StrangeSox

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 09:13 PM) his ERA + was very good for the Cubs, but it topped at like 130, 30% better than an average pitcher, Edwin coming into tonight with 4 starts was 454, 354% better than an average pitcher... comparing apples to oranges... not sure if this was meant to be in green, but who cares, I wanted to post how freaky EJax has been, even before tonight! I am a fan of this stat. I am also a fan of Manny having 3 RBI for the Sox without a plate appearance.

First call to the Ranger asked about The Manny Effect.

Thank you for keeping baseball relevant for me in September, AJ, Edwin and MANNY!!!!!!!

Absolutely.

I'm pretty sure Balta's still not convinced on Jackson yet, guys.

Manny = win. eta also that pitcher, what's his name? Jackson?

Manny Ramirez 1-0. Thanks for the win, Manny!

Woot!

That was quick. The bullpen implosion has been epic.

Unfortunately our bullpen is terrible so a great start is wasted by stretching the starter and still having to rely on a crapshoot.

Balta is really not impressed.

Balta is still not impressed.

f*** YES!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) It kills me how in the message board world, nobody can believe that Ozzie in all his years of baseball is capable of making a right decision on this. You think maybe he's been around the game long enough to make an educated call on whether Manny should play tonight? You think maybe he knows his team and after talking to Manny, just might be capable of making the right decision? Are you guys right about everything and Ozzie wrong about every matter you disagree with him on? Wow. Ozzie makes plenty of very stupid decisions. He is not infallible and there's no reason to assume he made a correct call, especially given the style of baseball he wanted to play and the players he wanted. He didn't want a Manny or a Thome or a Dunn. He wanted Kotsay.

Why will sitting on the bench make Manny more valuable to the White Sox? This move is stupid.

Reading the comments, the story original assumed he was a tea-party member or at least "fit the profile".

I'll use this as another chance to express my hatred for twitter.

How can the country heal when we still have the gaping wounds of radical socialism and islamatization?

Details, details. Former campaign staffer being interviewed is pretty much the same thing as "campaign staffer bombed office".

GOP plans wave of White House probes

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) I've never argued it wasn't a PART of the election strategy. I'm saying that it's not the "core" strategy, or even a main one. Again, is this an issue that's talked about in major debates? No. It's a fringe issue that gets people all emotional, just like religion, abortion, etc. It was a core strategy to "Get out the vote" in 2004. This is just going back to the point that being a gay Republican in 2004 is a little different than being an anti-stimulus (or other similar policy position) Democrat in 2008/2010.

Exactly. Tennessee still isn't far enough away. Those poll results show close to 20% don't want any mosque built anywhere in the country. And, of course, this whole thing was pretty much a non-issue until Republicans made it a vote-getting tool.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 09:16 PM) No, I didn't. Your point is that being anti-gay is a "core" of the Republican party. It's not a "core." Did they talk about it during the presidential debates? It's a fringe, last minute "oh my god we need votes we'll try to get the religious sect out to vote" issue. It wasn't "last minute." It was a key part of their election strategy. That doesn't mean being anti-gay is a requirement of being a Republican. But it does mean that the party had no problems stoking the gay boogeyman fears for political gain, and I can't see how any gay person would want to be part of a party that did that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 08:22 PM) So, if this mosque was going up 12 blocks away from the get go, you are saying that there would still be this massive opposition to it? I will grant you that there will always be some opposition to it, but you can't say it would be on the same level it is now. Hell, they could have diffused this thing right from the start, made HUGE PR points to their side and almost neutered the opposition if right away they said something like " You know, our intentions were pure in trying to build this center here, to build bridges and heal the divide. but however pure the motives are, it is clear that choosing this site has had the opposite effect, and in the interest of fostering peace and understanding, we are beginning our search for a new site immediately." But no, they just did their heels in and get indignant at our indignation, as if they are the only ones that are allowed to be upset at anything. Hey, yeah, they could have avoid the whole controversy if they would have caved in right away! Alternatively, Americans could realize 9/11 =! all muslims and that there's nothing wrong with building a community center with a mosque a few blocks away. But no, they had to go all crazy and let their irrational fears of all things muslim become national storylines.

ITS NOT ABOUT RELIGION ITS ABOUT MUSLIMS BEING INSENSITIVE BY WANTING TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION! Kap, if it isn't about religion, you need to provide a reason for the rapid opposition to Muslims building a "Ground Zero Mosque" that is at least plausible. And, even if you manage to do that, you're still just using an outliar. The overwhelming majority of the opposition to this comes because they're Muslim.