Damen

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 10:27 PM) How can you write off his aggressive statements about Isreal so easily when he is developing nuclear weapons? That is just incredibly naive. It fits together nicely, his MO does. You have a disingenuous attempt at diplomacy to give ammunition to appeasers and leftists who argue against stern action. Meanwhile he is charging ahead with his crash nuclear weapons program and nothing is being done to stop it. In a few years, barring anything being done about it, these guys will have atomic weapons and when that happens things will be an order of magnitude more ugly in the Middle East. I'm not writing it off, I'm just noting the irony in how we'll approach his statements to prepare ourselves to invade another country. And it starts by convincing ourselves that there's no other motive for attempting to gain nuclear weapons other than to destroy their country by using them against Israel.

Watch the guy's music video. It's clearly satire, and fuggin' hilarious at that. The 70's porn mustache, the pink shirt with white pants, the lyrics... "Lord you are my strength, fill me with your love... ...To enter heaven, there is no back door" Plus, you'll notice Cindy Lauper is listed as a safe band even though she's a big gay rights activist. Even better, Elton John is listed twice, the second time followed by "really gay".

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) Is it not enough for Ameninawhosits to call for Isreal to be wiped out? Is it not enough for them to back up such threats by developing nuclear weapons? The only reason it hasn't moved on Isreal yet is because they dont have the nukes to do it with. If and when they are allowed to get this capability you can bet your ass they will attack. Meanwhile they are busying themselves by arming, equiping and advising Iraqi insurgents. No, it's not. It's far more likely that its political posturing. I find it interesting when Ahminajad writes a letter to Bush, everyone assumes its pointless to take him serious, becuase its just posturing. But when he makes that statement, then there's no possible explanation for it other than he's willing to risk his power and his country to destroy Israel. Its funny how it works. If its a statement that can justify another preventive invasion, we must take it at face value, and nothing else. If its anything else, we can laugh it off, because he's so cwazy.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) I think this is making something out of nothing. Word.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 10:18 AM) Respond to what? It'll take two, maybe three decent tacticle nuclear strikes to destroy all of Israel for eons. We can respond all we want after the fact, it won't change the fact that the largest genocide in our planet's history will probably have just taken place. Let me put it to you this way. Say that you and I have been fighting as long as we have known each other. We have gotten into fist fights and everything along the way, and I have said on more than one occasion that I would kill you if I got the chance. We get into yet another arguement, and I tell you that I am going to get a gun so that I can kill you and your entire family, are you going to do nothing about it, because it is a just a "what-if chance"? I don't buy that for a second. And Iran is decades away from destroying Israel so quickly that Israel can't even muster a response. But even if that were the case, then they would face destruction from the rest of the world.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) I know Denny Hastert received major press in Virginia as I heard from an ex-Illinois buddy of mine who now resides out there after the bogus land-highway stuff came up who heard it on the news. You all need to stop thinking on such large levels here . There can be bias in the media without it being a 'conspiracy'. Liberal news writers tend to slant thier writing. They don't have some manual to go by when preparing these stories, that is just how they are. And yes, conservatives would be the same way in slanting their views in stories they write. Yes, this was a local story about a state level politician. That means it should have received MORE attention as to the political party. ESPECIALLY in light of what crime it was and the Foley incident preceeding it. Like it or not, that IS important today. What if his party only had a 1 person lead in controlling the house? Or if he is forced to resign, they lose a veto-proof majority? What if he chairs an important committee? I DID NOT say there was a left wing conspiracy to hide the party affiliation of the guy involved, but there had to ba a reason that it wasn't mentioned sooner than the last paragraph. We have gone over this before. When writing about politicians, the R or D almost always comes after the first mention of their name. When it doesn't, it stands out as either agenda based or supreme sloppiness. Either way, someone should be in trouble for the bad writing, and this guy should get everything coming to him. Again, let's try and inject some thought into this. Denny Hastert is a US Congressman, who also happened to be the Speaker of the House. This guy from South Dakota is a State Senator. Can you guess why a scandal involving the Speaker of the House would be a national story, while a state senator from a sparsely populated flyover state would not? In addition, all of your "what-if" statements are pointless, as they don't apply to the issue at hand. Republicans have a comfortable majority in the SD senate, so if he resigns, that will not change any of the party dynamics. There was little reason to include the party in this situation becuase that had nothing to do with the situation. on edit: Actually, upon rereading the story, I'm really kind of shocked that this is what you guys are using as some sort of evidence of liberal bias. The writer explained the story, explained why it was a large local issue, and in the process of that, revealed the party identification once appropriate. I really have a hard time believing you guys are serious that this would have been handled any differently if the party labels were switched. More importantly, that seems to be the only reason the story was posted here in the first place, which is pretty weak.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) didn't you know? only Republican scandals are legit news. this won't get any media attention. doesn't fit the MSM political view of "Democrats = good". Why should it get any more media attention than what it's received? Apparently, it's gotten plenty of local press in South Dakota. He's a SD state senator, and there's no evidence of any wrongdoing or negligence on anyone but that Senator. So why should this be any thing more than a minor story nationally? Step away from the media conspiracy ledge for a little while, and use some common sense first. This is a local story only for a reason. You think any scandal or crime committed by a lone Republican state senator gets national attention? I can't think of any...

