lostfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella... You've brought this up like 20 times, at every opportunity, the fact is nothing's happened to Lieberman even though he's not really a Democrat and he's only in the caucus because of the mutual benefit/convenience but has actually been pretty worthless.

Cubano do you go to O's games?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Who is "they"? Pretty sure he was referring to Scientology

Before Harris started sucking the line in front of Urlacher was great. Urlacher didn't do s*** in the Super Bowl but this is because the DTs were being blown off the line of scrimmage by the Colts.

If you are Letterman, why wouldn't you want Obama on your show?

Chisoxfn, as far as your belief that Rivera had creative blitz schemes, I disagree and this was one of the biggest reasons I criticized him while he was still in Chicago. When the line wasn't getting a pass rush (i.e. Harris got hurt) the defense looked totally anemic, and he could not generate pressure. Remember that loooooooong period where Urlacher didn't get any sacks in 2006? That was Rivera's defense. Sending Urlacher straight up the middle, undisguised, yeah of course he's gonna get blocked.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) I think you're comparing apples to oranges though as well. You're talking about bringing in an elite football coach but not the possibility of bringing in an elite baseball manager... If we hired Shanahan, would be suddenly become a powerhouse in the NFC? If we hired LaRussa, would we suddenly become a powerhouse in the AL? I tend to think you could make an argument for both... Honestly I don't think LaRussa could suddenly make this team into something it isn't. Could he bring Pujols with him?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) I was anticipating this argument and I almost didn't bother to make the comment above in order to avoid this, but I guess I will bite... I think you're right in terms of strategy - baseball managers don't have nearly the impact that other head coaches do - but I do think they have other duties that are largely psychological in nature over the course of a 162 game schedule that they do not really receive credit/blame for. I think there is probably something to the fact that Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and a few others seem to lead their teams to solid season after solid season (I know they have talent, but we have had plenty of talent here throughout the years as well). I agree with your point but I still think that's apples to oranges. I just don't see how dumping Ozzie and hiring another manager is going to suddenly turn the franchise around the way that, say, hiring Shanahan would do for the Bears (although that'd mean that Cutler would become a 4000+ passer again but the defense would be s*** but that's beside the point).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I can agree with some of what you are saying here...but I think maybe there is some over reacting going on in response to just a horrendous game...I'd like to see how we look about 4 games from now before I make some of the definitive statements that are being made the last few days in here... I personally started getting sour on Lovie about a month ago. Up until then I'd been a defender.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me... IMO the manager in baseball has the least amount of impact on any of the major team sports so the comparison here doesn't really work. In football he evaluates dozens of personnel and installs complex schemes with complex gameplans, in basketball he break down matchups and has his players going with a certain style, in baseball he makes a lineup, tells players to steal bases, and decides when the pitchers come and go during a game.

It's not a secret that the Democrats haven't been able to herd their own cats to pass legislation, everyone knows this, it's been acknowledged several times, so you're just trying to change the subject.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) They spent the last few months blaming Republicans, who don't hold the White House, nor a single house of Congress, for holding up progress. A true statement, yes the Democrats are inept, but what does it have to do with the subject at hand? Unless you're saying that's ALL the Dems have been doing, which... yeah no.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Exept, he's the starting MLB on your team so he isn't the 4th stringer anymore. He's got a job to do and if he can't do it, the Bears need to find someone else who can. Especially when the MLB is so important in the cover 2 as he's responsible for the middle of the field zone which is often times one of the biggest openings in the cover-2. The most important part is the pass-rush, which was non-existent, but the pass-rush is the most important part of any d. Well like he was saying, it's not Roach's fault he sucks and is not Brian Urlacher.

Democrats pretended to be stupid, therefore I should be allowed to as well, except when I do it it's not stupid, it's just honesty

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) Really? Balta said the Republicans had the ability to get what they wanted to do now done and didn't even try, which is a true statement. It's not really blaming so much as it's a simple statement of fact, so how is it invalid in response to what NSS said (which I actually agree with for the record)?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) They blame the Republicans when the are out of power, and they still blame them while they are in complete power. Who is blaming what on whom exactly in the last few posts?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) John McCain's health care plan was to fully eliminate the employer tax credit for insurance and push everyone onto the individual insurance market. Good for business, but that's really screwing the rest of us. John McCain is economically illiterate and that's one of the reasons he lost.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) MSNBC is opinion from 4 p.m. until midnight. There is no news. You could probably throw the 3:00 p.m. hoour in there too. Whereas , Fox at least broadcasts news at 5:00 and 6:00 every night. Beck comes on at 5 doesn't he? edit: nevermind I'm in EST and you're in CST.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) And by shallow you mean they keep their coverage and analysis simplistic? Among other things yes. Sometimes simplicity is good but sometimes they just talk about things for the sake of talking about them, not because it matters. Reading www.foreignpolicy.com and hell, even TIME kind of opened my eyes. And if I see a Jon and Kate story in the "top stories" link section one more time I swear I'm going to start a petition to have them shut down.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) If I understand the article, Maddow and Olbermann, both commentators advocated a specific type of protest - but didn't do anything at all other than say its a good idea? How on earth is that equivalent to Fox News Tea Parties in April and Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally? I'm no fan of MSNBC (although I do like Rachel Maddow - and think she's actually a pretty entertaining host on TV and radio) but this is kind of a desperate ploy at saying "See, they all do it." I see Maddow often thrown in with the Beck-Hannity-Limbaugh crowd which really isn't fair to Maddow, as anyone who's watched her show can see. I admit I've done it before for the sake of rhetoric, but honestly outside of Olbermann there really is no left equivalent of conservative media personalities. QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:46 AM) I dont really see the MSNBC NEWS department being as politically active as Fox News NEWS department, but I do believe their commentators are getting close to Fox News level. I used to watch MSNBC before and through the primary and election season. But during that time the organization, and specifically the commentators, have moved very left and that bothers me. I still say Fox News is more to the right than MSNBC is to the left, but MSNBC isnt far behind. CNN is largely my primary source of cable news coverage because I do think they off the most Fair and Balanced coverage of the big 3. CNN' problem isn't bias, they're just shallow and therefore they suck.

The Bears are only in their base defense like 1/3 of the time.

QUOTE (everafan @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 02:22 PM) I don't think Beckham will win but it seems the players like him. He won the Sporting News ROY. If he doesn't get it, there's always next year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) I read this article yesterday and I'm pretty sure I agree with the legal reasoning saying that the names should be public. If I put my name on a petition, I don't expect to enjoy any right to privacy with that name, I expect other people to see that petition while its being distributed, I expect the state/local level to take time to evaluate the signatures on it to see if they're legitimate, I expect that the names are going to be stored somewhere, etc. If you're not willing to have yourself publicly identified in support of a petition then don't put your name on it. I would think the whole point of a petition is to associate my name with it... that's just me though. Otherwise why bother getting actual names? You could just make s*** up. Bob Stevens, Ed Jameson, Lakeshia Harris, Victoria Hoffman, and Terrence Wimbley all agree with this post.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 07:32 PM) So, frankly, I'm pleased with Reid. Wow. Totally shocked at him going for this, and pleased that Baucus was saying he'd vote for something like that. Just need to whip Bayh/Lincoln/Nelson not to vote against f'n cloture. Putting the public option in the final bill?

http://www.angrytownhall.com/ lol