southsider2k5

Besides my baseball collection, I collect coins. Exciting I know...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) Nice. Very nice indeed. Hillary is made of the same mold. Obama? Don't know yet. I did see an article in the WSJ yesterday saying he was trying to get to smaller towns. To be honest, it sounds like the big ones are all like that. I haven't seen anything that sounds any different really.

An editorial about John Edwards visit to my hometown. http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=50863.27

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) How many people have had their pictures taken in the "Craig Stall"? It may be the state's top tourist draw. What else would you go to Minnesota for? To see Prince?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2545351.ece

The Texas Gulf Coast is a relatively un-developed gem as well. There are just beautiful beaches from Bolivar and Galveston all of the way down to South Padre, with spots like Sand Dollar Island and Matagorda in between.

Hey YASNY, long time, no see. Its good to see you around these parts, I don't care what Jason says Anyways, I am curious if anyone had seen Broadway pitch before he got to the majors, and if they have noticed any differences (good/bad/indifferent) since he got to the bigs? I'll hang up now and listen for my answer.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) Is Yankmee stadium worth a trip? It isn't going to be there much longer. If you are going to make the trip, it needs to be done really soon. If you ask me, it is something that should be done, especially with its days being numbered.

I don't think it is any coincidence that Juan played his best baseball while he was fighting for his career, either this year or in 2004. I wish we had the personell to start out with him as a super utility guy again, maybe it would wake his ass up. The cliche "fat and happy" comes to mind with Juan.

Edwards is circling the drain now... He is going to take public finanicing because he can't keep up with the big dogs. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/sto...5288&page=1

I don't know if it was the shoulder, or what, but Hall was horrible this year.

Too bad we can't fire posters

It was an interesting start to say the least. Lance showed pretty much what he had been showing in his bullpen appearences. He is a guy who has a ton movement on his pitches. I really believe that his problem up to this point is that he has too much movement, and isn't yet able to spot it where he wants it exactly. His walks have gone up as the hitters get more patient through the higher levels of the minors. If Broadway can get Coop to work on repeating his delivery and controling his ball a little better, which it seems like has had some command here, he will be a solid pitcher for us. Not many pitchers throw that heavy of a fastball. If he can perfect that cutter to give him a pitch with some sideways movement to go with his heavy fastball and curveballs, he will be a tough pitcher to hit at the major league level. At that point, it will come down to him throwing strikes.

Overall I like the episode. It wasn't a classic, but it had its moments.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:42 AM) Its a small Iowa newspaper. I think in this case, its at least possible they just screwed up. Or that they were trying to raise their profile by getting a "scoop". Its a pretty common thing anymore that campaign operatives go to their competitions appearences and try to get a "gotcha" moment so that they can publicize the crap out of it. I am guessing a reporter probably would have had a tape recorder, at very least, with them. I am guessing they got this passed on to them. I will admit I have zero evidence, it just follows the trend and common sense if you ask me. Its why you get someone reporting about the stupid thing Fred Thompson said pretty much as soon as it happens, or one of Obama's "shocking" forgein policy announcement, or Hillary contradicting herself and her husband on something they said prior... There are people who do nothing but look for these little things and try to make HUGE deals out of them working for each campaign. The sad thing is that it has worked repeatedly around the country.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) The campaign has sent out a transcript of her actual remarks and is saying that the Quad City Times misquoted her. The QC times has corrected said quote: Yikes, they really screwed the pooch on that one. I wonder who pushed that quote into the papers, Hillary or Edwards?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) You should have let the bus hit you in the rear . . . ba ba dum dum dum . . . . *rimshot* Wow, I could imagine the links Balta would be posting now!

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 03:56 PM) Is there an argument which you will accept as valid, or does my well-reasoned pessimism with regards to the White Sox future automatically negate any valid view which I may express? I look at the potential Twins roster for next season, in the context of this thread, and I see a 1-5 of Bartlett, Mauer, Kemp, Morneau, Cuddyer, Kubel. All of whom are in their prime on the right side of 30, and carry a major and minor league track record of success Even with the theoretical subtraction of Johan, I see a pitching staff with Liriano and 4 of Baker, Bonser, Perkins, Garza, Slowey all of whom will be under the age 27. And again, all of whom carry a resume of major and/or minor league success. Those 12 players alone should be enough to prevent them from "falling past the royals." And if the Royals were to continue to improve more rapidly than expected, there is the perfectly acceptable argument that the White Sox will be there to cushion the the Twins perceived fall. Let me put it this way... Your view of the Sox=Price of tea in China. They have nothing to do with each other. Just like what you think of the Sox=Twins responding to the loss of Hunter and Santana. It doesn't help an argument, it doesn't hurt an arguement, it just has no place in the arguement. Now the rest of your post at least focuses on the Twins, which was the whole point here.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:49 PM) If Bonds comes, then Farmer leaves, and we just can't have that You might have just made the most convincing arguement to bringing Barry Bonds to the southside that I have ever seen.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) You stated that the Twins were in danger "of falling past the Royals" I said you underestimated their pitching prospects... Then said I'd swap organizations because I believe the Twins are in a better position to be good in a shorter amount of time than the White Sox. The Sox are a bad singing or two away from ensuring the Royals are no longer perennial cellar dwellers. You consider it "ragging on the Sox," I call it the truth. Still, what does a cheap shot of the Sox have to do with how the Twins hitters will hit, or how their pitchers will respond to added pressure? What you think of the Sox organization has nothing to do with any of that whether it is the "truth" or not. It is a poor strawman arguement.

So would this characterizatin of a black wide receiver be considered a racist statement?

I don't think in a Democrats world, you could have a much harsher slam than the bolded comment. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-hillary-i.html

Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday as saying Barack had to win Iowa, or it was "over".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) I would love to be the third party that everyone had to come to to get anything passed. Oh how the pork would fly. Far better to fix the existing parties than have a three way split of power where everything would take coalition building. You're right, why would we want to encourage compromise and moderation, when we can have extremism and gridlock! More pork? LMAO.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) But you know the remarkable thing about those systems, the parliamentary ones which allow lots of parties? They rapidly wind up breaking down into quasi 2 party systems as well. Because a lot of times, the new parties that appear are not these magical, centrist, "Everyone will agree with us" parties that for some reason people envision should pop up and make everyone happy. They wind up being vastly farther out on the fringe, and they wind up just making coalitions and governments harder to build, because you have to cater to that fringe party in order to build a government. Give you an example...right now, you could probably get 30% of the vote for a party who's sole goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and which would refuse to join a government without that. If you then wound up with 3 parties in a parliamentary type system, it might be nearly impossible for a government to form without the aid of that party. In other words, you would have to cater to the farthest wing in order to be able to form a government, and you'd have to placate that minority party to keep the government from falling. We have those samethings going on right now. Think of the religious right and the union left. We are already catering to the fringes in this country. Any party that appears now is going to be centrist by nature, because unless they are in favor of mass executions or something like that, they are going to be more moderate than what we have now.