Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(Heads22 @ May 4, 2007 -> 09:48 PM) So his FPct stays intact. Super. Another reaspn for people to think he's anything better that mediocre out there. Did Darin just shove Sweeney? Don't be ridiculous.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EIc_avnWsBY

Oh Darin.

QUOTE(Brian @ May 4, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) F you Mac and Cintron. What is it about Cintron's 2/24 that impresses Ozzie to start him over Uribe after a day off? Giving him work. Ozzie does that for his bench players. It's a good policy. Gets them and keeps them sharp. I hate seeing Cintron up there, though. I never really liked him.

Weals!

/explosion

That's what I said.

Whalen:

No need for a shotgun when you're wielding The Reality Hammer, Jim. Good work.

I'm not trying to debate anything here. I was...teaching the other...day...and...one of the questions on a quiz was...."What is a negative effect of foreign trade?" and someone wrote, "Weaker dollar," which I marked wrong. He and I got into a sharp debate about it and I found some stuff on it but I still wanted someone to back me up because it would make me feel better. When he started to debate me I said, "We don't have time for this, I have a lecture to go onto" but he started arguing and we were going back and forth about it. Long story why I was teaching!

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 3, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) A couple articles made it seem as if the Secret Service decided it would be a good idea I imagine that someone would've had to contact them from the campaign to say, "This is what's going on." I imagine Obama to be receiving many messages of "I'll kill you n*****!" and "White pride!" and otherwise absurd messages but still, someone has to inform the service of these threats and, I presume, then tell them that they'd feel more comfortable if the Senator were protected. I do think it's possible that the service decides that unilaterally but I doubt it came without prodding.

I would imagine that Obama requested it.

QUOTE(Friend of Nordhagen @ May 3, 2007 -> 07:29 PM) I don't regret the trade -- thought it was a fair one at the time and still do now. I do, however, miss the one guy who didn't try to hit the ball a mile every time up. I'll say that for Gload: he hit it where it was pitched. Maybe he could be our batting instructor. Better than Walker!

I don't want to get into all the details but I asked: "What is a negative to foreign trade?" and someone said, "Lower US dollar." I want to know two things. a) does foreign trade lower the dollar? always? B) is a lower US dollar a bad thing? (I know the answer to this one is no, not necessarily and even not really.)

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 09:44 PM) MISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR KENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.... Kennedy to cash in at Wrestlemania. Utterly awesome. Sounds stupid to have the announcement now. What if he gets hurt?

QUOTE(TheOcho @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) Tony Gwynn Jr. Brewer's won't give him up, but that can't stop me from wishing. I don't know much about him so at the risk of sounding silly, let me ask: doesn't he suck? That's what I'd heard.

re: bold -- Because both parties were trying to squash any chance that a third party candidate has to win a major election. Oh, right. You answered that for me because you had no interest in actually discussing the matter. There are a variety of things at play. I'm not sure what campaign finance was like before Watergate but I know that 1968 was a great year to be a third party candidate unless you count the whole "getting shot" part. Actually, I do know what campaign finance was like: minimal if existent at all. It didn't really start until the rush after Watergate. Truth is, though, that Wallace was as successful, politically, as Perot, who was as successful, relatively, as Roosevelt, who was as successful, relatively, as Fighting Bob La Follette: which is to say, Not successful at all in the long run. Third parties only work when they've got a genuine issue that the public feels deeply but the problem with them is that they get it accomplished by savvy politicians of the other parties and then they're done for. It's happened to the prohibitionists to the Progressives. The other example is Ross Perot who flamed out when people realized that he was nuts, which you'd have to be to sink as much of your own money as he did into a campaign for President. The only scenario I can envision a third party succeeding long-term is what Tex suggested: a third party replaces one of the old ones, but even that's bogus, I think, as we haven't had a new party grow and replace one of the old ones since the Republicans took over for the Whigs. But it might happen. I doubt it. Both parties are entrenched deeply.

QUOTE(Brian @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) I'm gonna get flamed for this, but Vince McMahon gives the ECW title more credibility than Shane Douglas ever gave it. Shane was so overrated and couldn't get over unless he swore up a storm. Vince doesn't needs to swear and has more ring psychology than most guys these days. I don't expect him to hold it for long, but I don't think it is as big a deal as everyone makes it. This isn't the ECW of the mid 90's. re: bold -- you've got that right. Not much else. This is the most ridiculous angle. McMahon as champion? There's absolutely no reason for that. And I'm not a big Douglas fan but his angle with Heyman and the NWA is one of the great coups in wrestling history. It was a damn good speech and a damn good way to start a company rolling. You've got to be kidding me. McMahon hasn't been particularly good since Stone Cold left and back then it was mainly Stone Cold who made it worth it. Vince is fine in small doses. No more. -- As far as Van Dam, McMahon has every right and damn good reason to bury departing wrestlers. At least, he used to when they might leave for competition that COULD destroy him. What he doesn't have to do is bury people as soon as they come in, as he did to RVD from the beginning. Shame.

There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) I think you are referring to William Jennings Bryant? No. He was a Democrat. Robert LaFollette is the one!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:22 AM) I think you hit on a key for 3rd party success. It has to be someone in the middle, because it seems like everytime someone tries this, it is with some one issue wacko who has no chance of making any headway. If they really get something together, I would sign up to be a delegate if their fiscal platform is truely conservative. There will be no third party success if we consider "elected" to be successful. THe closest thing in America to third party success will be a candidate introducing reforms through campaign like, say, that man from Wisconsin whose name I can't recall from long ago in the early 1900s I believe though I've got to go bell's ringing byebye

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) Yeah, he's definitely on KW's s*** list. I also remember Delgado saying this was his least favorite place to play. Did he say why he hated it here?

What's this McMahon-ECWCHAMP bulls***? What happened? What was the angle and the match and all that?

There are plenty of pitchers who that never hurt. Some who were. I'm of the school of thought that those who'll make it will make it whether they spend time in the pen or not.

What's he heartless about? Any word? Sweeney going up?