southsider2k5

(bored today Tex?) How about how would Al Gore have managed the economy any better than Bush did?

There are a couple of problems with taking away the awards from Giambi. #1 even if he is found guilty of being on roids today. There would have to be proof that he was on them in 2000. #2 Can anyone prove that Frank Thomas or anyone else WASN'T on steroids in 2000 #3 Even if you could prove Giambi was juiced, did he know about it, and does that change the level of his guilt or innocence. I don't necesarily believe any of that, but those are just things to thing about

I know the guy is a superstar and all, but he is nothing but trouble. I really wouldn't want him on the Bears.

And in a business sense they freed up a roster spot, and they now have themselves a player not under contract, but basically on their team, who doesn't have to be protected against the expansion draft.

I was wondering why there were only two replies in this thread... now I know

Based on LY I am not looking good. But I drafted a lot of break out players, such as Joe Nathan and such.

It took him long enough. He should have dropped out weeks ago to let the party concentrate on Bush. Then again, why people picked Kerry over Edwards, I will never know.

Trade talk anyone? Looking at my team, I need another pitcher or two. I would be willing to deal OFers.

And Joe is EXTREMELY smart. His hitting clinic last year at Soxfest was fasinating. Almost makes me wonder if he is thinking too much.

This doesn't make any sense at all. He must have gotten into it with someone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431222/

I don't know about him, but I am going to do the smart business move and go find it cheaper somewhere else...

Did you not find a taker for your seats I take it? Like I said earlier, I have zero extra money right now anyway. Now two things will change that... #1 if I can get this new job I am trying for it will be a big raise. #2 we will get caught up with our bills by the end of March, middle of April. The extra costs of the new car are beating us up right now. We switched insurance at the sametime and it is costing us an extra $500 for the downpayments for the new policies.

Great news. I really like the fact that they are trying to wrap up as much of the core of this team as they can.

I didn't have an assigned rep. I just faxed it in to the general number last year. And honestly I didn't want to say anything about renewing just because I am more curious to see if they will say anything or not. Even if I wanted to with the cost of the new car, there is no way I could renew anyway.

Do NOT let Kenny Williams read this thread...

BTW during a fit of inspiration, I sent an email to the Sox that was basically a cut and paste of my post, and included the 2000 comparision, and an overview of wage differencials during the same time span. I will post a response if I get one, but the Sox are notoriously bad about replying to email, so I am not holding my breath.

That's the right attitude :fthecubs

Roman was banned a while back.

Burn, baby, burn

Actually I did a little more research just to emphasize my point. In 2000 the same ticket plan cost $206. And don't forget that parking only cost $10 in 2000, so you can add another $65 for the extra two games of parking, plus the extra $5 a game.

I just got the brochure for the "Starting Nine" ticket plan in the mail. I had calmed down about ticket prices, but this got me all riled up again. Here it is in black and white. For the past 3 years through all of the ticket price increases my wife and I have always gotten the 7 game plan. We always would get openning day, the 3 Cubs games, fan appreciation day, and two other good match ups. (usually one NL team and a Twins game). Last year this cost me $290 for the two sets of tickets in the outfield reserved seats. 2 of the games I requested I didn't even get the seats I asked for. In order to get that same plan, plus the two extra games that you have to buy, it would cost me $472 or a 61% increase out of my pocket. And that is just 2003 vs 2004. I am sure it would be 125-150% increase if I went back to 2000. Any one out there gotten a 61% pay increase in the last year, or making double what they were in 2000? I know I haven't. This is one fan who has been priced out of the market.

Well at least now that PA has quit hanging out here we are...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4386697/

Bush sucks on the enviornment. But give someone like Al Gore 4 years in the white house along with a simpathetic congress and they will destroy our economy by making it so expensive to do business in the US, that overseas job flight will be inevitable to less restrictive and costly areas. There is a progressive middle ground that is ignored in all of the rhetoric. Wages for airport security have gone way up. As have the cost of traveling. Look at all of the extra taxes that we now pay to support all of the new and more expensive hires. But that being said, too much stuff still happens involving airport security. Too many things get through. I would say that from now on, with the airlines knowing what kind of enviornment we exsist in, let the airlines be sued if something else happens. If they don't take adequate steps to protect passengers, let them be responsible for it. The problem is once again the possibility exsists of bankrupting the airline system and grounding our air traffic system. No American citizen should be able to be held in the US without charges or a lawyer. Period. Why should Israelis foreign aid be any different than any of our other allies? Why single them out? Why wouldn't you take from everyone's aid? Doesn't everyone benefit from the destruction of WMD's? Why should Israel pay for it singularly? No arguements from me there. Rebuilding infrastructure is the most visable way to show that we are helping a country. Where does other countries responsibilities for their own borders come in? You would want to US to enforce laws in another country? That is not up to us as a government to decide. That decesion should be made by either the country that the sweatshops are in, or by the consumers not to buy that product.