EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) He was hurt being thrown to the ground by his coach to keep him away from an umpire. Let me repeat that, in case you didn't get it the first time: He was hurt being thrown to the ground by his coach to keep him away from an umpire. And Delmon Young threw a bat at an ump, but most of the posters didn't seem to let that stop them from voicing their desire for the Sox to have been on the receiving end of that trade.

You would think that right about now the people in Iowa would be sick of doing polls.

http://tinyurl.com/2w4w6p Just imagine all the hospitals they could open and poor they could feed with the licensing of these new products! Well, assuming they actually cared about doing that sort of thing. (I like the 8-ball the best!)

Markakis would look good in a Sox uniform.

QUOTE(Rooftop Shots @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 11:31 PM) I know that I posted this in the past quite a few times, but I have literally every topps Sox card ranging from 1959 to present day, and thats including "leader" cards, rookies, updates, tradeds, etc. I am missing "ONE" card that is nearly impossible to get in order to complete my collection. A 1963 Al Weis rookie #537. Why is that such a big deal? Pete Rose rookie is on there wih him. Check e-bay quite often for a beat up one, but not much success. I'm to the point, where I don't care if the corners are rounded, bent in half or even written on. Just want to get a hold of one someday just to finally complete it. Even pretty bad ones are in the $100.00 and up range. GmMnit...about $10,000,000 Anyone have any suggestions.....I'm open. Wow, that's pretty good. I only go from 1966 to 2006 as complete (for Sox team sets). Go from 1974 to 2006 for topps complete sets.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) I have the entire 1959 Topps White Sox team; it took me nearly 15 years to finish it. I haven't done anything with my cards since I mover a few years back, but I still need 3 or 4 more to finish that team set.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) seriously? I couldn't pick this uggo out of a sea of ugly english ladies in london. Maybe you couldn't. but if getting to your 72 virgins depended upon (in your mind) finding her and killing her, I bet you could find her pretty fast.

Is there a conspiracy over the naming of tropical storms? Naming too many could lead to increased 'evidence' of the effects of global warming. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html Story in a nutshell, group claims they are naming way too many storm, hurricane center says they are using same criteria, just with new technology, they can catch more. So the data shows an 'increase', but is it really an increase, or just that they are catching more with new technology? I guess it just depends on which 'side' you are on.

Here's a Youtube question that should get asked at the next Democratic debate. Let's get a mother to do this and have them hold up a picture of an unborn baby and say, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

QUOTE(striker62704 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:20 PM) But most everyone else in the bullpen is cheap. Jenks makes under 1mil. Thornton around 2mil. MacDougal around 3. Teams now spend $10-$15mil/year on one reliever. We would still only be around $15mil for our entire bullpen. After last year, you can say its worth the money. $10-15 million per year for one CLOSER, but not for your average bullpen arm.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) Meanwhile, all the parents of these kids are all quoted saying they aren't upset about it. Again, Nuke, I know its real easy for you to label an entire religion of a billion people as evil, but its just not reality. OK, maybe only a half billion are evil then. (half green, if it were available!)

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 09:07 AM) Alpha, can you provide a link to a more recent story indicating that there was to actually be a targeted picket of the debate, rather than merely a continuation of the WGA strike and the CBS news writers strike already in force? The original story was presented as: If that still more or less sums things up, then I’m not sure where your incredulity regarding the DNC and the candidates’ decisions to honor the strike comes from. The debate was going to air on and bring viewership to CBS, whom both the SGA and the CBS news writers have identified as an adversary in the current fight for fair compensation. If the DNC and the candidates support the position of the writers, why would they consent to a televised debate that would benefit the network? I would think that the debate would benbefit the voting public, and that should trump whatever other concerns they would have.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 07:59 AM) This would be pretty much the last guy I would ever expect to hear the bolded words from... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837824-100.stm Did hell just get a little colder?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 06:09 AM) They are picketing the debate because it is the biggest entertainment event happening in town. High profile, brings even more attention to their strike. I guess they could picket some video store grand opening, but I doubt it would offer much bang for the buck. Unions have supported Dem candidates at a higher rate than GOP candidates. And the Dems are generally pro working class. So it would seem natural to me that they would honor the picket line. And everyone, Dem and GOP, employs speech writers, well maybe all except Thompson, and you're right, that would explain a lot. LA is an entertainment union town, makes perfect sense to me that the debate would be canceled. So next time the autoworkers go on strike, they should picket the Oscars, since they are the biggest event in town? That makes no sense. I can see them picketing the movie and tv studios, but a debate? That just shows that the candidates priorities are to the unions instead of the general public. Although I guess it IS a good thing that they cacel it. With each debate comes even more promises of how much money they will spend.

