lostfan

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) I think the pitching as a whole other than Linebrink has been impressive even Jenks and Pena The part I can not get out of my head is the offense looks like last year and the defense is just as bad thus far. The bullpen is 0-3 and off of the top of my head has given up 6 runs in 16 innings many of which have come after sketchy defense let them down. Ah, gotta love Alexei Ramirez out there

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 10:34 AM) Stats aside, I actually think the starters have not helped either. Thus far, their inability to go late in games has put more pressure on the bullpen. I argued this offseason that the Sox did not need Carrasco (or a guy like him) because the starters would consistently go late in games, but their pitch counts have really hurt them in the early going. Hopefully Pena does not have any negative effects from going too long last night. Peavy's the only one that it's really fair to put that blame on, IMO. We know that Buehrle threw a gem, then Peavy had a pretty mediocre outing, then Floyd and Danks had quality starts. Floyd gave up 2 runs and Danks gave up 1 earned run, the other was Ramirez's fault because the inning should've ended there. You can't reasonably expect Buehrle, Floyd, and Danks to go 7 or 8 innings all the time and give up 2 runs etc.

Yeah I'm really not too put off by Rios's batting average right now. Rios looked like s*** last year, like he just didn't know what the f*** he was doing when he came to bat, but he looks fine now.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 9, 2010 -> 08:50 PM) Obama probably already knows who he wants to nominate. And they're just going through the vetting now to be safe. Oh, and I found it kind of funny that Stevens was confirmed 98-0. Ha! I wonder what the odds are of that happening this time around. Yeah that changed in the 80s but still even Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all had pretty easy confirmations. You'd think, based on his record since then, that the Dems would've put up a fight against Scalia, but he also had a 98-0 confirmation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 10:23 AM) Or they are a threat to the established parties, so there is a large incentive to make the bats*** crazy people their "spokespeople". That is my point. You obviously don't know much of the organization because you keep trying to make the failed point that they don't stand for any one thing. The name of the group tells you their main point. The extra stuff that gets emphasized instead of the thing that is spoken about at 90% of their rally's. Its funny that the same standards don't get applied to the fringes of the environmental movement. You've got people attacking ships and blowing up cars in the name of environmentalism, yet it doesn't seem to suffer at all as a national movement. They appear everywhere in the mainstream, with no mention of the outrageous of a few. Yet here people can take legitimate constitutional issues that folks have, and turn them into some sort of nutjob fringe movement. Yeah, those bats*** crazy constitutional authors, right? Yep, no bias there at all. I don't think that's what Rex is saying. Go back to the last conservative movement and think of a single message and the person that did the most in leading conservatives to carrying that message. Easy, right? Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. What about now? John Boehner? No. Michael Steele? Oh god no. There's a nebulous group of people with a loose anti-government (the regular kind, not the militia kind) message that political junkies understand, but isn't really that clear to everyone else.

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Apr 9, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) And he will do his usual strikeout looking while shaking his head walking back to the dugout. Thome is much more likely to K on a high fastball with a swing that blows the hat off some people in the first few rows. No reason not to give Thome a standing O

I'm really tired of seeing federal judges get nominated. Pick someone else this time please. Ginsburg will probably retire too so that'll refresh the liberal wing for a while. None of this is actually that important until/unless Obama gets re-elected and then we have to start looking at guys like Scalia or Kennedy, and THEN it'll get rough.

Quentin homering makes me less pissed off about wasting Beckham's bat.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) Reduced taxes does not equal larger deficits by itself. Why is that such a hard concept for people to understand? Keynsian economics is working swellingly, right? I've done my own reading but I'm not an economics whiz so I have a hard time explaining it. It depends on where the budget is exactly, who is getting the tax cuts, and how much. Having the tax rate go up 2 or 3 percent doesn't have any real effect on GDP growth, and cutting it sometimes helps, but over the last 20 years this has been waaaaaay overstated. The idea that "tax cuts stimulate growth" is on a top 5 list of tired political cliches somewhere. If this logic held true then the Soviet Union with its 100% tax rate wouldn't have been able to have its military machine that was equal to (or maybe better than) ours, and developed satellites before we did or nuclear weapons only a few years later, because its economy would've been non-existent. Obviously the USSR isn't exactly a model of economic efficiency and it imploded on itself a few decades later but you see my larger point.

