Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) The first photo of Bush and Abramoff in the same room has been published. This photo does not come from any of the holiday parties which the White House was claiming were the only times Bush ever came into contact with Abramoff. Hence, it comes from a meeting they claimed never happened. Balta, you have to admit that photo is almost laughable. Those comments on Think Progress only prove how much some people want ANY connection between the two to surface. I understand the point is not distinguishing whether or not they made contact (since the WH alledges encounters were only conducted during holiday events), but the damn drapes in the background are in better focus. There's still no photographic evidence both met. If TIME magazine is going to circulate rumors and print photos, atleast print those which leave little doubt. Such as--I don't know--Bush and Abramoff shaking hands or coming within 10 feet of each other.

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) The press doesn't get the story for 24 hours and 'Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good' was the best comment Cheney could give? I expect more. I agree. Not exactly a great opportunity to make light of a shooting. I'm sure many will wonder why it took 24 hours for the story to be released in a technological age such as today. Makes you wonder whether the delay was taken incase the man were to have died.....

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 04:59 PM) Isn't it funny how the GOP fans immediately start talking about cheap shots. LOL. I wonder how long it will take until they blame this on Bill Clinton, announce it would have happened more often if Bush had not been President, laugh at giving the guy a Purple Heart like Kerry, and announce Chaney as a hero for saving the guy's life Difference is your sarcastic scenario is unlikely. You think mine is? Don't be naive.

Time to stir the pot-- How long until a Democrat uses this accident against the Bush administration? Doesn't matter whether or not Cheney was the lone person involved; everyone associated with him will be included. I'm anticipating a comment from someone (probably Hillary) which says, "This administration has been incompetent since the moment they've entered the office. Just look at the shooting accident which occured over the weekend, for example....." And to be clear, I'm not using this shooting accident as an example of how the Democratic party embraces cheap shots at inopportune times. I'm honestly curious to see how long it takes until someone within Congress brings it up.

I'm surprised it took this long to reach Soxtalk. I woke up about 45 minutes ago, turned on CNN, and noticed the sprawling "Breaking News" title indicating Cheney accidentally shot someone. Immediately, I envisioned a fight breaking out between the conservative and liberal factions of Soxtalk. Guess it's too early for that. Cheney should just hope to God this man survives. He's in his late 70's and had a plate full of shotgun pellets lodged in him.

Just think, next year Ohio State is going to be even better. Not going to be easy to defeat a club with perhaps two of the nations best players in Oden/Conley complimenting a squad where majority are returning next year.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 01:31 AM) Not since I saw "it" when I was like 8 or 9 had I been that scared, and yes, I realize that was a totally lame movie, but it scared the hell out of me and my friends (first horror I ever saw). Funny you mention IT. It's one of the few horror movies which legitimately scared me growing up. I've always felt the films which seemingly attach horrifying circumstances with people I could connect to are most freighening. Don't know what it is about the Exorcist--perhaps the location in Georgetown, or how the possession didn't really kill anyone (unless you count the Priest.), but it never had the effect on me other films did. Three movies, reflecting on my childhood, absolutely terried me: Candyman, IT, Pet Sematary.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 11, 2006 -> 09:42 PM) What an awesome, strange movie that leaves so many things up for interpretations. Not really sure why some say it was so scary though... It's similar to how people typically regard The Exorcist as freightening. Suppose elements within both movies appeal to general horror movie audiences. Honestly, the 'scariest' part for me in the Shining was the beginning theme music. The combination of strange synthesizers/sound effects and the setting work well together.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 11, 2006 -> 08:08 PM) Caught Land of the Dead yesterday and it was bad Devils Rejects was also horrid You must have some high expectations. Neither are genre redefining, but compared to the utter crap labeled as horror these days, I had no complaints. Both surpass High Tension--which was heralded as TEH AWESOME. One problem with Land: I didn't really appreciate the evolution-of-Zombie's angle (which Day also featured), or Romero's political agenda, but it proves a worthy addition to his series.

Section 1. No Time - Guess Who vs. White Room - Cream While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Beatles vs. Free Bird - Lynyrd Skynard vs. Strawberry Field Forever - The Beatles Ticket to Ride - The Beatles vs. Like A Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan The Boys Are Back In Town - Thin Lizzy vs. Sympathy for the Devil - The Rolling Stones A Day in the Life - The Beatles vs. All Along the Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix Section 2. Surrender - Cheap Trick vs. When the Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin Dream On - Aerosmith vs. Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen Street Fighting Man - The Rolling Stones vs. Thunderstruck - AC/DC Stay With Me - The Faces vs. Pinball Wizard - The Who Crazy Train - Ozzy Osborne vs. Baba O'Reilly - The Who

What we should have done is attach a link to a short sound clip of each song from cdnow.com. Perhaps it can be done in the next sevearl rounds. I have a feeling several of the voters (SF1..) don't know most of the selections. THIS COMPETITION NEEDS TO BE LEGITIMATE, DAMMIT!!!!!

QUOTE(Tannerfan @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 07:38 PM) Because I have no knowledge about how to pitch, which is harder to learn, a wicked curve like you describe, or a change like Buehrle's? I believe it really depends on your delivery. But then again, I never envisioned someone with an overhand delivery (such as McCarthy) throwing a changeup because I thought it would be too difficult to grip. I mean, look at Marte--could you expect someone with a three-quarters delivery to throw a good changeup? From my own opinion, I'd have to say a changeup because you're suffocating the ball, opposed to placing two fingers in a spot and merely throwing. If you don't throw it correctly, it's a spicey meat-a-ball with limited movement. Atleast a hanging curve does something resembling a drop.

