Balta1701

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) From what I understand, if things don't work out with Boston, he goes back to Japan for a year and then becomes a free agent. If the MLB Commissioner determines that Boston was not negotiating in good faith, the Commish has a right to revoke Boston's bid and let it fall to the next bidder. But I'm not sure what the rules are regarding the 2nd bidder and if they have to honor their original bid now that the process is no longer blind.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) Weaver will be an interesting case. I think he is better waiting until the SP dust settles. Say the Cubs lose out on Schmidt and Zito, and even the next tier like Lily, etc... they will have a ton of money that they are willing to spend. I wouldn't be shocked to see them give him a ridiculous 1-year with an option for a 2nd deal. I for one think that if Weaver's smart, he stays right where he is for 1 year no matter the price the Cards offer...simply because if Dave Duncan can work Weaver to a full, quality season, suddenly he'll be in a position with a multi-year, much bigger money deal than he would be if he locked himself in somewhere with a 2 year deal right now.

QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) The Cardinals signed Weaver? No, they didn't, I'm sort of half-assuming they'll figure something out, if nothign else for a 1 year deal, to see if Weaver can put together a better season.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Ask a man how his son is doing, get a reply you don't like, respond with an arrogant, snide remark, then duck.Fixed that for you.

Ok, so let me rephrase this slightly then...I don't think that the things you are suggesting are up to the task of fixing Iraq, and I'd like to hear better why you think they are. Your key suggestion is that by reaching out to international partners, we will be better able to control the situation in Iraq. I do not see this. The Saudis just today decided to commit their money, oil, and possibly their military to prevent Iran from gaining further influence and having shia muslims in Iraq continue to massacre sunnis, which to my eyes just draws them further into the conflict lines. Right now, we're having trouble getting Nato countries to commit forces to Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. Germany won't pony up any more, the Canadians are pissed that they're having to carry so much of the load, and so on. Even if we reach out to these countries more, I don't see how any of our allies can be expected to help out in Iraq more. They are becoming uniformly of the opinion that if the U.S. can't fix it, then their small contributions won't make such a big difference as to justify the loss of their lives in the U.S.'s war. Even Britain has reached a point where theyr'e planning significant troop withdrawals in 2007. So to my eyes, outside of the Middle East, I see nothing but apathy. At this point, they see no possible benefit to themselves of contributing more to the Iraq conflict, and unless we can offer them an obvious benefit, I can't see them helping out any more. So, internationally, at least to my eyes, that leaves us with allies who won't help us in the Middle East, and in the Middle East, dividing lines being drawn up along the same lines as in Iraq - Sunnis on one side, Shia on the other. And the key players, specifically Iran, have shown no willingness to do anything other than let the U.S. hang itself and destroy its military in Iraq. Your entire solution seems to be based around the premise that if we approach other nations with a more agreeable posture, they'll rapidly change their positions. I see no evidence that this will happen. Nations etiher see no benefit to themselves in aiding us, or actively want us to hurt our position by staying in Iraq. So my questions in reply would be; what if your proposal fails? What if Iran stands to their demand that they will do nothing to aid the Iraqi government until we withdraw? What if additional forces or money from allies are not forthcoming? What if the nations of the Middle East are more concerned with controlling their own populations than they are with helping out the U.S., or what if those same nations realize that it is to their benefit to have the U.S. weakened and stuck in Iraq?

Wesley Clark sure sounds like a man who's going to be in. Mitt Romney has picked a building for his campaign headquarters.

Al Gore will reprise his voice-over role as Al Gore's head in an upcoming Futurama movie.

So, under circumstances that anyone with a working brain would say were a poor representation of actual voting, the State of Florida tried testing those machines yesterday. They tested them by setting them up in a line and having paid employees vote repeatedly on the machines. Guess what they wound up with? With people who weren't voters, who were familiar with the machines, and who practiced on other machines (obviously a situation where the voting machines should be helped)...they still wound up with a bunch of miscounts and undervotes.