I agree that it's a macro issue, but it is what it is. There are 2, maybe 3 times as many left-leaning posters as there are right-leaning posters.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 09:49 PM) Ya, it is basically what the republican party should be and goes back to all of the basic fundamental principles that I support and feel are best for our country to prosper!! I'm excited that my republican party is finally back. I think it's all a lot more nuanced than that, personally. Republican politicians don't like to stray from the line they draw at all, for any reason, like for example if a Republican at the national level supports a tax increase, or a government program (of a particular type) they get ripped a new one for not being truly conservative. When someone succeeds (Gingrich reducing the deficit) it's because they were truly committed, if they fail (Bush) then it's because they weren't conservative enough and they need to get back to the basics and be more firm in their principles. This is kind of ironic to me though, because Gingrich got blamed for failing to do some things and got voted out as Speaker in the 90s because they said he wasn't committed enough and compromised too much, which makes no sense because he shut the government down out of a refusal to budge, more than once. And Reagan raised taxes more than a couple of times too (and pulled the Marines out of Beiruit after the bombing - by today's standards, the paragon of all things Republican would be a horrible Republican today). If I say the Tea Party is "incoherent" it's because they want to lower taxes, but they also say they're deficit hawks - which makes no sense to me, even if you completely factor out healthcare reform. We already cut taxes, a few times, and it added to the deficit. It has to be one or the other.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) Ok dude. Look at the last two pages and think about it a little bit. NSS losing his composure, then calling you out, then me taking issue with the characterization of how this forum is run, then Rex and Gage going back and forth for a while on polls, then me and you... like I said, I read every post, albeit sometimes delayed... what are you getting at? Everyone is out to get you? Even me? Come on, you know me better than that (and this is reaching the point where I don't feel comfortable talking out in the open anymore)

Then don't come here if it's like that for you. Seriously. Not everybody feels that way, no need to piss on everybody else's parade. Oh and in any case you're talking about Balta specifically and you can take that up with Balta, he is a big boy, he can handle it...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 08:08 PM) Great example of bias in reporting. They stand for lots of things so now they are some how they have no aim. When the Democrats do it, it is called a large umbrella. If you don't know the big things the tea party's stand for, its because you haven't paid attention, or want to dismiss them easily. Limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, lower taxes, and deficit reduction. Basically a conservative boilerplate of goals, really none of it is actually new. I went over the difference between Republicans being disciplined and Democrats being a disorganized clusterf*** and why that is a couple of weeks ago

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 07:53 PM) Are you f***ing serious? LMAO. You guys hurl crap at me personally then anyone else, and this post is exactly on that point. But I could care less, because I've just accepted it. Which in a way is bad, because you get the responses that you see about the inherent bias of all of the information posted here. GOVERNMENT SAVES, in 1000 words, or GOVERNMENT SAVES in 2. The point's the same, and then I get mocked for it. Yea, ok. And I go around here suspending people and power grabbing. I'm a ring leader, baby. Yea, please. And SS, I can never be figured out. kap the point is that when you do that, it's EXTREMELY obnoxious and adds nothing, nothing at all, and it's like a kid who is sitting in a classroom farting while everybody else carries on with their business. I try to be really lenient but sometimes you just get out of control and to be honest, a lot of times I don't want to have to post anything directly, and I just cross my fingers and hope other posters get bored and ignore you. At a certain point though, it's just irresponsible if I don't. You're getting mocked by other posters not for your point of view, but because of the ridiculous ways you convey it (or think you're conveying it). But to whatever you're saying - inherent bias? What? How is there an inherent bias in somebody posting something? That's like me telling you the stuff you posted is inherently biased to a conservative point of view. Um... yeah! That's the whole reason I bother responding to your points in the first place! I know there is a bias. Most of the time I'm in here posting, and this 100% the truth concerning me, I'm either trying to learn something, or trying to educate somebody else. Ranting and shouting really isn't usually my deal.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 12:03 PM) I can't see this without thinking of that constipated lookin putz from Lethal Weapon 2. Diplomatic immunitaayyy! *bang* HAS JUST BEEN REVOKED

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 06:52 AM) awesome. I smell a class assignment . . . I've already had my eighth graders rewrite the Gettysburg Address as text messages. My AP English teacher had us write Macbeth scenes the way we talked (as inner city high school sttudents in the 90s)

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 8, 2010 -> 02:52 AM) I was referring to Balta's post suggesting the Russians and Chinese could just throw hordes of crummy planes at us and win by sheer numbers. Obviously, we would win that battle of attrition. I don't think this is actually being disputed

QUOTE (mreye @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 11:22 PM) When does the Greg Walker talk start? I'll think I'll go on hiatus to avoid it. I don't think anybody's going to be all pissed at Greg Walker when you have guys like Kotsay and Teahen doing what they do

Well, this one's about over. I'd like to think this is an aberration from Bobby, but he sucked for a good deal of time last year too, so...

God motherf***ing dammit Teahen.

Tough spot for Rios to try to play that ball.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 10:27 PM) Come on, T-Paine. Good vibes. I know that name is not catching on but I like it

"Hate" is a strong word and has some pretty unpleasant connotations to it