Balta1701

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) Utley. 35 games. A few more games and i'll actually get interested.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) I find it amusing that a 17-year-old is calling somebody else "son." Your argument doesn't account for the fact that the U.S. gives foreign aid to pretty much everybody. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but that list has historically included the Palestinians. So there's no difference between say, sending in food and medical supplies after a tsunami and selling Israel a bunch of F-16's that they pay for with money we gave them, or rushing up orders of guided munitions to ship to Israel as soon as this campaign started?

QUOTE(minors @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) Nader had almost nothing to do with these loses to Bush. In 2000 Gore screwed himself by not using what works Bill Clinton and by not paying attention to your home state. And the fact that his liberal supporters in FLA couldn't even read or punch a ballot right. If any of these things is done right Gore wins in 2000 if you can't win your homestate then you shouldn't be president. 2004 was a clear victory for Bush and unless Nadar took away 100K votes from Kerry in Ohio or caused Kerry to lose states that went Gore just 4 years earlier. 2004 was much closer to a stomping by Bush than a Kerry win. Kerry had to hang on for victories in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, PA and Michigan and couldn't hold onto New Mexico, Iowa. While Bush only lost NH and had comfortable wins and improved his standing in most of the other states he won in 2000. Did you even pay attention to the subject I was talking about? I was saying that this was absolutely no different than the Republicans dumping money into Nader's campaign in 04, which they did, nor was it any different from waht the Democrats would have done had someone made a run against Bush from the right.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Just sort of thinking out loud, but is there any way if the Sox made a package around Fields and Pods, San Diego would bite on trading Peavy? Peavy will be 26 next season, and is having a down year. Obviously has ace stuff, but his price might be down a little after this year, and with no real future at 3B for SD, and Roberts a FA after the year(90% sure on that) could a deal centered around the two of them work? I don't know about Fields and Pods, but if one were to consider including a starting pitcher in that deal, and we would have at least 1 to deal, if not 2, and some of the money to pay for that pitcher's obscene contract, something might be do-able.

Have a professor here who's been featured on Daily Show clips 3 times now if I'm counting right. He tells us the camera adds 10 nerdiness points.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) The key is, who would be more valuable to the current and future white sox, BMac or Crawford? IMO, Crawford would be. While BMac is a nice arm, he's not a #1 or a #2 [if BMac threw 95 mph then he could be]. He tops out at 94.

How do you know when a debate ends? When Pat Robertson comes around.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) It doesn't. Try now.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) they probably think the same thing about you. John Kerry supporter. After 6 years of this President, I think a lot of them would actually agree that they are fools. There's a reason why Nader put in so much worse of a showing in 04.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2538688 I'm wondering why we didn't block him... Because Baltimore probably would have just let him go to us. And do the Red Sox have a worse record htan us right now? They might be ahead of us on the list.

That didn't take long. Hopefully Baltimore got something useful.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) I wonder how that happened? Supposedly his family suffers from some sort of debilitating skin disease which may also have something to do with it.

There's going to be a lot of names put on waivers in the next few days/weeks, just to see who can clear and still be trading-deadline eligible.

"I don't understand how you can say that Rosa Parks was overrated" "Listen, for all we know there was an elderly white man waiting for that seat. I will not stop until Rosa Parks' descendents apologize to that bus company for what she did." "Ugh, I have no choice" (shoots stephen) "Typical east coast ivory tower liberalism." "I shot you, very near the heart!" (Link in my sig should still work for that)

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) Israel PURCHASES weapons from the U.S. It's a financial transaction. Hezbollah, on the other hand, doesn't purchase anything. Iran GIVES them the weapons and, in return, Hezbollah does their bidding. Hezbollah isn't a self-sustaining entity. They're not a sovereign state. They have no economy or natural resources. They rely on Iran for the vast majority of their funding and weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is a powerful democracy with a strong economy and cutting-edge technology. They're financially-independent of the U.S. and have their own interests. The U.S. also offers Israel about $1.5 billion in aid per year, most of it military, combined with about $2 billion in loans each year which are understood to be turned into grants at some later date. That's roughly 1/3 of the U.S.'s entire foreign aid budget.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) Not only that, but they supply so much of their funding and arms that Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of Iran. So on that basis, the U.S. is actually at war with Lebanon?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) haha, that is hilarious those interviews are definately the best part of the show. "Threatdown", "The Word", "Formidable Opponent", Hell, there's hardly a bad segment IMO. Threatdown probalby comes out on top I guess.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Based on what exactly? The fact that his contract is up and it's gonna cost a ton to keep him for a few more years if he keeps htis performance up?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) A completely false comparison, but I appreciate the effort. We knew very well that Germany would declare War on us because they'd signed a treaty with Japan saying they'd go to War against everyone together. Besides that, we'd been aiding Britain since 1940, and were a lock to help them as soon as we were drawn into the War. One interesting side note, the pact between the 3 nations actually did not require Germany to declare war on the U.S. The pact only said that the 3 nations had to join together if any of them were actually attacked; this is how Japan got out of having to declare war on Russia in July of 41. Hitler declared war on the U.S. after the Japanese attack anyway, and went around saying that the U.S. couldn't fight, it only knew how to make Razor blades and refrigerators or something like that, etc. In fact, the isolationists in Congress would have put up a huge stink if Roosevelt had gone to them with a declaration of war against Germany had Germany not declared war on us first.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) Problem: this was written by a Kennedy, which means either: 1. he was drinking when researching/writing this 2. he was drinking and driving when he was researching/writing this 3. he was drinking, driving and running off the road killing a woman when he was researching/writing this 4. he was drinking, driving and running off the road hitting a baracade by the capital building when he was researching/writing this And before you ask, drinking, driving and researching/writing all at the same time is difficult. That's what makes the Kennedy's so amazing. At least he didn't blame it all on the Jews, or call Hillary "Sugar Tits".

Here ya go Tex

Here ya go Tex

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) Does it make him any less of a target if he's getting treated? To me thats the best time to hit him, when he's hurt and vulnerable. No, he is still a target, the only trouble is...he wasn't there.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) its really pitiful how you just flat out ignore the questions people present to your arguments and continue to be a terrorist apologist when its convenient. are you even going to respond to any of the responses to your posts? or do you not have an answer, and you concede those points? and please, stop using garbage sources to support pro-terrorist claims. Haaretz is a garbage source? are you kidding me? And secondly, I'm sorry, I can only reply to so many posts at once. I am trying to get other things done here, and it's really hard to debate 4-5 people all at the same time. QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) If it wasn't a headquarters, why was the leader of the group suspected to be there? The IDF wouldn't have raided a hospital and risked a PR nightmare if they didn't have substantial intelligence suggesting that it was a Hezbollah stronghold. And why were Hezbollah guerillas there? Why were some captured, but others were killed? (Suggesting that the guerillas fired on the Israelis.) Injury?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) Hezbollah also uses hospitals as headquarters. That's about as despicable as it gets. Haaretz paints a very different picture of that raid, just so you know. They suggest that the Israelis went into the hospital, which is actually funded by groups linked to Hezbollah, looking for a leader of that group, not that it was being used as a headquarters of any sort.