Rex, in your response on the Iraq debacle, you advocate trying to open up talks between the U.S. and the forces currently fighting in Iraq. First and foremost, I must ask, do you really think this will work? For example, the one person who, at least a year or two ago might have been able to control this conflict, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, refuses to meet and has never met with any American. Furthermore, in response to Mr. Bush simply meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister this morning, The Sadr block, the largest block of support for the Prime Minister, has begun a boycott of the government that may well bring the current government down. How exactly do you expect the U.S. to be able to talk to people who will not talk to us? Furthermore, how do you expect those sides to react if the U.S. tries to begin negotiating with leading sunni insurgents? For example, the Maliki government just last week issued an arrest warrant for a member of the Association of Muslim scholars, one of the leading Sunni groups. And beyond that, there is the big question which I don't see answered there: what if it doesn't work? What do we do if we try to talk to those groups and they refuse to deal with us, or they demand things like the total withdrawal of U.S. forces (Which Sadr himself has demanded for years). Do we stay there and continue to let the conflict grow, do we draw a line for a pullout?

The Hill Alt-Version, Washington Post.

So, I believe since I didn't have time to join the election, I'm going to use these "Ask a candidate" threads to respond to people's suggestions in the debate threads. PA, I have several issues with your suggestions on Iraq. Specifically, I don't see how any of the positive options you offer really would lead anywhere. First and foremost, you make the assumption that other nations are out there who would be willing to help us out in Iraq, and this is implicit in your request for a conference. I must ask, who exactly out there will help us, and more importantly, why have they not done so already? The Iranians? They perhaps have the most to gain from the U.S. being totally tied down in Iraq, because it allows their nuclear program to procede, and it gives the Iranians a huge amount of diplomatic leveredge over the U.S. Furthermore, Iran would like nothing better for the U.S. to withdraw immediately, because they could essentially control the government. Who else is out there? The Saudis? They have essentially no control over the Sunni part of the insurgency as far as I can tell. The insurgency has become financially self-sufficient according to the NYTimes, so Saudi money really isn't necessary. There are almost no foreign fighters in the country compared to the amount of native Iraqis in the conflict. And the Saudis really don't like the Iraqi government, as it is a strongly Shia/Iranian allied government as it is (Heck, the government issued a questionable arrest warrant for the top Sunni Cleric in Iraq just last week) Beyond those 2 states, there really isn't anyone else with nearly enough influence. Syria has a border with Iraq that they could probably control better, but that can only do so much when things in Iraq get this bad. And heck, they're proving useful in taking in Iraqi refugees. As is Jordan. I for one don't see the suggestion of bringing in other governments will actually do anything, when these governnments are already acting in ways which will best benefit themselves. Furthermore, your last clause states that the U.S. should continue training Iraqi troops until a viable force is assembled. The U.S. has already had 3 years, and the situation in that country has grown rapidly worse for those 3 years. The police forces and army are heavily infultrated by the insurgents and militias, and by arming them, we've basically helped arm and train those militias. People in police uniforms routinely take part in kidnappings. That giant kidnapping a few weeks ago where 200+ people were emptied out of a building? The Kidnappers had roadblocks manned by people in police uniforms, and no other police responded until well after it was over. So my question in reply is...how exactly can we take a "train the Iraqis" mentality when we've tried training them for 3 years while the situation has collapsed under our feet and the forces we've trained have proven to be as much a part of the problem as anything else?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) You won't, but a certian part of the Islamic community has been known to not exactly be kind people who cross them. Hell if I saw it, I sure wouldn't want my name connected to it. Let me say this then...if I saw that sort of behavior and was one of the people who had a problem with it, I would at least give my name if I chose to talk to the press.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 07:40 PM) or perhaps like any good company with a publicist they don't allow their employees to speak to the press. 100+ passengers? QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 04:48 AM) Or be labeled as an "Islamophobe".... If the folks who were kicked off the plane were doing what the Washington Times article alledges, including switching seats and so forth, then even I'm not going to label someone an islamophobe for taking notice.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 10:46 PM) As a Cardinals fan, I'm glad to see this. But I'm more concerned with the pitching right now. Carpenter, Kip Wells, Adam Wainright, Jeff Weaver, Anthony Reyes. That's probably better than anyone else in the NL Central looks on paper.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Are you saying that Brian Anderson will follow in Tori Hunter's footsteps? that is quite a stretch IMO. I can see Brian breaking 20, but I doubt he will ever hit 30 hr's in more than one season. I doubt the numbers are perfectly comparable because of the leagues people were playing in and so forth, but if you look back at Anderson and Hunter's minor league numbers, Anderson's numbers compare quite favorably all-around. Before hitting the majors and struggling for his first year, the most home runs Hunter ever hit in a minor league season was 10. He never put up an OPS above .800 in the minors. And his career minor league numbers are pretty far below Anderson's, especially when you consider that they sent him back down for a couple months to start the 2000 season after struggling through '99, and he put up a 1.130 OPS for those months. Minor League Totals - 7 Season(s) .269 .334 .416 750 Major league totals - 10 season(s) .269 .323 .463 786 Anderson hit 12 home runs in 04 between A and AA for us, and 16 at Charlotte in 05 (along with a couple off of King Felix in the big leagues). Minor League Totals - 3 Season(s) .306 .375 .486 861

