southsider2k5

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) EDIT: f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS.f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS... :sleep Awww he learned how to use cut and paste... isn't it cute.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) There are plenty of examples of the albatross contracts also. The point being, you can't just assume it will be a bad deal, simply because of how long it is.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:47 PM) True but they were 3 year deals. Those aren't what I would consider the long term deals. Guaranteed 4-5 year deals are where I think KW will draw the line. JG will get that from someone else. Not here. How much better would they have looked if they had the last years money for two more years? Buehrle through say 2009 at $10 million a year would be a HUGE steal, same for Garcia at $8 million. Heck the first few years Contreras deal was horrible, now he would be looking at $10 million a year for the finish he had.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) If this deal is done I think this is the key. I don't think KW would have a problem with offering JG going rate for dollars such as 12 mil. I think the problem is doing it for 4-5 years. Other teams will offer it but most of the time those deals look bad in the later years. If JV comes here for 2 guaranteed years hopefully a minor leaguer will step up and be read y at that time. The risk/benefit analysis of the longer contracts for pitchers is usually not worth it. It all depends... How great does Mark Buehrle look right now at the $9.5 million he would get in 2007, or Freddy Garcia for $8 million in 2006 and 2007? Some long term deals are damned smart when you look back on how much they get run up in the short term.

All I ask is no pictures from PA... Or else

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) hey douche, don't put a period at the end of a quote where there isn't one. that's what the quote said. You've got a point, but leave the namecalling out of it.

I think the Cheat and I are on the same page when it comes to Garland. http://southsidesox.com/story/2005/12/7/03514/0519 Unless the marketplace changes drastically, he is going to get a lot of money, and a lot of years.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high. If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in. States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you? As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society. The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government. If there is one thing that unites the Muslims of the world, it is ridding Palestine of the Jews. I have no doubt that even if Iran didn't attack Israel outwardly, they would have no problem with Hamas or the like "finding" a nuke somehow. Plus if you believe what the Koran saids, and the Imams have preached, it is their DUTY to rid the Jews from there. Death is a good thing in this case, as it means you are in paradise and you have pleased Allah. You have to take off your death is bad, Christian blinders and put yourself in Islams shoes. Even if the Irani President is full of s*** when he talks about destroying Israel, it only takes one underling to leak this to a desparate Palestinian group and bye-bye Holy Land, with the reward of eternal paradise. A nuclear Iran is a worst case scenario IMO.

Any details on how this works??? I want to go Friday to the downtown one.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:34 PM) Not that I'm saying anything about the case - this kid was molested and the dude ought to be in prison - regardless about how old the kid was. The kid was harmed by what happened to him and the priest ought to be punished, severely. But let's have a little perspective. In a lot of states the age of consent is 16. If someone dates a person that's 15 years and 364 days - does that make them anymore of a pedophile then if they date someone one day over that invisible line? The problem is that you have to draw that line somewhere. At some point, there is going to a spot where it is illegal one day, OK the next, no matter where you draw that line. I am sure you aren't saying that there is no need for child sex laws, but for there to be no arbitrary line, there basically could be no child sex laws. Either that or someone would have to come up with a set of standards that would be quizzed of everyone as to their mental capacity and their ability to be "mature"enough to handle sex... And I don't really think we want that either.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:40 AM) Daisy?!?!?! Wtf happened to Debbie? Well if you are into great grandmas...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:32 AM) Well, if the President can be forgiven for making that error...I guess we can let you off the hook too. I think the key question in all of this is this one; is Isreal's nuclear arsenal enough of a deterrant to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from attacking it? Israel has enough nukes to turn every other country in the Middle East into a smoking hole in the ground. The real question is...is Iran's leadership willing to sacrifice everything they have...all the power, all the wealth of running a nation...to take a shot at Israel? I guess the question to me is, do the pols in Iran mean what they say when they say that it is the obligation of Muslims everywhere to fight a holy war to slaughter the Jews and reclaim the homeland of Palestine? Do they really believe that their spot in heaven will be guarenteed by dying to rid the planet of Jews. Judging by the actions of Iran, and the Muslims who are dying in suicide attacks, I think it is definately credible to think that Iran would attack Israel if they had the capability to hit is with atomic/nuclear weapons.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:30 AM) Both of you knock it off. White guys over 30. :headshake *cough*50*cough*

