Gregory Pratt

Preparing to go out, get some dinner. Maybe buy a book. I love reading. Didn't do much on my birthday but hang with a friend. Another friend broke a committment to me, but whatever. Lounged about in the morning, debating on SoxTalk. Fun times except not -- I really hate when someone disagrees with me. The arrogance of Gregory Pratt! (Not that I don't respect other views, I do. They just fluster me at times.) My father wrote me for the first time in awhile. Or, he dictated a message to me. Apparently, he's in prison for drunk driving in Tennessee, and asked his wife to write me on his behalf. Poor woman.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) He went from the high 90s to 93 consistently. That shouldn't be happening to someone his age. Skin disease that no one really knows about!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) they probably think the same thing about you. John Kerry supporter. I never liked Kerry much, but yes, I supported him, grudgingly. I think this dialogue is done.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) yea, what morons. i mean, who votes for the candidate they want to win?only a fool. Yeah, actually, I think the people who voted Nader are fools.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are. That's not what I said. I'm not buying the notion that by funding Hezbollah Iran is at War with Israel or that it justifies us going to war with Iran or any of the stretch conclusions that can come from that. Sure they fund it, but everyone in the Middle East funds a terrorist group. Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Mushroom Mushroom! You're still drawing a false comparison, son. When Iran begins attacking other countries the comparison will be real. As it stands, it isn't, and I won't take the, "THEY'RE DOING IT BY PROXY!" answer, either, because stretching it to its natural conclusion puts us at War with every country in the Middle East that funds terror groups. That's why it's a false comparison. Even when Hitler wasn't attacking us, he was clearly a nation taking violent steps. As soon as Israel is attacked by Iran, or another country is, I don't believe it's time to go to War, and I certainly don't believe it's an inevitability, Curtis.

Some people think he's off the juice, as his velocity started going down in 2004, and drastically fell now. Others think he might be injured. More still say the workload's caught up and he's tired. A grumpier person might tell you that he's gotten fat, out of shape, and smokes too much marijuana...... Apparently, the Party Line is that it's a "Personal Choice" to throw softer, but I doubt that, and most do. Nobody knows, in short.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

I had a crush on Hillary Clinton when I was younger.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) I hear ya, but I don't think way left libs, despite hating Casey's more centrist (and sometimes downright right) views, will chance splitting their vote and leaving Santorum in there. Probably not, but Liberal voters have done some stupid things before!

From what I've heard, you're not supposed to contact them too soon because it looks "desperate" but I've long wondered how true that really was. I've also heard that, if you don't get the job, you'll never hear back from them. Otherwise, it should be relatively soon. Hope you get it!

QUOTE(Felix @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 08:01 PM) As said, he can't because of requirements, but if he loses a step (which is common as players get older), then his numbers are going to take a significant hit because he relies on his speed to make things happen. If he loses a step and his numbers follow, then no, he shouldn't be in the HoF. As far as I know, these isn't. There are certainly exceptions:

