Texsox

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) executive order against an assassination? Seems kinda odd. Especially when it can be used against terrorists. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us....ination.policy/ for some background

Sure it is fun to mock something that others people hold as sacred.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) what law? Sorry, executive order. It's been in place since President Ford.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) Could send in a special ops force or hire an assassin. But yes, I would tend to believe he means bomb. Of course that pesky law against assassination may get in the way of some leaders.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) Judging by the turnout in Republican primaries and caucuses to date I don't think people will be coming out in droves to support an uninspiring waffler like McCain. You are right, I'll be voting for Obama in the Texas primary. No need to vote for McCain, it is a forgone conclusion.

Post your homework help requests here. There are always soem posters who will help. First request . . . For my linquistics class, I need some slang terms that have changed meaning over the years.

From a friend of mine who works at the library at NIU

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) I think Dick Allen's point is, how could signing anyone with any kind of upside to a minor league deal (no risk/high potential reward) be dumb? It kinda can't. I thought I was agreeing with him and adding that this is even an easier decision that E-Lo was.

Perhaps the shooter tipped someone off to come witness the massacre and that is the "woman in back". However, that seems reminiscent of the "woman in red". I wonder if someone isn't trying to push some similarities. I think Balta is also close. Sometimes reporters have this item they do not know what to do and they try and find a place to toss it. Perhaps the reporter had another three or four paragraphs explaining more but they were cut to fit the space. Almost every cell phone made in the past ten years has a sim card. Interesting he pulled his. I'm wondering if that doesn't point to a possible accomplice or perhaps to some paranoid state.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Sounds like Bartolo's people are trying to scare other teams into a last minute bid... About what I was thinking.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) This wouldnt really even do anything for me either. i havent had a land line for a few years and Ive never had a problem getting reception anywhere, let alone inside my house. Would you like to have free minutes at home, using the same phone and phone number?

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) Wow if Danks and Fields end up at AAA will we have two guys in Baseball America's top 100.

With our favorite baseball team we can see no good, with our political candidates we can see no bad. Interesting.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:36 AM) wait... i dont understand your logic. You are saying because a lot of people dont like hillary, that will make MORE people vote for her? That's twisted logic. Not much of a race on the GOP side, so as a REP, why not cross over and vote against the candidate that your leaders have announted the DEM's most evil threat? Reps for Obama, not that far fetched. This process is for the party to select their candidate. The mainline supporters are typically supporters going back at least as far as Clinton 1, and in some cases even farther. Because some people just now decided they like a candidate, these supporters will take a back seat and say you run it? Too much in it for people. Too many received benefits from Clinton one and wish to return to those days. I'm not all the way with Kap, but he's closer to right then the she doesn't have a chance people.

When a candidate's supporters say I will support this candidate and no other, it does not sound like they are Democrats at all. These are flash in the pan voters who will go jump to some third party candidate or similar. They will get the level of respect they give the party. My way or the highway supporters come and go in every election.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) I completely understand your logic but the only way I could see it work is if the last 10 races were close. She is getting her ass handed to her. It is quite obvious that a big shift of momentum is going towards Obama's camp. I just couldn't see how the superdelegates would arbitrarily all begin to shift towards Clinton for no apparent reason. It would be the demise for the Democratic party....at least in the short term. She would literally need to begin getting landslide victories on March 4th and beyond in order for that tactic to work for her and I highly doubt that will happen. Many are already committed to her. 80% of my local superdelegates are already pledged to her. They have been for months.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:15 AM) Do the Democrats want to shoot themselves in the foot and give the Republicans another two SC appointments? The true stakeholders want a win in November. I don't believe that Hillary will give them that, and I think they also realize that. The true stakeholders want to build the party for more than just this election. Being held hostage by supporters who claim they will not support the party if they do not get what they want is not good as well.

A house divided Robert for Clinton Teddy for Obama Coincidence or well coordinated family plan? I'm hoping to see Ted at the Obama rally this afternoon. He's basically touring college campuses. My son mentioned he will be at Texas State tomorrow.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) That wasn't my argument. I was debating Kap regarding his thought process that she will still be the nominee because she'd strongarm the superdelegates. I just don't see how she is still the front runner like he is implying. I do not wish to put words in Kap's mouth, but I believe what he is implying, and has for weeks, is even as the under dog, she has the inside track to still be the nominee. Primaries are a relatively new way for parties to select their candidate. Historically the party heavyweights got together and selected a nominee at their convention. There are still remnants of that system in place. Primaries are not mentioned in the Constitution, not part of our Bill of Rights. So what Kap is saying, is not too far fetched and anyone familiar with "party politics" and especially "machine politics" knows is sometimes the public doesn't get what they want, they get what the true stakeholders want. In this case the stakeholders are the superdelegates who are the biggest contributors, elected officials of that party, country chairpersons, etc. As many Obama supporters have made clear, they will not support the party if their guy is not the nominee. Therefor, they really are not Democrats, they are just there for Obama. How much voice should the party give non members of the party versus the party faithful who will be there campaigning for all the Dem candidates?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 09:57 AM) wow. that's a stretch. As was the $500 unpaid rent

Obama surrogate gets nasty

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 08:16 AM) The people who think signing Colon to a low base salary with a lot of incentives is stupid, must have also felt signing Esteban Loaisa in 2003 to a minor league contract was equally as dumb. You never know, lightening may strike twice. Actually the difference is Colon has proven he can be an ace, I believe that Cy Young would be credential enough. At the time of signing Loaisa, he had a handful of mediocrity. I believe that makes this even less of a risk with a known upsides. I'm not expecting 20 wins or even 15 but it wasn't that lomng ago we had a revolving 5th starter who couldn't get out of the 4th.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) I leave an hour early as it is! But I yelled at myself just to make it right. Sure you did, now get to work! If I were you, I'd think about working through lunch so I'm not pissed off even more.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) When your opponent is blowing you out state after state, you are losing the popular vote, you are losing in pledged delegates, you are losing in national polls, and you are losing in head to head matchups against McCain then please explain to me how you can strongarm anyone. I fail to see how the party could feasibly overturn all of this and give the win to Clinton. It would destroy the party ajd everyone knows that. Barring something from left field (i.e., Obama is revealed to be a child pornographer) then I can't see her winning. None of her tactics are working anymore. Until it is mathamatically over, she should stay and battle. That is what we want our President to do and it is what we should expect from candidates. Perhaps Obama would have packed it in if he was in her shoes, but I doubt it.

I try to hold back any enthusiasm until mid March, but it does feel good to see someone else in warm weather