Jon Tester becomes the first Senator to post his daily schedule online. This should be required of everyone.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and is years away. There is a long road ahead filled with plenty of opportunities to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. But even if they do, Israel has plenty of their own nukes to respond. I don't see why we need to keep fighting preventative wars for Israel on the far-off, what-if chance that a country decides to ensure its own destruction by launching a nuclear war with the two most heavily armed countries in the world.

QUOTE(IlliniStro @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) IIRC, it is near Washington or Madison. I'm pretty sure its farther south...more like Adams.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) The way I read this is similiar to how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade. You don't have the RIGHT TO ABORT your child, you have the RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM the government telling you that you can't. A subtle distinction no doubt, but it proved to be VERY important in the context of the Roe v Wade logic (essentially they didn't want to keep creating laundry lists of rights you have, but instead wanted an easier way to rule on the cases by talking about what the government can/can't do). I'd imagine Gonzalez is attempting to create the same subtle distinction here so as not to accept that everyone has the right to habeas corpus, only that there are situations in which the government can/can't suspend it. I don't know how you can equate abortion and habeas corpus, since abortion is, obviously, not mentioned specifically in the constitution, where Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution says this: I don't quite how you can pull Gonzales's interpretation out of that. There's no wiggle room there. Removing the two exceptions, because Gonzales is clearly not making that argument, you've got this statement. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. That's it. There's no debate over implied rights or any thing else that is up for legitimate argument. He is saying that what's written in the constitution isn't really there. When it says 'Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended', it doesn't really mean that. Its absolutely outrageous for the top law enforcement official in the land to make such a mangled joke out of one of the basic principles founding our country.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) whenever o reilly goes to a comedy show like the daily show, realtime with bill maher, or this one, i find them unentertaining because he knows that if he takes himself seriously he knows he'll look stupid. So he just ends up playing along with the host. It makes for boring television. The only part i lol'd at was when colbert called jon steward a sexual predator and said something like, and i know you know how you have to stay away from them, just cause it made me think of his sex harassment proceeding. I lol'd at you writing "lol'd".

