southsider2k5

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) I can't wait for Alex to erase Bonds. I thought I was the last Arod fan outside of NYC. If the guy hadn't have signed the 252, he would still be universally loved.

So Joakim Noah was at the Sox game tonight sporting the AJ jersey... Its so a preview of things to come.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Don't try to paint me as a fair weather fan cause I'm not. Never have been and never will be. If anything I'm too passionate about this team. One thing I have learned is to never mistake anger for passion. Anger is just that, anger.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) Thank God Ozzie let Vazzy pitch the whole game. Buckwitz and the rest of those bullpen stiffs (except for Jenks) would have blown the game like they did for Mark. Jenks didn't exactly help out Mark last night...

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:43 AM) God damn Brandon Allen went nuts. Montgomery Texas represent!

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 09:52 AM) $19 million in guaranteed money is still a lot. Considering JR and his buddies bought the White Sox and Comiskey Park, and land around it less than 30 years ago for about $20 million it may put things into perspective. If Buerhle wants to set generations of Buerhles up for life or maybe he has other aspirations 20 or 30 years from now, a few million can become an awful lot in that time span. You have heard of the Illinois Sports Authority, right? Besides, people keep pulling out that $20 million dollar crap, as if to impress people with how much money they have made off of the Sox... Go back and tell me what the Dow Jones was in 1980, and tell me how well the investors who bought the Sox have preformed... They haven't even come close.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) Winning a world series doesn't make you great. In Kenny's case it makes you lucky!!! Wait a sec, in the other thread you said second place is the first loser, but now winning a World Series doesn't matter either? Now I understand your criteria perfectly... It's whatever you make up on the spot. Now it all makes sense.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) You are only acknowledging one type of vote loss - small states and rural areas. In the current system, because most states are pretty much a given for candidates, you lose far, far more votes, because you eliminate all but 5 or 6 states from making a difference. And that will generally INCLUDE those same small states in the at vote loss column. Look at the states that really mattered in the last election - OH, FL, PA. Those were the three states that got all the attention, and they are states with mostly urban populations. The small rural states, like the ones in the plains and the mountain west, were mostly ignored (except CO and NM). So again, yes, if you have a national vote you will see remote, rural areas get no attention from candidates. But, that loss is just a lot smaller than the current loss of voter power. To me that is like focusing on one bad pitch to say that it changed the outcome of a game. Well yeah maybe the result was there, but if the other 249 pitches don't go the sameway, maybe that one pitch doesn't matter anymore. This is a pure population play to make places like California and New York and Texas matter more than they already do. There has always been a certian protection of minority rights in this country. Even though it doesn't seem to fit the ideal of "one person, one vote", the USA has always had a * attached to that. If that was the full intent of the consitution, we would have never had a Senate in the first place, and we never would have had an electoral college. We also would have never had an executive branch if we wanted the entire system to be majority plus one for all decesions. Its checks and balances. The big states are not allowed to run completely roughshod over the rest of the country to balance out the small states rights.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) Second place is first loser. That's what I was always taught. They really didn't throw all their money into winning the World series that year niether. They signed a bunch of cheap players that gelled together and made a mgical run. They didn't overpay for anyone, as a matter of fact they got rid of alot of payroll, when they let Maggs go an Lee. I remember that people weren't too hapy about that. Winning one World series doesn't make you a winner for the rest of eternity. Sustaining that winning does. Winning your division, like the Twins, they sustain the winning. Just because we won a world series we should be satisfied with that. Not me my friend. So by your definition there is no better GM in all of baseball during the Williams tenure, because no GM has won more than one World Series. In the Al, the Twins, Indians, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, and Rangers all have worse GMs because they have never won a WS, while Boston and Anaheims GMs are on par with Kenny, because they have won once since Kenny came in as GM.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Current system, with electoral college - for national elections, only a few states matter. And within that, only a few districts sometimes matter. Effective voting populace - 10%. If we removed the electoral college and voted for national office with a true national vote - every vote counts the same. 1 person is 1 vote. Candidates may choose to not campaign in podunk South Dakota, which they would not have ANYWAY under the current system, but they do visit places all over the country. Effective voting populace: 80%. Yes, its flawed either way. But the popular vote would be much, much closer to representing the will of the people. And the electoral college and its small states protections was built into the representative body - Congress - and I would suggest that part needs to stay for that reason. For a President, it has no purpose at this point. You cannot tell me that with a true popular vote for President that all of the sudden 70% of entire country would come under consideration in a Presidential election. That is idealistic and unrealistic. If anything the electoral college actually gives more consideration to more places, because their electoral votes actually matter. If you don't believe me, look at how many people per electoral college vote there are in a state by state basis. If you take advantage away from the small states, you completely eliminate any reason for a candidate to waste his time in those kind of places, as they payoff becomes worthless. All that means is that only urban areas will be considered. As for the will of the people, there are protects for the minority in every single area of government. That is exactly why 50% +1 can't amend the constitution. That's why the Great Compromise took place... That is why we have appealate courts... The whole intent all over the framing of the constitution was to make sure that one group of people never had complete control over everything, and that goes for all branches of government, not just the legislature. Taking away the considerations of the small states is just one more thing that falls into that category.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Ah yes, that wonderful electoral college. Can we please get rid of that now? Since it effectively disenfranchises about 80% of the country in its current form? And a popular vote wouldn't? Sorry. I don't think some candidate is going to suddenly start to value smaller places anymore because they now change the electoral process. If anything it would just disenfranchise other people because now they wouldn't value lesser populated areas anymore, because there would be no incentive to care about place that weren't densely populated. Its just like many things, the framers of the consitiution put in protections to ensure that certian groups of people maintained their voices. The small states were one of those main groups the framers looked to protect.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) Silly facts.. It amazes me how easy it is to discount all of those things, such as a World Series title, but to make a big deal about second place finishes being bad. I used to hear that people would buy tickets forever if the Sox threw all their money into winning a World Series just one time. What happen to all of those people? Now we are stuck with the perseption that winning a World Series doesn't make you a winner...

