NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) Wait, what? I am stating my view just as he is.. I on the other hand am talking about the thread, not complaining about it. I think you need to look up what trolling is, before you go and start throwing that term around... It seems allot of posters just throw it around here.. hoping one time it will stick. And tell me.. in the last 4-5 debates, which seem to be 1 almost every week.. what new information about the GOP canidates did you learn, that you didn't already know? Actually the last debate had a few really great exchanges about security issues.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) Apparently I read the first post of the rules acknowledgement completely different than anyone else does, especially this supporting piece. And that is exactly what we did - created a new thread for discussing the candidates!

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) IMO, i thought it was the perfect place to dicuss when the GOP calls their 3 times a week it seems debate to repeat the same talking points as last weeks debate. Now you, on the other hand, are one of the ones that IS doing what SS2K5 is talking about. This is a perfect example of trolling. You are wading into a debate and intentionally poking at someone to get a reaction. Stop it or leave.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) That isn't true at all. The biggest issue in the 2008 Dem election discussions was Kaps insistence that Hillary was going to catch Obama. And as to the discussion, if this is the thread that we are going to have, and I am apparently the only one who feels that way, the Dems can have it. Just at least do the decency of renaming it to reflect the discussion, or at least deleting the forums rules to reflect the changes in the filibuster. First graf, I seem to remember an awful lot of bickering in the 2008 threads for both parties. I despised Edwards, and didn't like Clinton either, and made that clear. Others felt the same about other candidates. Rename it? Why - it has been true to title so far. And the rules? The topic is in no way in violation of any of the rules, and neither are most of the posts in here. There are probably a few that do violate the rules, so, let's deal with them. Show me a post or some posts, and show me what rule(s) were broken.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) It was more my wish, an exaltation of joy and probably a prediction, so I will leave it at that. Fair enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) To suggest that I, or seemingly anyone else, have to atone for the behavior of others is just silly, and it misses the point entirely. This thread has never been about an honest discussion of the GOP candidates here. Even the replies to this argument mainly have been about what idiots the GOP is, like that is an accepted fact, and therefore OK, even though it violates all of the supposed forum rules. That has been my point since the day this thread started. Atone? I said no such thing. I said maybe you should try posting what you expect others to. Instead, you provide only the negativity you say you dislike. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Case in point. Hey look, a liberal who thinks badly of the GOP! Why is this a problem? You don't like it, try either ignoring it, or responding with a case as to why they are not crazy. In my view, some of them are crazy, others are not. No different than the Dem field would be if it were open. So are you going to try to have the sort of discussion you want? Or just complain that it doesn't exist?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) How about one of the major players in the housing mess that helped to start this mess we are in? Every time a reform package came up, he squashed it. Helped put his boyfriend in a cushy job in the very industry he was helping 'regulate'. And I am sure more will come out later, just as it did when Murtha finally croaked, revealing what a crook he actually was. And I am also sure there are people with an R that the same can be said of. Entirely possible something will come out later. Wouldn't surprise me. But nothing you list here rises to that level either. You want to jail people for bad policy? Then just jail all of Congress while you are at it. Then vote in new ones, and jail all of them within 6 months. Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the guy, and you may turn out to be right later. But I'm not ready to call for someone to be jailed who has yet to even be indicted or investigated for anything illegal.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) they "cover" it. But can you tell me you saw even ONE interview with a protester on Fox or CNN that didn't come off as 'liberal hippy anarchist who doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about VS intelligent, concise 1%er"? I'm not saying they're not covering it, they just skew what they put out there so it makes OWS look bad. They are the media, they look for the howlers, not substance. They did the exact same thing to the Tea Partiers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) Speaking of a passive aggressive move, I don't have to pass some kind of a cheerleader test to be able to call this thread what it is. Turning this around on who I support doesn't change anything here. All it does to to legitimize that this thread has been pretty much been against all of those filibuster rules that were created to prevent exactly this thread. Complete B.S. First, there was nothing passive in my aggressive post - I was being up front from the beginning, instead of playing some sort of game. Second, you are saying that the negative nature of the thread sucks, and yet, all you have contributed is negativity to it. And wanting the discussion to go away, apparently. This thread has been a combination of news and discussion of the candidates. Most of it has been negative. Want to change that? Do so by contributing something to the discussion, instead of just complaining about it.

So, Illinois goes 6-0, then 0-6 and looks dead to the world in their last game. Fires the head coach. Does Illinois get a bowl berth?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) The whole point of this thread was to paint the GOP in the worst possible light, which was my statement from the beginning. Only negative stories get posted. The idea was to have talk about the GOP candidates not completely by people who are actively working to see them fail. Instead that is exactly what this thread turned into. QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) I'm sorry SS but have you suddenly forgotten how to post something? I haven't paid attention to a newspaper's endorsement in ages, so I didn't consider it bad news for my candidate. And how do you call it "good news"? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Sure. If people stop pretending that this thread ever actually was intended to discuss the GOP Nomination. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) Stop whining and post stories that interest you. SS2K5, take a look at the above. I'm calling you out - you have b****ed and moaned that all there is in this thread is negativity towards candidates. Well first, how about actually posting something else then? I have yet to see you come out and say anything positive about any candidates either, so apparently you are exactly the same as the people you are mad at. It is hypocritical, pure and simple. Also, I take issue with your statement that this thread was created for the purpose of tearing down candidates. This thread was created because we're in the middle of a f***ing nomination process for President, and this is a f***ing political forum. It is, most of the time, going to be the biggest subject - how could you possibly say it is a bad thing to have a thread for it? And look around you in this forum - not sure if you noticed, but probably 90% of the posts in ANY thread are negative about someone or something. If you want to change that, than change that. Heck I've posted positive things about at least 3 or 4 candidates, just in this thread. And I usually get torn for it, so if anyone is aware of the negativity, it is me. But don't go telling me you hate that it is all negative, when I don't see you doing anything about it. Instead of making vague, passive aggresive, empty posts about some perceived slight, maybe you can try to change the mood yourself. Who is your candidate? Why do you like him or her? What do they bring to the table others don't? What do others say that is good about them? We're all waiting.