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:03 AM) I'm gonna respond to this publicly, because I feel everyone has a right to know why I do the things that I do. We've let a lot of stuff go in this forum. To the point where a lot of our users and guests feel uncomfortable entering into what could be some wonderful discussions. As a mod in this forum, I've made the decision to be more aggressive in terms of trying to thin out the pissing matches and make this a place where anyone can feel comfortable. Because I don't want that to happen anymore. I lock threads for a couple reasons. First, if posters are being directly attacked and the conversation is completely derailed, I lock the thread. Second, if people are posting things that I feel to portray this messageboard and website in a less than good light, I'll lock the thread. If you wanna post somewhere every half hour about how its xxx minutes til somebody dies, fine. You're just not gonna do it here. Because its the opinion of myself and other mods and admins that its in poorer taste than the poor taste that we already know and love. K, thanks. And as the RexKickass of the Admins, I approve 100% of Rex's handling of things. If anyone has a problem with how he is handling things, and don't feel comfortable talking to him, they can PM me anytime.

Yeah, I guess I need to mind my Ns and Qs better... It was Iraq that Israel struck, but I was right on Irans nuclear history somewhat, they have actually been trying since the 60s to advance in the nuclear club, long before the Death to America club came into power. That pretty well disqualifies the "defense" crap that Iran has been spewing.

Comiskey Park on Opening Day.

Sorry I am late, but happy Birthday Goldy

We rented the Life Aquatic this weekend with Bill Murray and company and it was horrible. It was too busy being caught in between being a spoof and being slapstick to be funny at all. Skip it.

As much fun as this thread looks, what it amounts to for me is Iran keeps publically stating that Israel should not be in existance, and at the sametime is very close to developing the weapons that could achieve the very goal they have had since 1948. Just last week the Irani President instead of working towards peace, said that if Europeans really cared about the Jews, they would make an Israel in Europe instead, while ignoring the facts that basically all of the Muslim countries of the middle east have historically refused to take in the Palestinian refugees, and countries like Jordan have refused to take a section of land to make an independant Palestinian state out of. Israel might not have the best record to stand on, but they have NEVER stated that their ultimate goal is the genocide of its neighbors. They have been repeatedly invaded and attacked by other sovergien nations, and live in a perpetual state of war with groups like Hamas who refuse to negotiate a peace that includes a Jewish exsistance. Its hard to justify war, but when your very exsistance is at stake, I can totally understand it. When (not if) this happens, it will be interesting to see how the middle east handles this. I also saw the line about Iran justifying the need for nukes with defense against invasion, and just wanted to point out that the arms race isn't a new objective for Iran. They have been actively pursuing atomic weapons for at least 30 years now. Israel already destroyed one nearly complete nuclear facility, back in the early 80s if memory serves me correctly. Also if memory serves me correctly Iran didn't have any immenent invasion excuse then either. Simply what we have now is Iran being able to fit their propaganda to serve the agenda they have had since at least the middle 70's. Nothing has changed here, Iran has always wanted the ability to blow Israel off of the map, they just have a rational now for posessing that ability.

Thank you all, this was much too kind

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051213/D8EFC0M00.html How are things down there Andrew, is it pretty isolated, or are you all scared of this getting much worse???

