Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:35 AM) How many people currently advocating for mass death on the Korean peninsula also enthusiastically supported invading Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man who was looking for yellow cake and aluminum tubes to definitely build nuclear bombs to attack the US or sell to fundamentalist Islamic groups? So your answer is to be held hostage by a madman forever? And put the mainland US at risk? Is that really what you're saying? I don't think you're taking this threat seriously. The day Kim feels his days are numbered, whether driven by us, or China, or another vested party, who is to say he doesn't launch some nukes at the US assuming he has the capability? This guy is not a rationale human being living in a rationale world. He kills on the regular to retain his grip on power and he just may want to go out in a blaze of glory assuming he knows that power will soon be lost. Under no circumstance should we allow him to further develop his nuclear capabilities.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:34 AM) My solution is to open diplomatic relations with another country. Work out a peace agreement. This idea that American has had an "anti-war policy" towards NK is totally wrong. I guess it's not as sexy as starting a war that will result in the death of millions of Koreans, but hey let's just do the normal conservative foreign policy dance. The one that has never worked and has always resulted in mass death and destruction around the world. I guess I'm just an appeaser. Dude, North Korea isn't just another country. It's run a pyscopathic dictator. This idea of negotiated peace is absurd. They want to become a serious nuclear power and will do so until they have the nuclear capabilities to hit mainland US. No amount of aid or sanctions will change that. I honestly can't believe people think this is a serious path.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:24 AM) I'm not ok with any country having a nuclear bomb. Especially not the U.S.A, because you know we are the only country to actually use one and have come close to using more. I don't have any more problem with NK having a nuclear bomb than any other country. Wow, talk about a ridiculous take...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:02 AM) This survey doesn't even begin to reflect the recent intelligence over the last 24 hours that provoked the Trump fire/fury/eternal damnation meltdown...once again, this survey came BEFORE that point. Now we supposedly are facing an imminent direct threat, not a theoretical months or years into the future one. Sixty percent of surveyed Americans said they felt the threat can be contained. Republicans were more inclined than Democrats to say North Korea's nuclear program is "a threat to the US that requires military action now,"with 48% of surveyed Republicans and 22% of surveyed Democrats saying that reflects their views. The UN Security Council unanimously passed sanctions on North Korea Saturday following missile tests from North Korea last month. Experts believe if the most recent test had been fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it could have threatened cities like Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago. Trump told a reporter last month, "We will handle North Korea. We are going to be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything." The CBS News poll was conducted from August 3 to 6, surveying 1,111 people with a margin of error of 4%. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/nor...+Search+Results Caulfield, did you really post data that goes exactly against your previous point?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 07:47 AM) Yea, but the Sox are on fire HoT fIrE!

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 07:14 AM) Giants have Bumgarner going tonight who historically owns the Cubs. Here's hoping.. Would kill two birds with one stone!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 06:55 AM) It's pretty f***ed up if you're not against military action as anything but an absolute last resort imo Who said I wasn't? I'm pretty sure all my arguments on North Korea have been we're approaching the point of last resort. I'm just arguing against Caulfield's "most erroneous post in Sox history" comment, which indirectly implied (by his estimates) 70 to 80% of the country would love to go to war.

