lostfan

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) I think you deserve a closed fist to the face for this one outerwear? really? So when you are looking for your jacket you say "hey have you seen my outerwear??" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) The tigers listen to your request by making Gavin work for 5 pitches as they follow up his all over the place performance with swinging away. They must've watched Sox highlights from last year.

QUOTE (CryptviLL @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) I've heard it twice this game, and i been halfway listening to what hawk has been saying People listen when Hawk talks?

lol, I was going to make a snide comment mocking the people predicting a down year for Quentin after a couple of meh games to open the season, but several people have done that already and I don't have to.

I also refer to my jacket as outerwear and my gymshoes as athletic footwear.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) Whats to understand. Catcher calls the game, you pick up the target, execute your mechanics, and try to hit the spot. Its not like a pitcher has to think all that much. I would say, thinking too much and messing with your catcher who calls the game gets more pitchers in trouble. Young pitchers should be like robots, see sign, hit spot and repeat. Buehrle's been in the league for years and he still pitches like that.

Head-scratching outing from Gavin today.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) I remember Joe Morgan saying that Carlos Guillen will win a GG at first base. I spat my Pepsi. He made an error like 10 minutes later, too.

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) I am not a Wise basher...but why he is playing center in this cavernous park? Shouldn't BA be out there just for defensive purposes? I think Ozzie has demonstrated very clearly that things like that aren't that important to him.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) Yes. It was a good at bat for Fields. Just that it was the exact same post from 2 people down to punctuation/capitalization within the same minute, ironically after JD and Paulie both get #300 together.

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) good at bat for fields QUOTE (CryptviLL @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) good at bat for fields lol, for real?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Nice hit Brent, though I'm still perplexed why he doesn't choke up with all his K's. His bat looks as long as he is. That's what she said

Nice from Lillibridge.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) In my mind there is nothing worse than someone calling it soda-pop. There is some members of my family that do this and its disgusting. I just posted "I think we can all agree that anyone who calls it soda pop should be greeted with an open handed slap to the mouth"

I posted the following on my Facebook status earlier: "for the last time, it's not soda, it's pop. Goddammit, people." I've started a mini-s***storm.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) I would think that the only appeal would be to the US Supreme court. I can't possibly see where they would have grounds to take this to federal court... (I didn't read the article, so I don't know how they have the grounds to do that.) Oh there was no article I was responding to, just my thoughts.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:17 PM) Huh? They already do, don't they? So does Canada and the Caribbean nations. Everybody does except us. I guess I didn't articulate that very well. I mean that since we basically ignore that strategic foothold based on some Cold War-era principle, that we're unnecessarily losing out, because Russia and China do not give 2 flying s***s.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) The SCOTUS has shot down the Bush Administration's travishamockery of military tribunals, where evidence obtained under torture was allowed, where there was no appeal, where the government got to play both judge and prosecutor, where 95% of the evidence was withheld from the defense, etc. They have not shut down the military court system. The issue currently is that the military court system has no jurisdiction here unless it is given jurisdiction by Congress. Then that solves it for me, as far as what I want the government to do.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) I'm torn on this one. I think that they should relax the embargo, but I think it should be done when Castro dies. The reason is now he gets "rewarded" and get to say that "he defeated the US after 40 years"... and that's the problem with it. You've just rewarded his dictatorship. It's not like the "punishment" was really effective anyway. Didn't Castro pretty much get whatever he wanted anyway? BTW I'm pretty certain that if we don't start trading with Cuba soon, Russia and/or China will.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) Seriously, what I do think is that these guys do have a right to a trial. I do think that they have a right to be brought up on charges or let go. I do NOT think that they should be tried in a US courts and have rights that a US citizen would have. And they are different. To me the whole crux of the issue is if you are innocent, or at least want to argue that you're innocent, you should be allowed to. The severity of the charges against the person aren't relevant, that's pure emotion when people argue against that. Without this, the justice system is a banana republic mockery, and the government can prosecute anyone they want. I favored some sort of military tribunal system but I think the SCOTUS shot that down.

No surprises here. I was going to post this CNN article the other day but 3/4 of Americans support normalizing relations with Cuba: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/pol...iref=newssearch It just makes no sense to do it when it has not produced one tangible result in the four decades since we've had all these restrictions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) That would be awesome, but unfortunately I don't see it happening for quite sometime. Unfortunately, I agree. But I think if the GOP just got disbanded today, by the time 2010 rolled around, the actual conservatives and old-school Republicans will be able to shed the weight of the religious right. Kind of like declaring bankruptcy. In any case I'm rooting against the GOP in its current incarnation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) A number of issues. First and foremost, the Republicans have the ability to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, so if he's going to push it, he better be on firm ground. Second, the Minnesota State Supreme Court has yet to rule, which would sort of give him some nearly iron clad defense of pushing it. Third, the Dems are trying to break about a dozen Republican Filibusters, and right now they simply put economic bills as a higher priority than seating Franken. And Reid sort of blew his own horn early by trying to not seat Senator Burris without all of the appropriate signatures from the state level, because in Minnesota, one of the signatures required is that of the governor, Tim Pawlenty, who just happens to be one of the folks you can expect to be on the Republican 2012 nomination list, and thus who has plenty of motivation to deny that signature until it's forced upon him by Federal Marshalls or something. The Republicans have every reason to drag this out as long as they can to deny the Dems an extra Senator. You can argue whether or not they should be doing so, but tactically, the longer they drag this out, the better it is for them because it will take 2 Republican votes to break a filibuster instead of 1. I believe it was Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee who said that it could take "Years" to resolve. Yeah, I sort of glossed over that, and it looks like they're going to rule in favor of Franken, too. Which I guess would make Coleman's next logical choice to appeal to the feds if he wanted to keep dragging it out... now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Senate has the ability to tell the feds they have no jurisdiction (assuming the feds don't defer back to the MNSC, as they really should), correct? For the Republicans to try to filibuster something like that would directly conflict with everything they've ever said about states' rights.

I think it's also worth noting here that you really don't have much of a choice BUT to cheer for the president when you're in the military, it doesn't really matter who it is. If you don't like him that's fine, but you better damn well hide it in a situation like that.