Jump to content

mmmmmbeeer

Members
  • Posts

    2,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mmmmmbeeer

  1. I'm tellin' ya now, if the yankees trade Vazquez straight up for RJ simply because they're able to toss $28M ($11M for vazquez+$17M for RJ) into the deal, I'm going to be really f***ing pissed off.
  2. I think that a White Sox world series run would result in MANY casual baseball fans cheering for the Sox. With the exception of Cub or Twin fans, I don't know any other fans that just despise the white sox. Look at the cubs or yankees, there are baseball fans of nearly every team that despise those franchises. The white sox could easily garner that national interest, we've just got to make a splash, make a push, and finally win something.
  3. Agreed. Deferred money or not, $14M/year for 5 years was a ridiculously high amount of money for what he has brought to this team over the years. As awful as it sounds, I cherish the fact that he got greedy, turned down the Sox offer, and now has a f***ed up knee that will all but eliminate any chance of seeing another offer that high again. f*** Maggs. What happened to hometown discounts and allegiance?
  4. This is bad new IMO. They're going to be focusing on dealing him to smaller market teams with strong farms, ie. Minnesota. Minnesota will get a good SP and NY will then have the bargaining chips to go after RJ or any other top notch pitcher via trade. It's not like they're just going to give the guy away, if they're picking up the tab they're going to want talent in return.
  5. The Guardian is to the English press what The 700 Club is to American politics.
  6. mmmmmbeeer