Phillies & Giants both won, so we're still a game behind PHI for the #1 pick but 1/2 game ahead of SFG for the #2 pick.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 12:19 AM) "Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base." What is a large portion? It's definitely over 50%, so is it 60%? 2/3rd's? 75%? Pretty much nobody (outside of us bleeding hearts) cares about Syria or the Middle East unless it impacts them directly, or they see an an iconic photograph of an adorable but clearly dead child washed up on the beach or another cute and shellshocked kid in an ambulance covered in blood and muck (in which case they make a donation or share the story at FB only for it to be forgotten days later.) Syria and the civil war there and refugee crisis just don't register. They're certainly not a DIRECT threat to the American people. If you tee up a survey question, "If there is strong/compelling evidence from the US intelligence community that North Korea will be able to strike at the heart of every American city within the next 12 months with thermonuclear weapons, would you be for or against taking decisive military action/s (assuming the last negotiations fail)?" You're going to get all the Trump voters and many independents taking the position that it's better to take him or the leadership out than waiting for something bad to happen. There's no way it's less than "a large portion of the voter base." If you include the non-voter base, those most uninformed on current affairs, it will arguably be even higher. Lol...large portion a majority. That wasn't my point, but I'm glad you continue come up with your own statistics to argue against the "most erroneous post in Sox history". If you're a democratic leader, there is a sizable portion of your voter base who would be against military action when dealing with foreign affairs, short of a last resort. That's not a dig against anyone, but a reality certain politicians may face when deciding a course of action if they're interested in reelection.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 09:27 PM) That statement must be the most erroneous in Sox history, as we shall see in the coming weeks. Other than a large number of churches and charitable orgs, the numbers must be 75-80% in favor of direct military action (as long as their own kids don't have to fight), which many degrees higher than the number of Americans that can actually identify the key differences between North and South Korea in the first place. Caulfield, what the f*** are you talking about? Most erroneous quote in "Sox" history? I assume you mean Soxtalk, but regardless I'm not surprised that you ignored the numerous ridiculous statements & fake statistics you provide here (like in the post above) on a regular basis. Want to back up this 75-80% claim? One simple google search provided multiple data points suggesting 50% to 60% of US citizens oppose getting involved in Syria & other foreign affairs. And while different, there is a subset of the population that is generally anti war or unnecessarily putting our soldiers at risk. I'm still not how my statement is erroneous other than perhaps my accusation aimed at Balta. But if I'm wrong and the vast majority of this country is eager for some military action like you suggest, please provide some facts that prove that notion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 09:20 PM) 3. Negotiate. In good faith this time. Make a deal where they give up some things, perhaps a portion of their missile technology, in exchange for aid. Then actually keep up that deal. Yup, let's negotiate with the madman and assume he'll keep up his end of the bargain! Great idea Balta! Amazing how you can rip our "top men" and yet come up with this gem.

I love me some Nicky Delmonico!

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 08:36 PM) That is one of the most insane catches I have ever seen. QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 08:36 PM) One of the best catches you'll ever see Holy f*** wow.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:34 PM) You're right guys, that's brilliant. We should tell the experts to think of something. Why haven't we done that the last 20 years? That's my bad, I'll take the blame for that one. I'll go tell them right now and I'm sure this will only take a few minutes for them to iron out the details of something. I'm actually a little in awe of this response. It's basically "do the status quo but louder and make me feel better about it!!!" You really think you know everything huh. Maybe because people are afraid to make tough decisions. Why did my brother in law let his dog suffer until he simply rolled over and died rather than put him out of his misery weeks before? Or maybe they didn't feel it was a pressing enough issue at the time and figured they'd let it be someone else's problem years down the road. See global warming. Or maybe there are political consequences if there are casualties or something doesn't go to plan. Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base. Point is there are plenty of reasons for inaction, doesn't mean any of them are right and that we should continue to kick the can down the road until a US city is nuked.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:18 PM) North Korea has zero interest in a nuclear first strike against the United States. They want that capability so that both China and the ya play nice with them, and they're dead set on getting it. They're very different from Iran in that regard. If that goal is truly non negotiable for them, and that appears to be the case, the only possible solution is large scale military action likely resulting in mass death, a huge humanitarian and refugee crisis, and long term occupation. If the US unilaterally struck first with nuclear weapons, we're also probably looking at international sanctions and the world economy collapsing rapidly as a result. Conceivably military strikes probably not that drastic, but if it's unilateral it will be orders of magnitude worse than Iraq has been. How do you know this?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:10 PM) Nope. Negotiations where they keep their weapons but behave slightly better, or just do what we're doing right now. Anything else is fantasy. I have to admit, Jenks's line about how we could magically assassinate their leader without any blowback or just hope that suddenly their population will decide to revolt against a several million person strong army (most of them have served in it btw) is still a useful comment. It shows how truly futile all these are. They're Hollywood imagination at its weakest. And that's still better than the "do something but I don't know what!" statements. So yeah, 50 pushups. No offense Balta, but you don't know s***. You may spend day after day reading countless internet articles to "educate" yourself on this issue, but the reality is you don't have the facts/intel that our government & military possesses and don't have a clue at the array of options that potentially exist. You are simply a rock scientist (or whatever your everyday profession is) who has too much time on his hands and way too big of an ego. I don't need to know what the cure to cancer is to know it's a problem. And guess what, I don't need to know how to solve the North Korea issue to say it's huge f***ing problem that's reaching a boiling point due to a lack of action. That's for the experts who are paid to actually address these very real issues, not for online warriors like yourself to figure out.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:38 PM) NK is a much bigger threat to our ally, South Korea than they are to us. Much, much bigger threat. Would you advocate unilaterally starting war with North Korea today, even if South Korea doesn't want that war? I already acknowledged the threat to South Korea. But that doesn't mean we can sit idly while a madman gets the nuclear capabilities to attack the mainland US. Tough problems oftentimes require tough solutions. Being passive for years and years and years is exactly what's gotten us into this mess in the first place. Again, I don't have the answer (cue Balta's lame 50 push-up comment), but there is a solution out there that is better than inaction and that doesn't necessarily mean invading and/or nuking North Korea. But I can promise you this, sanctions are simply putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. More drastic measures must be taken if we actually want to eliminate a serious threat to the US.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:18 PM) That was what the administration, the media, and most of the Congress was insisting. We had to stop Saddam before we woke up to nuclear clouds. But when you look past all the political bulls***, do you really think they were as big of a threat to the US as North Korea is today or will be soon?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:29 PM) Then you're ready to drop nuclear weapons and vaporize the North, and hope they don't successfully vaporize the South or Japan. Right? Because that's the least loss of life possible by action - kill everyone in the north and only radiation pollution deaths in the South/Japan. So it's either this or do nothing? Those are the only two possibilities? Why don't we just give them nukes, because according to you everyone is f***ed either way...

