Texsox

I'm just guessing your post is 100% funnier and entertaining than that show.

Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started. After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him.

The Gore thread has highlighted something for me, why doesn't the GOP have a position regarding the environment? The only thing I've seen is attacking any Dem lead discussions and policy initiatives, but no proposals of their own besides delaying milestones for energy efficiencies and pollution standards. I assume theirs is a "if it hurts business, we can't afford it economically" position that is tough to articulate and more importantly, harder to defend. What concerns me then, is by attacking Dems for environmental stewardship, they are hurting us all by allowing a more polluted environment. Their followers seemingly would prefer to reject any and all Dem initiated environmental proposals and stay in the pockets of big oil. I wonder what Dems can do to "de-politicize" the issue for the greater good. To bring conservatives into the fold so we all can enjoy cleaner air and safer water. If we can't get together over something as basic as air and water, we're really in trouble.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) If this family was spending its $$$ on bottled water... Sorry, two different things, I was just thinking about children and teeth

I wonder if bottled water without flouride is causing more dental problems for kids.

No one really takes this "research" seriously do they? Anyone could be posting, including rabid conservatives upset with the blogs.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) If you are talking about year to year profits, its the Cubs. If you are talking about total profits its the Pirates. There are two different things there though. I understand, purchase price comes into play and a host of other issues. But it seems that profit isn't the biggest motivator for many owners. I think owning their boyhood team, saving a team for their hometown, is probably a bigger motivator. For that reason, I think you are correct, owning the Pirates is probably more interesting to Cuban then the Cubs. The profit issue may also come into play, but if you look at his running of the Mavs, I doubt he would factor in profits for personal gain, but perhaps profit as a means to reinvest and make the Pirates a contender.

I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage. So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues? QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) What the hell ever, Tex. Let it go. The rest of us did when we realized that the Goracle could walk on polluted water. I'm sure every conservative is anti-environmental. It just has to be, because otherwise the Goracle wouldn't have to be an elitist wanker who buys his way to a good conscious. Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) So Tex, are you saying that the liberal audience is more vulgar? Yes. And the religious wing of the conservative movement is easily offended by adult language.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:09 AM) It depends on what you mean by "profitability". If you owned either team over a ten or twenty year period, which franchise would offer the best opportunity for the highest profits? Where I am going with this is a bigger question, why do certain owners buy certain teams? I think you were dead on with Pitt as a great possibility because of the home town angle. I think that is a bigger factor than profits for many owners. Others are fans of a sport and want a franchise in that sport regardless of location.

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) No, I think most of the conservatives quit having this conversation, because no one was listening anyways, which is why your "questions" haven't been getting answered. First asked about 50 posts ago. Leading conservative environmentalists? Which is better, follow Goracles example or his message? Are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Air and water clean enough? How is Goracles message harming the environment? So far it seems the GOP's position on the environment is everything is ok, keep using oil, coil, etc. and discrediting anyone who preaches conservation, alternate fuels, and especially talks about climate changes. I'm wondering what energy gobbling devices that the Goracle installed to boost his energy consumption.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 06:24 AM) Unrealized value is also found in a team that is drawing about 1/3 of capacity, not selling nearly as much advertising as possible, doesn't have as big of a TV contract as possible etc. You gotta get people interested in the product, no matter how good the place is to see it. No one sees games in Pittsburgh anymore. With near perfect management, which team could realize greater profitability, the Cubs or Pirates? I'm thinking merchandising, ticket sales, everything.

Since the usual suspects here could not find a conservative who was also a environmentalist, I went looking. I am alarmed that something as basic as our air, water, and energy production and usage has been hijacked on both sides for political gain. The left: do everything to save the environment, we need to save ourselves from ourselves (and Republicans). Make the problem seem worse to get their attention and action. The right: consumption is fine, burn it, strip mine it, drill it, this is all a ploy by the Dems to get votes. Discredit anyone who disagrees, and use that oil! The truth is somewhere in the middle. Over my lifetime we have made tremendous strides in cleaning our environment. Just look at the Chicago river. From a terribly polluted waterway to something that can be used for recreation. Smokestacks at factories are not billowing poisons into our lungs as badly as before. But Dems are going to have to take a more realistic approach to how bad the situation is and the solutions and Reps are going to have to admit that there are still problems and challenges that confront us. Since when does every issue have to be contested?

Duh. I didn't think it needed empirical data. Of course this is more a commentary about catering to an audience. There are good reasons in some forums, even here, to ban the use of s*** piss f*** c*** cocksucker motherf***er tits

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) so if my future kids cant stop hiccuping, I'm supposed to stick my finger up its butt. Isn't that against the law? "But officer, I was only trying to stop the hiccups!" My avatar can kick your avatars ass!

I am a little surprised that hockey hasn't been mentioned. With line changes being so important to the game.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) When I worked for the airline I worked for, I rode in the cockpit on several flights. That gives you a whole different perspective on a jumbo-jet, let me tell you. You see things you wish you didn't see... . So Kap you met Captain Oveur, have you ever seen a grown man naked?

You have to expect that at your age!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) I'm off my game I guess. You have to expect that at your age . . .

I wish him all the best

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) Then why didn't you give us a Flaxx like response of Boy that sound ruff!

He bought the team that was available. An alternate theory would have him buying a team that seemingly could never win a world series and do it with them, cementing him permanently in the annals of history. You are seeing his next team as a business venture, I believe he'd be smelling history and it is more breathtaking and heady winning with the Cubs v. winning one with the Pirates. But the Pirates and the home town angle is excellent as well. So I guess I am saying he'll buy the team that is available and makes sense in some area when he's primed to do so.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 02:17 PM) This sounds bad, but Santo won't get in until hes dead. just my thought Sounding even worse, let me add, it depends on how soon he dies. The Veterans Committee are validating the writers votes through the years. I laugh at the whole concept of first ballot HoF or second, etc. It's not like they are still hittin' home runs or racking up Ks.