Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) BobDylanRH. Let's play sometime. I haven't tried the multiplayer stuff yet, is it worth giving it a shot? I've been stuck on the single player mode. Great, great game for the ps3.

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.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) Of course, last I checked thousands and thousands of people who watch the show and know what can happen, still audition. I agree about the fat kid, he obviously had something wrong with him. There was a good article on MSNBC on how the process really works. As for the show losing popularity. Tuesday night was the biggest audience ever for the show, so don't expect too much of a drop off. Yeah, I don't see the show tailing off at all for a long time. There's just too much humor and it's real, not written. Sure they poke fun at odd looking people. But thats the odd looking peoples fault for going on national tv. You know you're going to be showcased as a freak. And I don't understand why people get so upset at the judges (Simon in particular). They've all acted the same way for 6 seasons now. You should know what to expect. I find it incredible some of these people actually think they sound good. I'm not talking about some who can carry a not but don't sing well. I'm talking about the people that are totally tone deaf and have no timing/rhythm.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) Something different could be any Senator. Perhaps a war hero type, a Republican. Someone like McCain. What I am going to enjoy is the heavyweight primary battles for both parties. There are some studs running. People who can campaign hard with great oratory skills. I believe this cycle will be remembered for generations. On the Dem side you will have a couple people who could tear down barriers. Obama and Hillary are electable. Rudy and McCain to start the GOP would be an epic party battle. I wish there was a candidate in all this that I could really jump behind. Someone I would want to pound the pavement for. I don't want to be on the sidelines watching the body bags. Agreed. Should be some good debates this time around as opposed to "you're an X," "no you're a Y."