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) A little. Believe it or not, that was the first thing I thought of reading it but overall, I don't believe the Imams. Not at all. Until I see someone willing to actually go on the record, or see the results of the airline's investigation, I don't see myself having a reason to either believe disbelieve them. I will say this...they're the only people out of that whole matter I've seen who appear to be willing to speak on record.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 04:36 PM) Mark McGwire was juicing in 1992? Jesus Christ. Wouldn't surprise me that he'd juice, but I wasn't aware that people had started before the mid-90s, too. In the 1988 ALCS, the fans in Boston were chanting "Steroids" at Canseco when he came up to the plate after at least one article appeared that year suggesting he was juicing. He was.

Is anyone else suspicious over the fact that there's not a single source who was actually involved in any way with that specific flight willing to give his or her name to the Washington Times in that article?

Link.

The Cardinals really like those hard-working Angel Infielders don't they? I'm a little bit surprised Kip Wells couldn't do better than that. Maybe he's taking less money for 1 year with a team with a good pitching coach in the hopes of slapping together a solid, injury-free season and coming back on the market after 2007.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) THHHHEEEEEEEEEE YANKEES WIN At least it's not someone who seemed to be an obvious destination for one of our starters.

By the way, nice of the Cubs to screw up the pitching market for everyone else as well.

So, in October, I got practically a mountain of random items from Walgreens, most of which had some sort of rebate for nearly/all of the cost of the item. Yesterday, I got the rebate back in the mail, and they'd honored all of the rebates except one of them, $8 for a bottle of antacid that I would never have spent more than $2 or so on. The paper said I'd purchased the wrong size or variety or something like that. So, this morning, I call up Walgreens' rebate office and ask about it, I explain the problem to the lady who picks up, she puts me on hold for 30 seconds, comes back, and says basically "Yes you should have gotten that rebate and it will be sent out to you in 7-10 days". So, I don't have to resubmit a receipt, UPC code, tell them I have copies of anything, or even figure out what the supposed problem actualy was, I just call and suddenly they give it to me without a fight. And at the end, I'm left wondering...is it pretty much standard practice for them to reject some finite portion of those rebate offers just on the assumption most people won't call in and ask about it? Otherwise, I can't figure out why they'd reject it the first time and then after 30 seconds on the phone discover that I actually did earn it.

So, we don't know the team yet, but it looks like the Red Sox have totally Blown open the posting market with that Matz bid. The Japanese teams will be thanking Boston for that for years.

Are people seriously convinced that he'll manage to stay healthy for the next 3 years?