OK, NOW I read that the Dem debate in LA is being cancelled because the writers were going to picket it. OK, First, why are writers picketing a debate? They don't write the questions (the news media does that!), and if they write the answers, well then that tells us everythign we need to know about the Dems. If the writers decide to picket a Hillary townhall of an Obama fundraiser, would the candidates not show up and cross the lines out of 'respect'? If the candidates can't even stand up to a union now, how are they going to stand up to special interests if they are elected? Not one of them appears to have the testicular fortitude to point out the irrelevance of a presidential debate to the writers strike, nor the will to demonstrate their commitment to open political discourse by crossing the line and exposing it for a fraud. The Republicans couldn't have written a better PR script, even if they could hire a writer right now. Are DVD residuals now a higher political interest than the Democratic Presidential Primary elections?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) Again, I think you're missing my real question here... What "sneak" occurred with this gay general that wasn't a "sneak" with the other questions? The answer is NONE. CNN put a guy on who would ask a question that would be tough to answer. That isn't sneaky - its good debate fodder. And using your parallels, who is exagerrating points about global warming to the point of absurdity? Surely someone is, but you seem to believe that its being done as a policy point by the Dems, which is 100% false. Are the Dems the same things as the idiots who wrote "The Day After Tomorrow" to you? If they are, then why don't I just go assuming that the GOP is best represented by Ann Coulter? This, to me, is the definition of manufactured outrage. I am not the one that said it was a sneak attack, just that the stupidity of those involved lowers their credibility lower than Uribe's batting average. As for the other points, who is exagerating global warming threats? How about the Goracle? And since most of the Dem candidates seemed to hearily endorse his little propaganda piece, and incorporate some of his ideas into their own GW platform, I guess you can say it is a pretty large crown. Oh, and didn't really say it was dems, I said"It is like a great many on the liberal side of things...". Note that I didn't say 'all', or 'Dems'. There is just this bunch of people in politics on the left side of things that seems to have no faith at all in the strength and/or sincerity of their earguments that they have to make thnigs up or exagerate to try and get their point across. In the end, all they do is undermine the efforts of others by maknig them seem like kooks not worthy of attention.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were. So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid? The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was? And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change. It all goes towards credibility. If the questions are good, why sneak in people associated with the Democratic party or candidates in any way? If global warming is such a threat, why exagerate the facts to the point of absurdidty? If the war effort is really that bad, why make up stories of atrocities that never happened? It is like a great many on the liberal side of things have no faith in their facts or arguments and have to try and tweak them to the point that they are crying wolf, and noone will listen.

What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 12:07 AM) Leno and Letterman, Conan and Kimmel are all also writers. They are members of the Writer's Guild. And as such, they have a duty to strike. Can they be fired for it? Maybe, but in some respects its worth the risk. Do you honestly think ABC wouldn't go after a s***-canned Leno because he wouldn't scab a writer's strike? Why do they support it? Because the issues they are striking over (residuals from DVD and internet) also affect them too. And if you think this is bad, if the writers don't win, wait til the SAG goes on strike next year when their contract expires. (And it'll happen over the same issues.) I understand the reality of why they don't fire someone like Leno, etc., but they don't even dock him pay for the time he isn't working. But for a more likely scenereo, how about my hotel scenereo above? You hear about people from other unions refusing to cross picket lines. Yet they don't get in trouble, docked pay, fired, or anything. I was just wondering if there was any legal reason why. If a trucking company were to fire 5 or 6 drivers who refused to deliver thier loads, could they get away with it? As for their pay issue, with residuals, etc., what they really need to do is clean up the accounting procedures. Movie and TV execs can make any project look like it lost money, especially if they have to pay anyone a percent of the net instead of gross. As for the merits of some of their issues, I understand to a point, but I also have a problem with some of it. They got paid to write a script/comedy routine/etc. Why do they need to get paid again each time it gets aired somewhere? I know music is that way too, but part of me just doesn't get it. For the writers, they were paid for their services, it should end there. Same for actors. You got your $20 million to act, now the finished product should belong to the studio to do with as they please. Oh well, glad I don't watch too much TV.

OK, here it is. Writers are striking! Picketing, making lame protest signs, etc. Fine. Why are talk show hosts refusing to go on because of their strike? Leno, Letterman, etc all have contracts to host their shows. How can they not work ('honoring the strike'), and still have a job? Or at least not be docked pay for non-performance? Is there some arcane law regarding unions that most people don't know about? I remember when the one hotel in Chicago that was being striked against for a loooong time, and some teamsters decided that they weren't going to deliver to the hotel to honor the strik. How can they do that and not get in trouble?

Reminds me of Starship Troopers. The book, at least.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) Probably not. Oh please. kenny sneezes and half the people on here b**** that he didn't wipe his nose fast enough. When Delmon had his 'issues' with the umps and stuff, he was lambasted on here by almost all for being a tool. Now people would be worshiping the god of Delmon if he were to be a Sox? You can think so, but I stand by my opinion of what would go down were that to have occured. Kenny would be verbally assaulted by at least 20% of the posters here over the deal, maybe more depending on who was traded.

You all realize that if Kenny did something like this he would be lambasted for bringing such a tool into our clubhouse, trading away all out prospects, etc.

Just an interesting tidbit, the guy who asked Romney the question about hiring Muslims may have had a motive for asking that question. Seems he used to be a bundler for Clinton. Was he trying to help torpedo a potention Hilary challenger? http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.or...t_doc_wp0429.mv

Until they do something good in the majors, they are just prospects. Get me Miggy!