I'm glad Jordon voiced his opinion and said what many here have said since Kobe's game. You just don't score 81 without a complete lack of determination from the other team. I've seen the Kobe game since the initial night, and honestly believe if Toronto played legitimate defense he wouldn't have elipsed mid 60's. Which is still a hell of a feat in it's own right. Even if Kobe had to shot freethrows every possession and obtain 80 points that way, if you have any pride, you don't associate yourself as the team which allowed this to happen without a fight.

Jenks curveball is practically a changeup anyways. With it's nearly 13 mph differential between the fastball there's really no need to attempt teaching a new pitch. Sure, it's more imposing not to anticipate simply a fastball and curveball, but he should first perfect the curveball (which occasionally Jenks had problems throwing) before proceding any further. If he were to develop a changeup, I would hope it's noticeably slower than his breaking ball. Like Gagne's--which occasionally fell below 70mph.

You know, reflecting on the topic, I probably haven't written ANY word--aside my signature--in cursive since junior high. This is dating back atleast seven years. Never throughout high school or college have I been recquired to write an assignment in cursive. I truly believe it's a dying form of writing. It's intention, before computers, was as a proper (and supposedly neat) method to compose letters, assignments, etc. Cursive always put extra strain on my ring finger, anyways. This is because I hold a pencil oddly compared to most people. Most hold a pencil with their pointer/thumb and rest on the middle finger whereas I use the middle/pointer and rest the pencil on my ring finger. There's a small, raised bump on my ring finger which hurt whenever I'd write long assignments in cursive. To this day I still have it, but it doesn't bother me as much as it did in grade school.

I heard Rowand accepted an opportunity to speak about the White Sox, but instead of directing praise towards the team , will bring up his hatred for the Iraq War. Afterwards, we'll debate whether or not it's appropriate, since the war did happen to occur during the 2005 season--thus making it an important backdrop to our championship run. Just kidding. Trying to incite trouble. Although I believe Cindy Sheehan is a HUGE White Sox fan, and deserves an invitation to the event.

For a second I thought the political forums were removed. I WOULD HAVE RAISED HELL! /shakes fist. It sounds odd. I'm so used to Sex, Lies, Politics.

Anybody else love when newschannels show segments about overweight people and feature clips of jiggling bodies walking down the street? These cameramen have to fear for their lives out there. How do you explain to someone, if you were caught, you're showing their figures from the neck down (for a segment on obesity) and there's nothing they can do about it? Must be tough.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) 30 f***ing seconds into the interview and he's already dropped an F-Bomb. Quick interview. 9:30 and it's already over. Anything discussed which the papers didn't mention?

I never really cared for the seat colors prior to this thread, but after looking at these pictures, I must admit they fit in well. So, what will the media term the new green seats when they're not occupied on a rainy, weekday game in early May against the Royals? I'm thinking, THE GREEN MILE.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 07:47 PM) No, I don't think it was an unintended consequence that it was mentioned. But it raises a great point. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the obstacles that the Kings had to face in their struggle for rights. And there's nothing wrong with mentioning a specific obstacle that might resonate with people today because of current events. If you think its bashing, that means you're thinking that the person who's being compared is doing something wrong. I'm sure you meant to quote me during your post. Yes, Bush has done something wrong. I believe issuing wiretraps without obtaining a simple warrant is unjustifiable. You won't hear me debate that. More than the infringement of privacy opponents have mentioned, I oppose the wiretaps because they violated the law. You can rationalize those connecting points of history as grounds to illustrate the struggles Loretta and family endured, but I look beyond that. EVEN IF the intentions were merely to draw parallels, the fact a democrat is saying it leads me to question their motives. They're honoring Loretta in one hand and insulting Bush in another. I just believe it's ridiculous the areas politics can drag itself to. For the reason we're discussing this issue is a disservice to Loretta.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 06:53 PM) So Jimmy Carter mentioning that the Kings were illegally wiretapped in the 1960s is now considered Bush bashing? I would think it more JFK bashing. You may, others won't. You can't expect people to hear the story of King's phone being illegally wiretapped without drawing the comparison to Bush. Do you suppose it never crossed Carter's mind? That his intentions were to insult a dead president?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) Politicians? Lowery is 85 or so. He's not running for office anytime soon, which means any time at all. Carter used to be a politician, but what the hell would he have to "posture" for now? She took a strong stand against the Iraq war. I don't think it should be ignored just because she wasn't concerned with that alone. Does it matter whether either are running for office or currently retired? Both embraced the opportunity to stick it to Bush. Don't ignore it entirely. Just not at her funeral service. Was there any other causes Loretta embraced--or actions partaken by the government which she denounced since the 1970's? I wonder how King felt about Vietnam. Similar circumstances, right? I haven't read anything about her opposition to that war, yet.

This is simply political posturing at the worst opportunity. These politicians figure everyone is watching, so why not take the opportunity to criticize Bush? Unless she dedicated her life to opposing Iraq--as she once did the Civil Rights movement--then it doesn't warrant mentioning. Not even one word. Wait until you're on a cable news channel to begin such debate.

It's time to unleash German Rabbits upon the world. All you need is to find a female rabbit of relatively equal size, then throw them out in the wild. Imagine an order of enormous rabbits destroying crops and reproducing at an astounding rate. I wonder how long these rabbits could survive in the wild. Or how fast they can manuever. Would a fox even bother to hunt such an imposing animal?