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:13 PM) It's kind of embarrassing to me that so many people would be so casual with the lives of, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of our allies. The options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war. And war with North Korea risked bringing China, and maybe even Russia, into the conflict (not to mention the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of South Koreans). To reiterate, it's not fine that Kim Jong-Un has nuclear capabilities. But there isn't now, and has never been, a good solution to this problem that doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths. There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn't mean you ignore a problem until it becomes an even greater problem. I get what's at stake in South Korea and the broader region, but this issue is quickly spiraling out of control. We're approaching a breaking point and we can't be afraid to take action anymore because of the likelihood of casualties. At this point, we need to figure out what course of action will likely lead to the least amount of loss and act accordingly. I wish we had a different leader in place to help make that decision, but unfortunately this is the hand we're stuck with. The time for action is now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:13 PM) Is this a 2002 post about Iraq Lol...could Iraq nuke the US back in 2002?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:06 PM) The next person who says how terrible it is to "do nothing" and then does not give something we should do that actually will have any chance of working owes me 50 pushups. Didn't know it was my duty to come up with the solution. Isn't that the government & military's job? What I can tell you is that allowing North Korea to expand their nuclear capabilities and become a direct threat to the US is a serious f***ing problem. Therefore, taking no action is clearly not the answer.

I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:36 AM) If they don't force themselves into the lineup somewhere over the course of 140+ games and numerous injuries to teammates, they're not good enough to be at least average big leaguers. You're missing my point. Winston-Salem is going to be loaded with outfielders next year. Rutherford, Adolfo, Fisher, Call, & Gonzlaez are all candidates to land there. Robert will be up at some point. Booker & Schnurbusch probably deserve playing time there as well. Even with injuries, Dedelow is going to struggle to push his way into an everyday role at Winston-Salem.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:48 AM) I wonder how long Dedelow has to destroy rookie ball before the Sox move him up.. The K rate with that level of power is super impressive, even if it's somewhat a product of the Pioneer Leauge. Really sucks we have such a glut of OFs in the lower minors, because he'd be a guy that I'd like to push to Winston-Salem next year. I hate the idea of a 23 year old starting off in low A. These type of guys should pushed to see if you potentially have a real prospect. Worried he'll suffer the same fate as Booker and eventually rot on the bench behind the big name guys.