    The Grudge

    The wiff drug me out to see this crap. Horrible movie :puke . They said this was a remake of an older Japanese film, seems to me it was a remake of 100s of existing American horror flicks. Leave your brain at home before you go see this one, maybe then you'll find yourself interested. But hey, my 8yr old loved it, so it's got that going for it.
  7. The national league was weak this year, thus the Cardinals 105 wins. I know they have a great team, but they aren't going to be able to hang with the Red Sox, a team that just defied history in dramatic fashion. Momentum and talent will give the series to the Red Sox in 5.
  8. If I were to have to argue against Article III I suppose that I would argue that, due to the sovereignty of each state, they should not be bound to fight the war of another sovereign state without having any direct participation in diplomacy or abritration before war is declared. For example, if the French decided to invade NY due to some obscure disagreement that shouldn't have led to war, why should the Georgia militia be forced to travel north and fight for a cause that they have absolutely no interest in fighting for? Whereas with a federally supported military, responsible for protecting the union as a whole, would certainly be obligated and correctly assigned to NY to defend a component of the union. Individual states should not be responsible for the wellbeing of the entire union, just their sovereign state. Also, let's say Georgia believed that the strength of their militia played an integral role in the health of their state and funded/equipped their militia accordingly. New York on the other hand, feels that their militia can be weak, spend the money on other programs, and then depend on Georgia's resources to defend them, knowing that law requires Georgia to do so. Why should the state of Georgia agree to a policy that is unfair to them? If I were to have to argue for Article III, I'd say that a threat to any component of the union is an inherently direct threat on each other component of the union, sovereign states or not.
  9. Jets Eagles Chiefs Chargers Bills Bears Browns Seahawks Lions Titans Broncos Steelers Vikes Rams
  10. So where were the vaccinations contaminated? Sounds to me like the answer is England. So I don't know how the president was incorrect.
  11. Is he bitter they only offered him $14M a year? The gull of that White Sox front office to offend an MVP like Maggs with that kind of offer. Seems to me that Maggs is pissed off at himself for not signing with the Sox before he got hurt. His agent begins to tell him the kind of money that he can expect being injured and all, Maggs didn't like what he heard, and thinks that the savior can get him what he thinks he deserves. I hope he comes nowhere near sniffing the $14M he could have had here. I like Maggs as a player, and seems to be a nice guy, but I've got no pity for greedy players.
  12. Was this post penned in the "spin" room? You bring up some very valid points about Bush's performance, although I wouldn't say that he skirted more questions than Kerry. The one question I was impressed by Bush that I wish would have been aimed at Kerry, was the flu vaccine question. I refuse to believe that either candidate was prepared for this question and opened the door for a blatant question avoidance. Bush stepped up though, I liked the fact that he actually knew what the situation was and gave a very blunt answer. Even after hearing Bush's answer, Kerry completely avoided the question and seemed dumbfounded that the issue was even being discussed. I really don't give two s***s about the situation with the flu vaccine but their responses told me a lot. Bush, while being groomed for the campaign trail, still is aware and understands issues that fall well outside of that campaign grind. Kerry does nothing more than regurgitate the facts and buzzwords his campaign managers and advisers drill into his hairy head and has no ability to think "outside the box". I'm truly frustrated by both of these fools. I can't believe that these two are our choices for leader of the free world.
  13. It's becoming more and more apparent that Maggs has a bit of greed running through his veins.
  14. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...tone/index.html Not-so lovable losers Cubs management should've worried about collapse, not broadcaster Posted: Monday October 4, 2004 11:39AM; Updated: Monday October 4, 2004 11:39AM Phil Taylor It's hard to blame the Chicago Cubs for being a little testy last week, in light of how they were completing one of those distinctly Cubs-like late-season collapses that added yet another devastating chapter to their heart-breaking history. The Cubs managed to bungle away a potential spot in the National League playoffs by losing seven of their final nine games, several of them in the kind of gut-wrenching fashion that makes you wonder if the franchise might truly be cursed. But there are ways to lose without acting like losers, and it would be easier to feel sympathy for the poor Cubbies if they went down with dignity. Calling a broadcaster on the carpet for making critical comments on the air is no way to do that. That's what Cubs management did to Steve Stone, the team's longtime television analyst. Stone met with team president Andy McPhail, general manager Jim Hendry and manager Dusty Baker last Friday because the brass, especially Baker, was more than a little annoyed at what Stone had been saying about the team. One of the things he said was that the Cubs spend too much time putting blame elsewhere and not enough owning up to their own shortcomings. Stone ought to thank McPhail, Hendry and Baker for helping to prove his point. Baker and the Cubs execs should be embarrassed to admit that they even paid attention to what Stone was saying on the air last week. Given the way the team was playing, there were much more important matters that should have been occupying their time. Worrying about some broadcaster's opinions when the team was frittering away the wild-card lead is like agonizing over the color of the drapes when the house is burning down. Then there's the little matter of the Cubs being owned by the Tribune Co. a media conglomerate that owns the Chicago Tribune and dozens of other newspaper, television and radio outlets. Tribune-owned enterprises critique politicians, business executives, actors and athletes every day, often harshly. Don't McPhail and Hendry's bosses in the Tribune Co. executive suite see the hypocrisy in being thin-skinned when they get the same treatment that they're used to giving? Does it make sense that a Tribune-owned newspaper can rip the President's foreign policy without consequence if it chooses, but an ex-ballplayer with a microphone can't rip Baker for not putting on the hit-and-run? There is no question that some of Stone's criticisms were harsh -- "Dusty managed a bad game," he said during a radio show last week, "but he's never going to [admit] he did." -- and broadcasters can help shape public perception of a team. If Stone says Baker is a bad manager enough times, some of the fans start to accept it as truth, whether it is or not. As a Cubs broadcaster, Stone is also an employee of the Tribune Co., and the company isn't paying him to rip its product. But leaning on Stone for not trying to put a happy face on a dire situation is worse for the Cubs' image than anything he or any other broadcaster could say. It makes Baker look like a paranoid leader and it paints McPhail and Hendry as empty suits who jump blindly to their manager's defense every time he pouts. It's also bad business to make a martyr of Stone, who is one of the most popular personalities associated with the team. Cubs fans apparently want candor from their broadcasters, just like they want a World Series title in their lifetime. Since the franchise is having so much trouble fulfilling the second desire, the least they can do is take care of the first.