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) The Sox back end of the pen could have, like, 5 IP of MLB experience. That's real comforting. They could easily have a carousel of a 5th starter. Uribe could come into camp way much slower because of his offseason drama. Crede's back was a huge problem come September, and it's not going to just get better. Thome's not any younger. Contreras is older than Thome. In fact, I think he's older than America itself. Dye's not likely to put up a 1.000 OPS again. Ozzie's still managing. Buehrle isn't guaranteed to do anything. MacDougal is always a huge injury risk, what with his violent motion. Anderson is still an unproven hitter. Scott Podsednik-Dergan - Mr. 333 OBP or Mr. 66% SB rate - is still leading off. The Sox OF depth is still jacks***. There's my what if's, and I think they'll be better than most people give them credit for. There can be optimism, but saying they'll win the division by atleast 5 games is a stretch, at best. That pretty much means they dominate. I don't see any team within this division dominating anything. I don't think we'll dominate, but I'm not sure how you can accept the position that considering everything negative from last year kept us 6 games out wouldn't be a positive going into this season. Besides the Sheffield move (assuming it was a good move...i'm still not sold) no one did anything in the offseason. The two teams that beat us overachieved and we played like crap most of the year. This would indicate to me that we have an excellent shot of winning the division.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Ah yes, the "negativity means you should go root for another team" argument. I hadn't heard that one before, really. Crede hit 25 points above his career average. If he hits his career average, we probably win 5 less games. If Thome gets injured for half a year, if Paulie has a down year, if Dye doesn't have a career year, if Jenks has a sophomore slump etc. etc. etc. I think this team got noticably WORSE in the offseason, that's all. So wait. Lets see, Bonderman gets better and better each year and projecting that he'll have a slight falling off is moronic because all indications of his stats point to him having a better year than last year (which doesn't really work in baseball after a few years in the majors, but anyway...) Yet Crede getting better and better each year is a fluke and we got lucky he played so well?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) Five games or more? Not sure how you can really say that when the Sox lost the division by 6 last year. We lost the division by 6 when: Buerhle had his worst year as a pro Garcia was terrible until august (and even then he only had a couple good games) Garland and Contreras didn't get hot until the summer injuries plagued the team: Thome, Dye, Crede, contreras, etc etc missed key games in the late months of the season the front half of the bullpen stunk worse than horse**** our starting pitching was managed poorly. how many games would we have won if ozzie doesn't stick with vazquez through 6? 5 games at least? uribe had a terrible year, well below his averages detroit played over their heads last year (no way rogers is half of what he was last year) we lacked focus and made terrible errors throughout the season which was abnormal for this group and thats all i can think of right now. but i'm sure there are more.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) If anyone wants a true moderate, best to be voting for Obama out of the current crop of candidates. Unlike McCain, Romney, or Guiliani, he's not a moderate when convenient. He's moderate enough to piss off a lot of base Democrats all the time. Whether or not he peters out is left to be seen, but Obama is no crazy liberal, that's for sure. Seriously? First I'd like Obama to actually tell me what he's for and what he's against, then maybe I'll agree with this. I'd also like him to differentiate himself, not just from Bush who's ubber-right republican, but from anyone else thats close to him on the political spectrum. He's kept his mouth shut thus far. He gets SO much free press because he's a half-black man who speaks very well. He comes out and supports the Bears over the Saints and it becomes a national news story. He goes swimming in the ocean and it becomes a national news story. As unfair as it seems he'll be elected because of his race and how that shows what progress our society has made. The media has already jumped on this story and will run with it for the next year two years until election time. He doesn't have to say a word about politics and can stick to "i want to keep taxes low, social programs high and keep us from being attacked by terrorists" and the office is his, without regard to any of his qualifications (shockingly, this is what his dem convention speech amounted to....jack crap....and he was automatically dubbed the next great president). And I don't fault him for this or think negatively about him for this. It's the media trying to sell a story thats the most profitable which becomes our news source. It's sad. But I don't buy into that crap and I hope others don't either. I want him to tell me what he's for and against before he gets my vote. Out of that list I'd think Guilliani is far and away the most moderate. For abortion rights and for gay rights while being an economic conservative. That's pretty much being right down the middle.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) boston will be better also i think, or at least close with schilling dice k beckett papelbon and wakefield. Regardless....doesnt sox talk have a front page basically saying what this entire thread is about? No, it has an article with three bullet points from one voice about the Sox, with no discussion of the other teams in the division.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) The AL Central won't be the best division in baseball again this year, as I am seeing the AL East taking it this year. The Twins pitching is a bit weaker, I expect the Tigers to regress a little bit (largely due to their offense, not their pitching), but I expect the Indians to improve with the Royals being a 90-95 loss team. I see the AL East having the best offense, and if Boston can stay healthy, the second best offense too, along with another top 5 offense with Toronto. Baltimore is in the second year of Mazzone, so I expect their pitching to improve a little bit, and then there is Tampa who is in the same boat as the Royals. Basically, the AL East is top heavy, whereas the AL Central is pretty solid throughout without an elite team. Toronto compares favorably to all, but their pitching needs to perform. Their offense is good, without question. Come 2008-2010, the AL Central should be the best division in baseball regarding depth and overall talent. I think it's still the Central. I find it hilarious that the Yankees are still considered the favorite. They've got a ridiculous line-up again, for the 6th straight year. But yet again, their pitching blows. Didn't they learn their lesson two years ago? They're hoping that Pettite (who hasn't been good in a long, long time) and Pavano can lead them to the title again. Hmm, two old and withering pitchers. Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, the Yankees the last few seasons. If they get Clemens then perhaps they should be the favorites in the East. But I personally believe Clemens is overrated at this point in his career. He hasn't been unhittable since his first year in Houston, and as we saw in the playoffs in 05 he's prone to give up big hits and lots of runs. Boston looks ok from a pitching aspect, but is that lineup really that good? JD Drew? Come on... Toronto should be an 80 win team, but still not enough to make the playoffs. In the Central you have four teams capable of making a run, but IMO only three, the Sox, Tribe and Tigers have a real shot. All three will score a ton of runs and play good defense. As always though it'll come down to pitching. Will Detroits young pitchers keep the pace from last year? Or will they have tired arms from the post-season run. Will Clevelands bullpen be able to stop ANYONE from scoring? And for the Sox will Buerhle show up (my vote yes since it'll be a contract year) and will the #5 be adequate? I just don't see the dominance from Boston and New York that was there 3-4 years ago. But thats why they play the games, we'll see what happens.

I'd imagine they're just testing the waters. Personally I like what KW is doing: realizing that at some point, no matter how good they are/can be, pitchers aren't worth that kind of money for that long. The ONLY pitcher I'd pay that much for would be Santana, who's been Cy Young caliber for 4 years running. Zambrano pitches in the NL against some of the worst competition in all of baseball. And he's a head-case to boot. No question he can pitch, but money can be spent more wisely elsewhere (of course there in lies the problem for the Cubs...they're not wise).