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) That was sarcasm. Grilli is in the bullpen and having a ton of success with the Tigers. Someone used Scott Ruffcorn to argue that liek 90% of our prospects don't pan out and we should just consider giving up on them, so I fired back that list of guys who started struggling and who the White Sox shipped out, only to have them become successful in other locals. Thank you for not putting it in green. It worked much better this way.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) Jim Lehrer asks Bush the sacrifice question. Here's how it goes: You know, sometimes I wonder if he really believes the things he says. This is the most important war in American history, but all that people need to sacrifice is their peace of mind? So how is Barbara Bush sacrificing, with her beautiful mind in tact?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) Anybody know if a video of this exists? Probably not. Journalists were allowed to watch the video only once, without sound. There were half as many people invited to witness and I'm sure they removed all cell phones prior to the hanging this time. I doubt this video ever comes out.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) So... minimum wage protections are extended to the Marianas, along with the boost for all 50 states, but they didn't add Samoa. Yeah, that sounds about right - the Dems are doing some good, but the leaders of the march (Reid and Pelosi) still want their slice of the pie. This is exactly what I have been trying to point out - the Dems are doing a lot of good, but like many politicians in both parties, they still want to take their piece. But at least the Dems are taking 51 steps forward, in addition to 1 step back. There isn't any evidence Pelosi had anything to do with Samoa. The bill was written by George Miller, and the Samoan delegate, a Democrat, had been urging Democrats to avoid exempting Samoa from current law. That's not to say money didn't play an issue here and it shouldn't be reexamined in the future, but this Washington Times-led decision to paint this on Pelosi is without any merit. Besides that, what a difference a few months make when now Republicans are forced to complain that minimum wage wasn't extended far enough. I'll take it.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) Rogowski! How was his year in charlotte? and if it was good is he ready to contribute at all at the big league level? He had a decent year, though nothing special. .272/.351/.787 13 Hr 76 RBI At 25, he doesn't seem to be on track to ever reaching the majors other than as an occasional call-up.

This is the year. .423 0HR 53 RBI Get ready to see Pablo your mind.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 11:05 PM) thebaseballcube.com. Hell of a resource for stats. Surprised I hadn't heard of that before. Thanks.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 08:59 PM) Floyd wouldn't be anywhere near our rotation if he's going to put up an ERA close to 6. Hopefully the Sox can turn him around like they have with numerous other pitchers, otherwise Haegar gets the job and Gavin starts the year in AAA. I'd at least give Floyd a chance to show what he can do for us, before writing him off though. A lot of people were doing that with Thornton when we acquired him, calling him a guy with absolutely no control. I believe the Sox could eventually be the organization that Floyd thrives in, but I can't see this miraculously happening by the start of the season. Like biggruss said, it seems from the interviews management has given that Floyd has been all but penciled into our starting rotation.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) Interestingly, if people recall, I believe Anderson actually put together a pretty good spring training last year. 21/68, home run, .845 OPS in the spring. And he's hit over .300 in ST both years where he was in camp with the big boys. Where'd you find Spring Training numbers?

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 07:31 PM) I'll suggest you'd be out of your mind to think BMac is good for 15 wins in his 1st full year as a starter, but i will say his chances of doing it are better than Floyds. One has a snowballs chance in hell and the other one finding a needle in a haystack. Well, that was assuming McCarthy was to play for the Sox. Considering Garcia got to 17 wins on a 4.52 era (that sunk half a run in his last 5 outings), its certainly not out of the question that McCarthy could do the same with that level of run support. I doubt Floyd will do that with his ERA around 6, but maybe we'll get lucky and Haeger can take over the 5 spot.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) so my point sunk in. I don't know, I'm still undecided.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) To give Gavin Floyd the opportunity to work out his kinks and be the 5th starter and add a power arm to the bullpen in Massett. Danks may help in the future and possibly have a higher ceiling but even if he is just McCarthy, he is a lefty on a team that currently boasts only one lefty, who will likely walk after the season. Floyd, for all his faults, keeps the ball down better than McCarthy and has some movement (sink) on his fastball. However, if you expected McCarthy to win 18 games and have a sub 3.20 ERA this year, then you will be disappointed in the results from our 5th starter this year. If you are realistic and expected 12-14 wins and a sub 4.80 ERA, then you might be satisfied. I figured McCarthy to have around a 4.50-4.75 ERA and get 12-15 wins. You'd be out of your mind to suggest Floyd will get anywhere near that. Why should we lose a guy whom we are fairly certain will get solid fifth starter numbers just so Gavin Floyd can lose us games to "work out his kinks"?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 05:45 PM) you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea! as for the start on removing pork? yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt. In 1994, there were 1,318 pork projects costing taxpayers 7.8 billion. In 2006, there were 9,963 pork projects totaling 29 billion. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...rts_pigbook2006 So yeah, they both feast on it, but while Democrats were up to their waste in it, Republicans went over their heads.