  15. Even in that scenario, you're listing some of the most important presidents of all time. Well, right now there is no more important president than GWB, ya know, considering he's the man in charge right now, not 50 or 150 years ago.
  16. Add John Kerry??? Whether you're liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, or fall anywhere inbetween, this is outrageous. He's the president of the United States, kids should certainly be familiar with the name and image of their president.
  17. according to George Soros and company, these polls are worthless and probably the result of a retired Newsweek editor's secret anti-Christian devotion.
  18. You're right. I'm making the whole story up. I'm not trying to imply that we had a continuous feed of the WTC prior to 9/11 that was on a big screen. I'm saying that moments after the first plane hit they had live coverage of the plane in the building. They had that live feed up PRIOR to the 2nd plane hitting. If you're strictly talking about live footage of the first plane actually HITTING the tower, which I think is taking the president's statement out of context, then I don't recall when that footage became available, it could have been the next day. The fact is that prior to the 2nd plane hitting, which most definitely proved the act was intentional, the public could see pictures of the first plane and had no reason to believe it was a terrorist attack but rather a f***ed up pilot.
  19. I work at a telecommunications company. We also have another company that works in the same offices who sell bandwidth and satellite time to TV stations. They are also responsible for monitoring and maintaining these links. There was most definitely TV coverage of the first plane prior to the 2nd hitting. I had the same thought as GWB that morning. I was sitting at my computer, looked up because other folks in the office starting talking about a plane, and on the big screen in front of me I see a f***ing plane embedded in the WTC. I also thought this was an accident and was sitting there asking myself how the hell they were going to get it out of there. Then the 2nd plane hit, I saw that 2nd plane hit live. At that moment I knew it was an attack, not before. The story the president told is not only possible, but probable. I can say that being I had the same thoughts at the same times.
  20. How can you compare those two? I know that many left-leaning folks despise FNC and will nitpick, but jesus, it was an obvious joke. I didn't sense anything funny in Rather's story.
  21. Isn't he also the guy who, just a couple of weeks ago, said that Hudson should get AL CY over Santana???
  22. So what are your feelings about the Oil for Food scandal reaching the upper echilons of the UN and high ranking officials from those countries opposed to the war? I mean I hear ya about the weapons, but I don't think that was the main point of his post.
  23. This is an extremely important point that Kerry ignored last night, as do most anti-Iraq war types..... Kerry criticizes Bush for diverting troops from Afghanistan and sending them to Iraq. So does that mean that Kerry believes that 5 Army divisions sitting in Afghanistan on the lookout for 1 man is an efficient and effective us of the military? Wouldn't a reasonably sized special forces group accompanied by a small group of intelligence agents be MUCH more effective at sniffing out a single individual in a mountainous region? You cannot compare a manhunt to a war. They require entirely different strategies, different resources, and different mindsets. We had a larger force on the ground during the initial conflict, aka war. This was the proper strategy. After the Taliban was toppled, that conflict, or war, was complete. The war ended and gave way to a manhunt, which does not require 100,000 people. UBL would probably be thrilled if there were still 100.000 troops in Afghanistan...that much more bureaucracy, confusion, and chaos to ensure a cleaner escape.
  24. Unfortunately I'm stuck at work and can't listen to all the post-debate commentators...but has anyone mentioned Kerry's nice timeline manipulation on the NKorean deal. He was talking about how a year ago, or whatever, we had cameras and press in the Pyongyang facility and now we don't have anyone there, inspectors have been kicked out. Fact is, the inspectors were kicked out under the Clinton administration and the cameras were allowed in a year ago to show off their new toys to the world to instill fear. I can't believe Bush didn't call him out.
  25. Kerry most definitely won, Bush looked extremely uncomfortable. I watched the O'Reilly/Bush interview and to compare that interview with his debate performance speaks volumes about GWB's personality. He IS NOT comfortable at formal speaking events. Tonight he stuttered, word crutches, lost track of his thoughts, gave away which questions he expected and which he didn't, it was an awful debate for Bush. In the O'Reilly interview, which was much less formal, Bush was outstanding. He confronted each of O'Reilly's questions and had intelligent, informed, decisive things to say. He came across as a man in control, tonight he did not. Those questions O'Reilly gave him were less softball questions than those that were given tonight. On the other hand, I've always felt that challengers tend to have an upper hand going into the debates. They've been pounding every issue, nearly every day for atleast 1 year. If you're not prepared with facts, buzz words and phrases, and not have your public speaking abilities at their pinnacle after spending over a year of your life practicing those things for over a year, you're horrible. The incumbent on the other hand actually has a job to do while preparing for the election and debates. Bush couldn't pull a Kerry and let down his constituents to pursue a larger personal goal. The one point I do give to Bush is when he cited several positive things about Kerry during the character question. He really reinforced the idea that this is not personal to him, it's pure politics. Kerry, on the other hand, stuttered horribly when trying to say nice sings in return.
×
×
  • Create New...