southsider2k5

Oh sweet!

QUOTE(The Critic @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) Given that we're coming into the holiday season and most people have time off work, I figure 2K5 will be at 100,000 posts by about January 4th. I can use the break from mocking him to think up new mockery! Its amazing how much work and kids can slow down posting at Soxtalk... I hate them sooooo much

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) It was Bush - in 2004. Which was his biggest influential year, I think. Well, maybe 2001. But 2004 was a solid choice. I don't know, sending more troops into Iraq instead of taking troops out like everyone wanted was a pretty big deal. It seemingly has changed the face of not only the Iraq war, but has helped to even up the polls at home. He has also had to stare down the subprime crisis at home without letting the worlds largest economy go into recession. Remember when the US gets the sniffles, the rest of the world catches a cold.

Is anyone surprised by the study?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:05 AM) I think its an excellent choice. Not because he's a great man, but because of his huge impact on the world. That is the criteria as I understand it. If that is the standard, how could it not be GW Bush? Has anyone had a bigger impact on the world?

For debates sake, here is the historical list. In regards to this year, I really expected Al Gore to win, and would have been fine with that. My #2 guess would have been Sarkosky (the new Pres of France, as I probably spelled his name wrong).

I know the source isn't the greatest, but it is still interesting none the less. http://www.nysun.com/article/68332

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) Steve, No thats an excuse for quitters. Most of these players were not caught because there was NO TEST. Not because they beat the system, not because of anything more than baseball simply did not want to test because it did not want to find out the truth. Does baseball use a hair test? No Does baseball use a blood test? No The 2 most reliable drug tests are not used in baseball. Why? So that players can beat them. Im sorry but for $50 you can beat most urine tests, you can beat the ones given by the state of Illinois for sure. You want to make a smart ass comment about AIDS, go ahead. But baseball isnt EVEN TRYING to catch players. (Edit) The only reason there is even a Mitchell Report is that Congress started to get pissed and there were whispers of Baseball losing its Anti-Trust Exemption if it didnt cooperate. Baseball now has thrown Congress some names, shown that there was a problem, and that they will correct it. Congressmen get to say that they cleaned up the drug problem in baseball, baseball gets to say its the good guy, and everyone wins. I agree with this 100%. Baseball is only as interested as it has to be to satsify its critics. It has shown over and over again it has no real interest in cleaing the game up, only in pacifying its detractors.

Opinions?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) Random Fact: Since July 2004, Soxtalk.com has had ~383 Million hits. That is insane. I wonder how many man-hours have been wasted here?

Yeah, the last week or two the hardcore attacking of Huckabee has really started to take root, and people are realizing exactly how far to the religious right that he is. Its no surprise he is taking it on the chin right now.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) It's funny, but I was trying sort that out in my mind just a few minutes ago. If I remember correctly, House worked with Prior ... and Marshall was very critical of House's methods. That would explain why those two names were associated with Prior in my mind.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) ..Did I leave anything out? You left out the booty dance!

Sisco is still a young pup... With a little bit of work on his release point consistancy, he could still be a force in this league.

http://greenmountainpolitics1.blogspot.com...ts-time-to.html

How about some fun with captions?

John McCain picking up an interesting endorsement... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17...n.endorsements/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316660,00.html

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 08:35 AM) If they were so rigged, then why would someone like RP be winning them without having any sort of support? Are you saying that RP supporters are rigging the straw polls? If so, then there must be a lot of them to be able to even do that. The argument can be made that they are actually good predictors of who is willing to show up to vote. There is even a video of a San Francisco straw poll that was cancelled because it was overrun by RP supporters. That one was rigged against him and got caught in the act. Take a look at the big Fred Thompson sign in the background for it. Cancelled Straw Poll Also, a big base of supporters are the disenfranchised supporters. Lots of people like myself have said that RP has cured our apathy. His war stance and his social security stance have attracted a lot of young people. There are hundreds of them using their Christmas break to campaign across Iowa for him. I'm not sure I have heard of that before. I do not think that the normal polls are reaching these types of people. They are hitting the established base. This is not your typical base. The straw polls are a strong indicator of that. His support probably lies somewhere between the two. So, I would say that is not the long-shot that people keep on saying (if you say it enough, it must be true, right). He is a throwback to the small government, non-war stances that the Republican base used to be built on, and is getting back to what was good about the party. A small vocal base can throw of representative polls. Look no further than Soxtalk getting Scotty Pods and AJP put onto the All-star team in back to back seasons. Its not just a Ron Paul thing. I like some of his positions, especially on the size of government, and the like, but I hate his stuff on other things. I'd rather see him finish ahead of all but one person in the R side of things, but I just don't see the results translating to the mainstream.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) The Clinton's are getting desperate. They're sending out the dogs (husband Bill, Bill Shaheen, and Sen. Bob Kerrey) then when the dogs get back they reprimand them publicly, but giving them treats once they get inside. The master of the Swiftboat, they are...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) He has said repeatedly he won't run as an independant. Of course, candidates have been known to change their minds. A Paul/Bloomberg or Bloomberg/Paul ticket would probably get a lot of support. FWIW, the guy leading the Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire wasn't running for President in this election either. I believe politicians about as far as I can throw them, besides Paul HAS to say he is staying in, or all of his money dries up.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:26 PM) I'm sure he'll get the hardcore GOP'er vote. But I think Huckabee will lose tons of support from moderates that voted for GW Bush. I really think even Hillary would beat him. It would be interesting to see what percentage of votes Ron Paul could get if he ran as a Libertarian with a Huckabee vs Hillary match-up. He won't get the "hardcore" GOP vote, because he will completely alienate the real powerbase, that is the religious right. I don't like it anymore than most, but that is the grassroots of the party, and they make or break candidates. That is why Huckabee has come out of nowhere in this race, while Romney and Guilliani have stalled, or are falling.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 07:33 PM) Why is that? Yep, I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I really think that the MSM has been completely ignoring him. Why is it that grassroot movements are not being reported? Doesn't grassroots mean that a fairly large group are supporting him? Yesterday, they raised over 6 million dollars. The average donation per person was $50. That is a whole lot of people involved. Take a look at the straw polls. Ron Paul has won 30 of them. That is more than any other Republican candidate. Republican Straw Polls There may be a surprise when the caucus comes around. I'll be one of the many first-time caucus goers who is going to vote for him. This is the first time I have ever registered as Republican or Democrat. I did not even vote in the last election cycle because I was so sick over what was out there. Of course, maybe I'm drinking the Kool-aid (go ahead and flame me if you want). I really want some change and it is refreshing to see a candidate that is not all about money and big corporations. That is what has charged me; I am sick of the spending that this government does. We will see what happens on January 3rd, but I would at least recommend taking a look to see where he stands on the issues if you don't know. Just Google Ron Paul and you can get all kinds of info. I don't, not like Ron Paul, but strawpolls are a joke. They are rigged elections where candidates basically shuffle in people to vote for them. Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't fit his own parties platform very welll, so he is going to miss out on the party base which has the ability to put people into office.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 01:01 AM) I actually recall several analysts and publications talking about how his picture perfect mechanics would lead to a long career in the majors. There was also a pretty prominent ex-pitcher who said he wouldn't last, and I can't remember if it was Tom House or Mike Marshall.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) I'm not saying for merely this election. Overall political landscape. If you want to go by "this election only" standard, Huckabee's gains are worthless as well, seeing that he is completely unelectable. If he is nominated by the Repub's people will vote for him, especially if Clinton is the nominee.