Seems to me that most of the national pundits are calling for a Detroit and Cleveland battle for first, with the Sox coming in at 4th or possibly 3rd. Am I missing something? We have essentially the same team as last year. Detroit and Minny will regress (no way their pitching/hitting can duplicate last year) and yet the Sox were still in it the last week of the season, even though we had some of the worst career performances by some players, Buerhle in particular. Cleveland does scare me because they have an offense that can match us, but they did little to upgrade their pitching, specifically their bullpen. Am I crazy to think the Sox should be the favorites or cofavorites at worst in the most difficult division in baseball (now three years running...)??

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) It might be a bit too early to begin discussions on this guilty pleasure, but the premiere was last night. As far as the bad singers and insults go, it was pretty lame for the most popular show on television. Minnesota singers surely do suck though. I thought it was pretty fantabulous. King of the Forest? How can you beat that?? "Do you want to keep the poster?" I can't remember if I felt this way the last couple of seasons, but I was feeling really sorry/embarassed for a lot of those people, more so than usual. The very first audition, the Jewel fan, was so sad. They showed her crying and bawling for like 5 min, even though they usually cut it off after 10-15 seconds. Other classics: The Juggler and his tirade The Voice Teacher and Randy ruining any future interest in his vocal lesson business The #1 American Idol fan and her stunned look when they didn't like her singing The Water Guy who just left in the middle of his song and then came back in The only negative I thought were the 'feel good stories.' Crack-head girl will prolly get pretty far. She seems to fit the mold of some past finalists.

Speaking of 'hidden gems,' I'm wondering if Elmhurst qualifies. I grew up in central illinois and just recently moved up here to go to law school. My gf and I were looking for places to buy because rent on the north side is ridiculous. We looked at a lot of surrounding suburbs and Elmhurst, to me, seems like the greatest deal. It's a shortish commute (but still a commute) because its right where 290/294 meets and is a 15 min drive without traffic to 45 with traffic. The homes are both enormous and beautiful. It's an old area though, so it has some charm. The biggest thing was that we found smaller homes from 300-350k and up. They need a little work, but the homes around them are practically mansions. Little fixing up and I think the value would skyrocket. Anyone know anything about that area?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 16, 2007 -> 08:48 AM) Seems like we need a Soxtalk clan . . . I'd be up for that. We should get a list of people who are interested and try to come up with a scheduled time to play. We're probably on different servers though and would need to start from scratch. I'm on Stormreaver and Mal'Ganis (main).

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 11:44 PM) There were at least 400 people in line at the EB here in Tallahassee. It was insane, I never would have imagined that many people played in this area. Somehow I was able to reserve one at 8 tonight and got one just 20 minutes ago. I never thought I'd be made fun of for not having a level 60 in the game while I've only played for 2 months. Hey man, I'm with you. I think I'm on month 4 and am only a 38. I don't have the time to dedicate 4 hours a night to it, as much as I would like to! You'll have to let us know what you think of the expansion once you get to mess around with it for a while.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 16, 2007 -> 07:29 AM) Linked Maybe it's just blind-faith on my part, but I gotta believe if there was anything fishy going on one of the hundreds (or thousands) of developers/programmers on Vista would have come forth with the news. Also, I trust that when hackers get a hold of the system they'll be able to spot any fishiness that is going on. I doubt the government would take on the risk of people finding out they're monitoring everything on someone’s computer. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if they've designed some means of logging information about user activity that can be accessed after a suspect had been apprehended.

