palestinians as a group), it got me to thinking about how similar the Palestinians and the American Indians really are. The broad-stroke parallels are many and obvious. Both have been repeatedly beaten down by occupying forces. Both used guerilla tactics, provoked and unprovoked, as a means to fight (and in both cases, it was actually only a minority of the population who took up arms). Both are looked at as second class citizens by the nations that occupied their pervious territory, not worthy of negotiation or respect. They both adapted to adverse terrain in order to survive. As sure as there are parallels, there are also key differences. For one, the Jews that are now Israelis can stand on having controlled that territory at a previous time. The Europeans and Americans who marched across North America under the manufactured banner of Manifest Destiny did not have such a legitimate claim. Time frame is also critical, of course. The global community is significantly less tolerant of violence in general now, and certainly of both terror tactics and military aggression, than it was a couple hundred years ago. And it is certainly true that much of the land Israel occupied after the 1973 (or was it ’67? I always forget) war with Egypt and Syria, nominally Palestinian-occupied, was taken as a defensive buffer after being attacked by aggressive forces. So let us apply some of the currently purveyed arguments on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the battles between America and the AmerInd groups. Bush’s favorite line is, “Isreal has a right to defend herself.” That’s pretty hard to argue against. Did the farmers and settlers in the American west have a right to defend themselves against Indian raids and violence? I think the answer to both is yes. But equally important, what about the fact that the Palestinians and the Indians both held legitimate claim to the lands that the Israelis and Americans effectively stole? Is one more legitimate than the other? I don’t believe so. I think they both rightly claim that they were forced off their land, repeatedly, with little recourse. So what tactics would have been OK for the native groups to employ? For that matter, which ones did they even have at their disposal? Terror and raiding parties appear to have been their only military option. And what about the idea of setting up a Palestinian nation-state, broken into multiple units around the territory they once solely occupied? Sounds a lot like the reservation system, doesn’t it? Suddenly the vilified Dawes Act looks like it has a twin brother in the Roadmap to Peace. Now, I am not saying these conflicts are exactly identical. But I think that they indeed are very much alike. And along that vein, I would theorize that some years from now, we may look at the Palestinian people in a similar light as we do the American Indian peoples. One can only hope that the picture at that time for the Palestinians is not quite as bleak as the current image of the Native American. Discuss. P.S. I want to reiterate that I am not speaking here about the Iran-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. That is an entirely different animal… perhaps more like the French-Indian War.

I'd contend that Indians fans (see: Thome's return, vs Thomas' return), and Philadephia fans (see: batteries) are worse. But Red Cubs fans are pretty bad - just really annoying.