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) I don't get it. Discussing current political events involving the US without having it come back to involve the Bush administration would seem, well, rather pointless? Because everytime it does it is ALL of their fault. People are dying in Sudan, not because of the UN, the Democrats, China, France, Russia ir anyone else... Its just George Bush, and it makes for a boring conversation. One person does not allow genocide, the entire f***ing planet does. And if someone wants to hide behind something or someone else when it happens, they are just as responsible for letting it happen. Every point was brought up was countered with something about how the Republicians did it, even after stating that I knew the Republicians were wrong here... What kind of coversation is that? To me THAT is pointless. Its a big world out there, and more than just one person is to blame for things, despite what some people think. And it isn't just that conversation that has gone like that, it seems to be every conversation that goes like that, and it is incredibly boring. All I wanted to do was to say that I believe genocide is worth saving people from. Funny I didn't think that would be so controversial, but it seems to be that money, politics, and who is at fault are all more important that millions of dead people... or so I am being told. I can't wait to see everyones reaction to the new Bush doctrine requiring the ritual sacrifice of puppies to Haliburton to increase their profits 0.00000001% in 2058. The debates here used to contain substance. There used to be a willingness to think with your head and inject some deep consideration to the subject matter at hand. Lately it seems like everyone has got a damned autoreply on that just gives the same canned crap for an answer no matter what question is posed. Somedays it feels like I am stuck on a Customer Service phone menu that never really has a person on the other end, just the same two options, neither of which ever gets you a real person with a real answer. The belief that in every single issue, my side has to be right, and your side has to be wrong has absolutely poisoned every reasonable conversation on this board anymore. It f***ing sucks that the best conversations on here consist of what your favorite strange lyrics of a song are because every thread that has any substance has to deteriorate into a contest of what your side did to mutilate baby pandas who had the cure for cancer in their paws. This thread is a perfect microcosum of why SLaPs best days are gone, or so it seems.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 03:30 PM) Of course there were other countries (China, Russia, and Algeria), siding with us to block that last set of resolutions. But you know as well as I do that if the U.S. decides it is going to block a resolution, it gives other countries cover to block it as well, just as before the Iraq war China and Russia didn't want to say they'd veto the final resolution, but when France said they would use their Veto China and Russia supported them. But even though the genocide is clearly not as bad as the one in Rwanda in temrs of scale, I think it's different now in that the U.S. is almost actively encouraging the regime in the Sudan. Did you, for example, know that we just Re-established diplomatic ties with their government, ties which were pulled in protest of their work in Darfur? There is also 1 key point which is being missed...it's been estimated that if the international community wanted to stop what was happening in Darfur, it would take something like 15,000 troops, if the Sudanese government didn't resist. If they did resist, it would take more. Would you care to guess why so many nations in the western world don't have the troops available to pull that off? There is a long winded reply here, but as in your last few replies, anything always goes back to Bush and the evils of the Republician cabal so there isn't much point in even going down this way, as the signs down this road are really clear. I don't feel like wasting my time today.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) Dude, who exactly do you think is slowing the U.N. Down on any action against Sudan? The most recent attempt to hold any sort of hearings on new activity over there was blocked in part by, you guessed it, Ambassador Bolton. Yes, the U.N. has been inactive, but some of that inactivity finds its root not just in the U.N., but in this country as well. Furthermore, there are bills that have been sitting before Congress untouched for months which would place sanctions on the Sudanese government if it continues its actions in Darfur...those bills have done nothing. Meanwhile, our government is actually softening some of its criticisms at the same time. And the reason Congress isn't acting? The White House told them not to. Perhaps you are projecting onto me as someone who subscribes blindly to one line of political thought, but I never said the US was innocent here, or should be standing on the sidelines in this. I think Bush is wrong for letting the Sudanese be slaughtered in 2005, just like I think Clinton was wrong for letting Rwandans be slaughtered in 1994. Genocide is bigger than Democrat or Republician to me. IIRC, there was more than one country that was holding up the original UN resolutions back when the US was pusing for them. I'd have to go back and look, but it seems like at least China, and maybe a European Country or two was also involved.

Yes he will.