Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) In the future, if you doubt something someone says is true and want to accuse them of making something up, you should probably spend at least a minute looking into it. I didn't accuse him of making it up. I said, "I don't think that's true. Please clarify." Besides, nobody ever gives me the courtesy of googling my accusations and I often have to do my own leg work -- like when we were talking about the CIA/Bush/bin Laden/election tape.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) Just going off of the 2000 census, which took google all of 5 seconds to find and me another 30 seconds to add up, 35% of the US population is under 24. I'd say 1983 is a good cutoff for remembering who was president in 1988. Good work.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) Owens hit .340 in September. Ozzie said don't believe what you see in September if the team is out of contention. Ozzie's a very smart man.

It's about poll numbers and where they come from. What does "feeling old" and Clinton/Bush/a-crazy-40% number got to do with Carter? I'm just curious where that number comes from. Talk radio? A newspaper? what polling service? 'Cause I really doubt it's accurate.

I was in D.C. for a protest last weekend. Ironic since I'm pro-war. But I wanted to see what it was all about. About 20,000 people there. Some guy was saying, "Reagan was oh-so-sooooooooo unpopular when he left office" and I said, "According to what polls?" "Chomsky."

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) You want to feel really old? 40% of American's don't remember a Presidency without a Bush or Clinton in the White House. That's a cute number. Where'd you get it?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) No. You're not breaking any rules. The only insinuation I'm making is that you've been pretty clear on what your point is about 30 of the 80 posts. haha, sorrrrrrrrrrry.

Ooooh, I got the exact number wrong. Doesn't change any of the rest of the point, or its validity. Carter's rescue missions were idiotic and ill-conceived.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) Just for the record, by that definition, the United States is probably invading somewhere between 10 and 20 countries right now. Sure, by that definition. And by that definition, we've been invaded. But if we're going to say, "OH, HE DIDN'T INVADE IRAN!!!" bulls*** he didn't. He sent four helicopters into Iran -- silly on its face -- and then changed his mind and he thought that was a good idea? Ha

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Recheck that history textbook they gave you in High School. We were not invading Iran. I don't give a s*** what he or his defenders called it. You send your troops, your planes, your spies into someone's sovereign land against their wishes, that is an invasion.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) And changed his mind before they got there. You must've made that up -- he builds houses for people and won a Peace Prize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't imagine what rules I've broken here -- and besides that, I'm not the only one making argument about Bonds. I must admit, Steff is right -- this is a thread about someone wanting Bonds here, and perhaps it isn't appropriate to argue that Bonds won't come here because no one will be interested in bringing him in. I still don't think so but I'll take my bow from this thread. I just hope you aren't insinuating that I'm in violation of some sort of rule.

Carter invaded Iran with four helicopters. It's funny and it's true and it's terrible all the same.

Carter lacked the skills a President needs, too, as far as soft skills. Just ask Tip O'Neill.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) But see, then GP couldn't argue about everything under the sun. It's pretty clear what the opinions are, so I'm not sure why this gets carried out to 80+ posts. Most of them say the same thing. I really hope you're not singling me out for what just about everyone, especially on the Filibuster, does.

That's better. but really, last year's Tigers team wasn't all that good. And this year's NL teams aren't that bad, although that Rockies pitching staff, outside the pen, worries me a little.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 4, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) I wouldn't call the man who tried to kill Che a criminal. Che was the criminal. He tried to foment a bloody Communist revolution in a country that didn't have any popular support for one. Given that Che Guevera had singlehandedly caused the genesis of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and had almost fatally damaged the Cuban relations with the USSR while doing the same with the US, my guess is Castro wasn't too sad to see him go either. There are lots of things that caused the CMC. A big one was Khruschev thinking Kennedy soft and therefore believing that he could assert himself in the Americas.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 10:25 AM) Whatever team comes out of the minor league NL will get absolutely decked by the AL representative. I'm sure you said that last year.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) greatest song ever There you go again.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) You "of the only you have this opinion on this site" mentality need to relax about this. If you want a place where Wrigley is called beautiful, and people had fun at wrigley, I suggest the sister site of talkcubs.com. I am sure that the posters of there will be very happy to swap stories of magical nights of drinking, ass grabing fun, and admiration for a dump of a park. I'm just saying, the sooner this series is over the better. This bulls***, "Cubs are the best NL team," "My greatest nightmare!" nonsense has to end and the sooner it does -- the sooner that miserable franchise and its obnoxious fans and its grating counter-fans can shut up and enjoy the COLORADO ROCKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the better

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Nope. But if they publish articles like this, I now know to avoid it. Yeah, they're bad. I used to read them because it was like satire to me, but they got rid of them at the Orange Line. I'd forgotten them, too, until a friend posted this article. I told him it was bulls*** -- he said, "okay, the source sucks but the points are good, right?" I said, "I don't think so but I'm too busy to refute it myself and besides, I don't know the economics as well as I could." So I came to The Masters here. (Really, I appreciate you guys. Keep it coming -- more dissection of this piece, moremore.)

Is anyone here familiar with The Trumpet?

Right.

I loathe the Trumpet. They predict the End of the World every single issue and predict a Great Depression every issue, no matter what the economic situation. These guys are baboons and I think a good rule of thumb is, If they believe it, take the opposite stance. (I don't actually believe that per se. But I am weary about them. I hadn't read that mag. in forever, ever since they removed it from the Orange Line.) But what I really want is -- I know the article is BS, at least in its conclusions. The "Great Depression" is not around the corner. Can one of you who are more knowledgeable about economics than I tell me why?

This is a franchise that boycotted to get stricter steroid testing. This is a franchise with no room for Bonds at DH and God help us all if he's in LF. He's not coming here... ...I'd bet on it.