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) Pakistan admits scientist gave North Korea nuclear tools Oh, I have no doubt about that, but the North Koreans weren't in dire need of assistance, either. They had everything they needed.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) The North Koreans were a few years away from getting Nukes, then this pakistani scientist who needed some extra cash came by. Now we have these same North Koreans who have nukes, and what do they need. Maybe some Oil. Oil sure is getting expensive especially for a communist isolated state. But what could they barter for oil, maybe some technology transfer with a like minded country. The Iranians and the North Koreans are already working on missles together, why not a helping hand with some of the difficult technology issues of building a nuclear weapon. And you realize that Iran isnt going to fly a plane over to Israel to drop a single bomb like at Hiroshima. They arent going to also fire a missle. The same way that the rockets that Hezbollah is getting came over, a crate will come over, and maybe a van will park somewhere in downtown Tel Aviv and just boom. Mushroom cloud, and no trace and plausible deniability. That is the worst-case scenario, indeed. But no, you're a bit wrong about the Pakistani scientist and North Korea.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) One interesting side note, the pact between the 3 nations actually did not require Germany to declare war on the U.S. The pact only said that the 3 nations had to join together if any of them were actually attacked; this is how Japan got out of having to declare war on Russia in July of 41. Hitler declared war on the U.S. after the Japanese attack anyway, and went around saying that the U.S. couldn't fight, it only knew how to make Razor blades and refrigerators or something like that, etc. In fact, the isolationists in Congress would have put up a huge stink if Roosevelt had gone to them with a declaration of war against Germany had Germany not declared war on us first. I'm aware of the situation with Congress. The American public would've put up a fight, too.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) Pratt, You didnt answer the question. If Japan and Germany had left the US alone, would you have agreed that we should not have entered the war. Of course not, but I was focusing rather on your completely false comparison. When Iran fires a shot at Israel, I'll be all for a War.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Pratt, Your right, Iran has never threated the US. But prior to the declaration after Pearl Harbor, Germany had never threated the US either. So if Germany had never declared on the US, we should of just stayed out because they only wanted to kill "Every Jew", "take over Europe", but never had any specific statements on eyeing the US? A completely false comparison, but I appreciate the effort. We knew very well that Germany would declare War on us because they'd signed a treaty with Japan saying they'd go to War against everyone together. Besides that, we'd been aiding Britain since 1940, and were a lock to help them as soon as we were drawn into the War.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) Pratt, I do not believe its "pre-emptive" when the other said says: "We are going to destroy you when we get the chance." By most estimates, Iran is a few years off of getting nukes. I very much doubt that Mahmoud is President for that long, or that the situation remains as it is until that time comes. We'll see what happens, Badger.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one. but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement. I did have to be a jackass about it. You were, I felt, impugning my historical knowledge, and I don't take kindly to that. No hard feelings, though. But, let me say, I disagree that me citing WWII offhand as the only War completely necessary equals a lack of proper historical recollection. I just don't believe that a lot of other Wars were completely necessary, and none are so unequivocal as WWII. I intend to respectfully disagree. I believe you have misunderstood the situation as I was stating it. Everyone in Washington believed the War inevitable because "We can not allow the Soviets to keep their missiles there, and we can't negotiate because a) it'll make us look soft, b. the Soviets can't be negotiated with" and you are saying that the situation with Iran is so dire as to equal inevitable War. You sound like Curtis Lemay in that regard, and I think you're flat out wrong. Besides that, Iran has not threatened our destruction, though it's gone unspoken. Same with Cuba. Washington knew that, with missiles there, the threat to us was real, and so the situation there was just as grave. I was discussing the fact that, through the Cold War, everyone spoke of an inevitable conflict between the Russians and America. It never happened, and it didn't have to happen, either. Surely not, but the threat of a Nuclear North Korea has been talked about forever, and its leadership questioned for ages. Bill Clinton used to believe that, with nukes there, a War would have to happen because they'd nuke South Korea or Japan. It's not going to happen, IMO. Iraq was not about the Persian Gulf War. Throughout the 1990s, post-Persian, there was a block that said we would eventually have to go into there because Saddam would eventually threaten the World again. It wasn't the case when we decided to go in there in 2003, and IMO, Saddam was defanged utterly. Oh, pish posh, the difference in eras isn't to discredit comparison. Federalists believed that we HAD to go to War with France because they were out of control and threatening us and would eventually destroy us if we let them; Adams, and Jefferson, provded otherwise. It was not a continuation of the Revolutionary War -- at least, it isn't that simple. There are a ton of leaders that have threatened the destruction of Israel. Muslim Leaders do it all the time. To say that Iran is sounding like Hitler doesn't strike me as reason enough to go to War unless he suddenly starts speaking German!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The Soviet Union could be deterred. Despite their flawed ideology, they were a rational and intelligent people. They understood the consequenses of war with the Western powers and didn't want anymore than we did. Iran, on the other hand, may not be able to be deterred. They are a fanatical, nazi-style regime that is hell bent on wiping out Isreal and if they get wiped out themselves they will chalk it up to being a martyr for Allah. You know, Nuke, racist though I'm sure some politically incorrect pansy might say it, I agree with you to a point. al-Qaeda, Wahhabist Muslims are not typically rational people, and there is a fundamental(ist) difference between the Godless Atheism of the Soviets and the Mohammed-Loving-Denmark-Burning Islamacists of today. But, still, I don't think that a world united -- as the West is right now -- coupled with nuclear weapons is incapable of deterring Iran. They may be crazy, but they aren't stupid, and I think that, when sh-t hits the fan, we should make it utterly clear to Iran that we're prepared to hurt them if they hurt Israel or another country. Before then, I'm not a fan of War. I don't believe in Pre-Emptive War.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) Banning this thing until next season is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Someone at the MLB office has way too much time on their hands. MLB's front office blows. They fined Pierzynski for playing too hard against the Cubs. Have been trying to kill the time-honored practice of brushback pitches and beanballs. Now they're banning the Chorizo.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) are you contending that adolf hitler could have been appeased by more concessions? theres a reason why neville chamberlin is now considered a poor diplomat. that appeasement was a major factor in encouraging hitler to continue to conquer europe. did you take any history in high school? as to your qualified statement that the only war in human history that was necessary was WWII, how about: - the american war for independence - the american civil war - WW1 - the korean war - the israeli war for independence and those are just off the top of my head. no offense, but step into reality, please! I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not. Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him. Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger. I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First: Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary. But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was necessary and I said nothing of the sort.

Vincent Bugliosi, I http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

I absolutely hate Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and even John F. Kennedy, but I think John's refusal to listen to the madmen in the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the bravest move ever by a President aside from, perhaps, Truman's dismissal of God.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) Still waiting for the MODERATE muslims to come out and denounce this statement. Over/under on that happening? Joke goes: "What's a Moderate Muslim?" "One that only wants to kill Jews!" I think that's untrue. That sort of thinking was true when it came to Cuba in 1963, The Soviet Union for Fifty Years, North Korea ten years ago (even longer than that, probably) Iraq over a decade ago (and no, we didn't have to go in and fight them, and I doubt Saddam would've ever physically provoked us if we hadn't decided to go in) France during the early 1800s England in 1812 (that war was unnecessary, too -- in fact, England apologized for its offenses via Parliament, but by the time the news got to us, we had unfortunately declared War already!) Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany, 1939, but that might've been checked by Balls pre-Appeasement. I see some shoddy diplomacy right now, but I don't see any appeasement, and I don't see an inevitable war, thanks. It's possible, but let's not act like the only solution is to blow up the Island. Curtis Lemay says hello!

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) 1. If Bush 41 hadn't sucked so goddamn bad, then he wouldn't have lost votes to Perot. That's the Rupubs fault for running a bad candidate. 2. This Green candidate WILL NOT hurt Casey. People are more anti-Santorum than the Repubs know, and will do anything to get him out of there. I've got a finger on PA's pulse, and number two is blatantly false. PA is a mildly Conservative state, especially by Liberal standards. Casey is mildly Liberal, and you might call him a Centrist. He'll almost certainly lose votes amongst College Liberals and some other Liberals to the Green candidate. I don't think it'll be enough to derail him, but it'll be significant. PA is a state where you never know where an election will go. Santorum is fully capable of a rally. I think he'll be defeated, but please don't confuse California or Illinois with Pennsylvania. He won't lose in a landslide like Alan Keyes.