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) I wonder if these guys have anything to do with the Sox and their unwillingness to resign Buehrle: Fernandez, 79 wins with Sox, 28 wins after being traded at the age of 26 Alvarez, 67 wins with Sox, 35 wins after being traded at the age of 27 McDowell, 91 wins with Sox, 36 wins after being traded at the age of 28 Baldwin, 79 wins with Sox, 10 wins after being traded at the age of 29 These guys only had marginal success after leaving the Sox even though they all commanded larger contracts from their future teams. Are these guys next: Buehrle, 102 wins with Sox, 28 yrs old Garland, 88 wins with Sox, 27 yrs old That was something that I asked a couple of weeks ago... Who, that the Sox got rid of, has proven them wrong in their history of not giving out long term pitching contracts?

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) Thats why I stopped paying...So I can no longer be mocked. Quiet Hugh Grant!

Are there any close reports on how his make up is doing? I know he kind of got tagged with the "mental midget" thing with the Phillies, is anyone saying they have got him put back together again?

QUOTE(Balance @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) I wouldn't mind if you slapped that jerk upside the head. (The vendor, I mean.) I'd vote for kicking him in the testies, but I am not sure that he has any...

When you go to Detroit, do not, under any circumstances, buy anything from the Opera singing hot dog vendor. Alsoi park close to the ballpark, in stadium parking. Walking in Detroit is not a pretty site. I wouldn't stray too far off of the beaten path. In Cincy, I liked the RF and RCF seats that overlooked the Ohio River.

Now you really know how those pesky groin injuries keep happening Mrs Podsednik...

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) Score picked the wrong day to plant this s*** on soxtalk... don't report a Buehrle contract is imminent, it makes us angry when it doesn't come true.... A lot of emotions when it comes to Buehrle... when the Sox extended Vazquez and Contreras I was pissed, Buehrle, I'd be very happy. ^^^ I was just going to say that. The score sucks, it must be rough to be shilling it. Poor old Gil.

For those who are interested, the Hawks site still does exsist, and it is now been upgraded to be fairly hack-proof, if people are interested in talking about the Hawks http://www.talkbhawks.com/forums/index.php

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) After playing volleyball at the beach all day yesterday we walked over to Chipotle on Rush Street. Jerry Reinsdorf walked past us. Was kind of cool. Did he kick your dog or smother your baby?

Depending on what you are looking for, you can always ask here.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 09:27 AM) That looks pretty good, Queen! Question for you, though (I hope you see this soon...) - when you click the button to take a picture, how long does it take to reset until you can take another picture? Is it pretty quick? Also, when you go to take the picture, how long does the camera take to take the picture? Steff, is this more in line with what you have for a camera? I might have misunderstood what you were saying all the way up in the thread here. This seems like it's a decent camera? The newest Kodak digitals are way quicker, but not instant. The wife's dad got one, and it is really sweet, and only in the $300 range.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) Myself, the rest of the mods and admins have worked hard over the years to turn Soxtalk into one of the premiere White Sox and sports forums on the web (I think the general sports discussion here is bar-none amongst the best anywhere on the web). And being that I went through times when this site was small, anyone that has ever sent me a PM knows that I am fully supportive of any long time member, let alone an admin whom I'm good friends with (in this case Boz), and if my site can help get a little pub than I am absolutely happy to do it. That is always the case and it always will be. If a long time poster comes to me with an Illini blog or even a freaking Clones blog (and I've always indicated that Heads could post and pub his site here at any time) than I'd definitely be like hell ya do what you can. So please, if you don't like the site just pass through the thread (ie ignore it) or bring up valid discussion by debating or disagreeing with an article that is up on the site. [registershttp://www.firegage.com]