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

I think this is an adequate addition to the series, but I dunno, I'm so pissed at Nintendo for not upgrading their technology with the Wii. I love Nintendo games, but I'm a technology nerd so my ps3 has takin over. I got Twilight Princess for the Gamecube and beat the first two temples but haven't picked it up since because I've been stuck playing NBA 2k7 and Resistance. When I tried to play it again on the cube the graphics were terrible. According to Gamespot, the Wii version graphics are practically the same. I don't understand why Nintendo wouldn't upgrade their next gen console just a little.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 11:04 AM) So I'll admit I'm a little torn by this. Yes, you are correct, you don't enter the legal profession as a judge to make money (even though the couple hundred thousand a year would make most people drool), you do it because you're willing to sacrifice a little in salary for other things. On the other hand though, Roberts' argument does have some persuasiveness. These judges can go from making 6 figures working as a judge to making 7 figures working as a lawyer. In other words, there's very little economic reason for them to stay as a judge. So, if the salary for judges doesn't at least have some ability to rival the salaries people would make in the private sector, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be a lot of problems in keeping judges on the bench, problems that long-term could lead to real personnel shortages? I'm only a 3rd year law student, so maybe there are attorneys on the board with more experience, but from what I've seen judges are generally lawyers who want to be on the other side. Money is not a motivating factor. The perks are generally what interest most, coupled with the new responsibilites and role in the legal field. They're still getting paid an absurd amount compared to the average joe. To me it's a ridiculous argument to say that the quality of judges is diminishing because the pay isn't adequate. If he's equating the best candidates with those that are paid the most, the only way to save the judiciary is to offer up more money than those partners would receive in private practice, which will never happen. What's a 50k or 100k raise going to matter when partners are making 8-10 times the amount of these judges. A minimal increase is not going to bring in the 'top' talent. And do we really want people motivated by money to be in those positions? Much like members of Congress, the compensation is more than adequate based on the output that is produced.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) Your post makes it look like you have never (knowingly) had a gay relative or friend. Your attitudes would be quite different if you did. How would that change anything? If you had an alcoholic mother/father you could still love them and continue your relationship with them but still not like the fact that they're alcoholic (disclaimer: not equating the two as equal in any way!) For the record I have a gay friend or two and hung out with a fair amount of them in college. I live 4 blocks north of the biggest gay community in the midwest (Wrigley!). I've always been open that I don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. I think it's unnatural. I don't care when society (Hollywood) portrays homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, but I draw the line when they try to say it's natural. I think once you take away the biological anomalies (children born with both sexual organs and the doc/parents choose the wrong one to snip), those that were scarred for life as a child because of sexual abuse, etc, the majority of homosexuals are gay because of our culture and its portrayal of sexuality. People keep saying that the rise in homosexuality is based on the openness and acceptance of gays in our society. I think it's growing because more and more people see it as an available lifestyle, even though they may just be confused, lonely and/or depressed about their luck with the opposite sex (or their own sexuality in general). How many 10-13 year olds are going to watch something on MTV and think that's the answer to their confusion? People use Greek and Roman views on homosexuality as a way to show that homosexuality has always been around. If you look though, it was all socially contrived. It was about power and dominance. If you were the taker you were equal to a slave. If you were the giver you were 'normal.' All that said, I think it's ridiculous when the government tries to interfere. The day that we start making laws based on difficult moral questions is the day that we've lost the founding principles of the country. Everyone should be given the same rights. I laugh when people try to say that adoption is a big concern. True, same-sex couples probably don't offer the same benefits to a child than 'natural' parents would. But having two loving people is probably better than none, than one parent, than abusive parents, than irresponsible parents, etc etc.

Done in about 15 minutes, back on the 2nd. All company-paid days in between. Woo-hoo! Happy Holidays all

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 05:47 PM) This birdie knows how to save a business a lot of money All new DVD's are encrypted with copyright protection. Unless you use a computer with some hacking software it won't copy, or if it does the picture is real real dark. I tried this once with my Tivo dvd burner. You can try to manually copy everything (similar to that archaic VCR techonology) but you wouldn't get the right sound or picture quality. I've used Netflix for well over a year. I've never been subject to 'throttling' that others speak of. I get the 3 at a time deal, dunno if that matters. We probably get 1-2 discs a week. I tried Gamefly about a year ago. It seemed ok, but most of the brand new games were always waitlisted. It might be better now that it's become more popular.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Imagine that, American's want jobs that they can support their families with... Here is a silly thought, maybe we wouldn't need a minimum wage if we didn't allow half a million new illegals into the country every year? Maybe then we wouldn't allow corporations to artificially keep wage levels down, and we wouldn't need the government deciding living wages. But then again the wages are a secondary point. Its the actual jobs that are the point. I never hear that illegals do jobs American's don't want to do AT A HIGHER WAGE, the mantra is always they are jobs American's don't want, which is a load of crap IMO. All things being equal, a company would hire an illegal over a native anyday, even at the same wage, because they know they have absolute control over them. Do you think an illegal would file a complaint with OSHA? or start a labor union? Or file a lawsuit again their company? Of course not. If the company didn't think they would get caught, they would totally take the employee that they had complete control over, even if their were qualified, legal, interested workers at the same wage point. Agreed

Maybe I read the article wrong, but I think people are assuming too much. It just says that Swift estimated 40% of their workforce would be affected AFTER being told of the possible raids. Who's to say that the government didn't tell Swift how many people they were expecting to pick up, or at least a decent estimate? And as far as incredibly heavy fines go, that's fine and dandy with corporations like tobacco where the companies can offset those 'small' damage rewards within the cost of their already unpopular product. But we're talking about food here. That's a different ball game. The 65 million is going to come from somewhere and it sure isn't going to come from the companies savings account.