Not covering it? You guys can't be serious. It was all over the news, and it is still there but to a lesser extent, because it is no longer "new". But it is still being covered by the major outlets. And as for getting their word out, they are actually better at this than the Tea Party was, because Occupy is much more social media-savvy. They come off as unclear because they ARE. Its pretty simple. They have a general gripe about bank bailouts and income inequality, and everyone knows that. Beyond that it gets fuzzy, because they are by nature sort of a leaderless movement.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) Jail needs to be his next home. I don't really like him either, but... jail? Just curious what you feel he did to deserve that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) to be completely fair, that race did not include Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman I-Dont-Know-A-Damn-Thing-About-Politics Cain do you seriously believe any of those three are even CAPABLE of running a country? you can disagree with a candidate's politics but still see them as a legitimate candidate. For example, I am against most of the things Mitt Romney is for - however, when I see him speak, he at least looks "presidential". Guy can command a room and speak with authority and has an understanding of all the issues. John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Gen. Wes Clark, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Joe Lieberman. Of those, sure a few were fringe candidates who had no shot of winning, but every single one of them understood politics, understood the issues, and none of them were the executive of a frickin' PIZZA company. And they all remembered their speaking points, and they all knew where Syria was on a map. The GOP has taken this ridiculous turn for the worse, and is putting out complete idiots as legitimate candidates, just to appeal to the complete idiots who make up their party. "Oh gee golly wiz, s/he is just like me! she forgets stuff too!" Sorry, I don't want someone who's "just like" billy bob from the bayou of Louisiana running our damn country. I just don't. While I agree that about half the current GOP are lunatics who should not even be in the discussion... and I agree that the GOP has been intentionally appealing to the less-than-genius crowd... you have gone way, way over the top. I mean, let's start with, the guy you wanted in 2008 if I remember was the sleazy used car salesman who was cheating on his cancer-ridden wife. And Graham, Sharpton and Dean were all indeed looney toons. So get off your high horse here, and take off the liberal-colored glasses for a second.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) It wasn't dominated by people trying to undermine the candidates. I'm sorry, but, your current, weird rant on this makes no sense. You are upset because no one happened to post a specific newspaper endorsement of a candidate today? And, somehow, this is something about liberal bias or something? Could you explain what you are trying to get at here? Because right now it comes off as entirely incoherent.

Extra weird bit, is that apparently the ball boy also had a relationship with the molester's wife at some point. At least that is what is being reported. f***ed up doesn't begin to describe.

Iowa State beats Providence, then Rice, away from Hilton, handily on consecutive days. Not exactly a huge accomplishment, but that loss to Drake had me worried it was going to get ugly. I said last week, the 4 game stretch in front of ISU will tell you if the Drake loss was a fluke, or an indicator of a very weak team. So far, 2-0. As long as they beat UNI, and at least stay in the game against Michigan, then I'll feel decent about this team developing over the season and maybe, just maybe, being in the discussion for a tournament at the end of the year. With the talent they have, that should be their goal. There will be inconsistency as they get to know each other and a new coach. After that, the remaining non-conf schedule is mostly very easy (Prairie View A&M, Iowa, Central Michigan, Lipscomb, and Mississippi Valley State). Iowa is a legit game, the rest of those should be no contest. I've never even heard of Lipscomb. If they beat the remaining teams except Michigan, they hit the Big 12 season at 11-2. They have to play 18 Big 12 games this year, and would need to win at least half of them to even have a chance to be a bubble team for the NCAA. Even at 20-11 / 9-9, they probably don't get in. 21-10 / 10-8 makes it more likely. Makes the loss @ Drake really hurt. Long view, I figured pre-season this team has the talent to be in the discussion for a tourney bid, but probably next season is their real goal for getting the program back to where it was.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 10:09 PM) Iowa loses at home to Campbell by 16, f*** em. After we lost to Drake, kind of hard to talk a big game right now. Things get tougher the next few games for Freddy's crew, I think the next 3-4 games will give us an idea of how good they are.

Don't really know where to put this, but feel like it should be posted... Maggie Daley has died after a 9 year battle with Cancer.

Maggie Daley, at 68, on Thanksgiving, after a 9 year battle with breast cancer.

The HGH testing is great, though it sounds like it is pretty restricted, at first. Surprised no one is talking about the 26 man roster for Double Headers and other special circumstances - thought that was a pretty big deal, and it makes a lot of sense. I assume the 26th man must be on the 40. The draft stuff is a little confusing, but overall, anything moving towards hard slotting or similar is good for baseball in the long run (and even better for the Sox).

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) That's spelled moran. I feel like I am missing a joke here somewhere.

I edited your post, BS. You want to go put this guy's info out there on Facebook or whatever, fine, that is your choice. But don't do it here.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 24, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) lol Why lol? I prefer Axelrod to Stewart. I also think Peavy, Floyd, Humber and Sale are all likely to do better. Then there are Danks and Buehrle, and if either are back, same thing. That's 5 to 7 guys I'd prefer starting over Stewart.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) Am I the only one in the world who thinks Stewart can still cut it as a starter? I wouldn't say 100% he can't, but I think there are a number of better options in-house, and I like the chances of success better for some others.