lostfan

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 16, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) Probably because of this line in the article. I'm assuming the beat writer is going to be somewhat accurate: Fields was out of the White Sox lineup Friday night because of manager Ozzie Guillen's frustration with the frequent strikeout rate of his offense. Yes, and obviously by saying "Hopefully that will be it" Josh Fields is referring to cutting his strikeouts down by half, which insults our intelligence. He couldn't possibly have been implying the session made him feel good and he hopes he stops struggling, or hopes he will be able to start, or anything else.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 16, 2009 -> 08:50 AM) Read the article. The whole premise was he had an early BP session with Walker so he should be fine now. I'm happy he's working on it, I just know he will still be a strikeout machine. That is what insults my intelligence and apparently you agree with me. Here's the entire snippet: After being tied for second place in the American League with 39 strikeouts, third baseman Josh Fields is receiving the same disciplinary action Alexei Ramirez received earlier this month. Fields was out of the White Sox lineup Friday night because of manager Ozzie Guillen's frustration with the frequent strikeout rate of his offense. "My point is, I need better at-bats from everyone, and I have [Jayson] Nix," Guillen said. "Nix is swinging the bat pretty well and I need to get him some at-bats. [Fields] is not in the doghouse. This isn't punishment, but that's why [Nix] is playing." Fields believes he might have resolved his problems after an early hitting session with hitting coach Greg Walker. "Hopefully that will be it," Fields said. "They're giving me a day to regroup and think about what's going on." He's been given a couple days off recently. It hasn't helped. You took a leap to assume he, or anyone besides the person who wrote the article and chose to word it that way, was talking about his strikeouts or some permanent fix. How do you know he wasn't just talking about being held out of the lineup?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 16, 2009 -> 02:48 PM) if wants to run he will. this still doesn't mean anything. Well it's kind of hard to campaign from China. Being a diplomat is not really the best place to go for politics. It doesn't rule out anything he can do later though.

Like clockwork for Crede. What's the over/under on a trip to the DL?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 16, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) Keep him down in AAA. The team is definitely in an offensive rhythm and you don't want to f*** with that right now with a personnel move. You have to respect the streak. I get it. Good call, Ozzie. I didn't detect the sarcasm at first, lol

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2009 -> 04:04 AM) Wow didn't see this one coming. Was hoping a guy like Huntsman might become a leader of the Republicans... Yeah a lot of people were saying that, Huntsman seems to really have his s*** together. Actually this doesn't really hurt his resume. Bush 41 was ambassador to China in the 70s, ironically he complained about it at first since he was thinking about being president one day and being a diplomat isn't exactly fast-tracking it (heh, guess it didn't matter). But Huntsman's already been a governor.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Bull Durham Heh. A little too easy maybe.

5 cool points to whoever gets my reference btw.

He must have called the ump a cocksucker.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) Also, what about the first amendment? ???????????? Are we talking about religion? Because that's an even more slippery slope.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) No, it is a choice of two treatments. If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision? One treatment is valid, the other is BS. Like StrangeSox said though this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I guess I'd feel different if he was an adult.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) And your point isn't relevant either, unless I'm missing it. My point being that information collected via torture can lead to bulls*** information (e.g., Saberi's "confession") that can be dismissed as invalid (therefore making a trial using this information a pointless sham), and this information can be used by government officials to advance an agenda? That's 100% relevant and I'm trying to show what it looks like when the shoe is on the other foot. As far as al-Qaida operatives go, we can, and were, collecting information from them through other means (there are probably dozens of methods, I don't even know them all off the top of my head), but the Cheney crowd f***ed up the whole process.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Comparing Al Qaeda to Saberi is ridiculous - I'm sure she was there to kill thousands of Iranians and even has stated that cause to the entire world! But to you all, it's the same. Whatever. Totally not the point. You can't seem to get past the "terrorists killing Americans" thing and it's affecting your perspective in places it shouldn't be.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) You of all people should know that isn't even in the same paralell universe. Tell me, why? My same principle applies, unchallenged.

If Roxana Saberi had been waterboarded (tortured, whatever) by the Iranians to have her "admit" to being an American spy, would we have so many right-wing bloggers and windbags talking about how this stuff works?

Not so much sarcastic as unapologetically over-the-top.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 15, 2009 -> 03:25 AM) ends justify the means. I have a hard time believing all the evidence against them is hearsay or done under duress. And I have a hard time believing American prisons can't hold these folk. Nonetheless, to shut down guantanamo we were going to have to do some s*** we weren't prepared for, and in the end I'm not going to complain. I really don't think anything other than tribunals would work, frankly. Pretty much how I feel too. It's like trying to turn a s*** sandwich into something you'd want to eat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 10:54 PM) The ACLU is saying that the proposed tribunals will still allow evidence that would break the rules in other trials, hearsay evidence, for example. If that's the case, then the ACLU will win when they challenge the tribunals before the Supreme Court again. In that first link you posted it said Obama was going to put restrictions on hearsay evidence.

Then we need to try and get Congress to authorize a tribunal system. I really don't see why they wouldn't, and it's not something that would be filibustered. Without that, it's either hold them indefinitely and do nothing, or try them in the US court system which could potentially be a horrible idea.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) "CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!!!" :roll There you go kap, I made the post for you so you don't have to.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 14, 2009 -> 10:09 PM) How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley. So did I, the whole issue with Bush's Guantanamo was that it was some legal black hole where anything goes, and anybody can be held there indefinitely without being told why and without the ability to challenge their detention (e.g., if they were not a terrorist and wanted to prove it) as long as the government believed they were a terrorist. Oh and we would do some shady things to you there and arbitrarily decide whether it was torture or not. There was nothing wrong with the concept of military tribunals per se, a tribunal is as legit as a trial. It was the way the Bush administration was implementing it that made it impossible to work. Of course, the Huffpo crowd is trying to make it out to be that he is some kind of flip-flopper who is the same as Bush even though he changed things to try and legitimize the process. Some of the comments are hysterical.

Thou shalt never take Nixon seriously. Ever.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) And the other side isn't? I really don't care what the Democrats are arguing because they are missing the point (I've been pretty consistent on this for most of the time I've been posting about this in here, I think).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) Worth noting...the reason why they rejected his request is that those documents are part of another FOIA case already being argued. Whether there is political motivation behind the rejection/other case, I'll leave to others do determine...but it's still entirely possible we'll see the documents at some point. Also FWIW, at least one Senator (Feingold) said during the testimony yesterday that he's seen the documents and they don't make the case Cheney claims they do. The bolded is where I was going with this. Cheney's version of reality is just plain fantasy. He's pretty much just making s*** up and Photoshopping facts.

lol, Cheney pwned. He's trying to cherry-pick anyway.