Balta1701

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) But you're wrong here. CBS was directly involved in pushing the falsified documents that lead up to Rathergate. They presented that information on the CBS Evening News, which is supposed to be free of political bias. That's a lot different than simply allowing the Swift Boat Veterans on your show to give THEIR opinion. Unlike Rather, these guys were definitely not operating under the guise of objectivity. Um, it was presented first on 60 minutes, not the evening news.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) The Swift Boat and Rathergate situations are not comparable because the Swift Boat Veterans MADE THEIR OWN CASE. Sure, they were on TV, but their argument was being made by them, not the network. O'Reilly has left-wing nutcases like Al Sharpton on his show all of the time, but that doesn't mean that he's promoting their ideas. On the other hand, Dan Rather and CBS were the ones who directly presented the case about Bush's military record. CBS directly presented a case which was given to them by others. Don't forget, the forged documents didn't make up that entire story. They also had another person, Ben Barnes, who testified that he had helped Bush get into and out of the guard in the first place. The documents were also presented to them by others, and they talked to others about it. Specifically, Bill Burkett, who is probably the guy who did the forgeries, gave them to CBS. So it's not like CBS just forged those documents on their own. The documents were forged by someone else and presented as fact, just as the swift boat guys lied repeatedly and had their statemetns treated as fact by many in the media.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Oh, did you have evidence to prove otherwise? I'm all ears... Actually, the proper answer is that no one has the evidence about Mr. Bush's guard service, and just before the Rather mess, a few people were starting to notice that. In Feb. of 04, Bush did a massive document dump that shut up a lot of people for a few months while they actually went over all the stuff he hadn't released in 2000. But around August of 04, people had finally processed everything in there, and the AP was running a couple of stories saying how every key document that would have been produced which would have answered the questions about Mr. Bush's guard duty turned out to be simply missing. Like 6 or more specific, key documents, which would have been created independently upon his discharge were missing, along with quite a few other documents which would have talked through his last year or two in the Guard, were all just gone. Basically, just as the AP was starting to ask "where are these documents, those are the ones we need and they weren't presented to anyone", CBS ran its forged document story, and suddenly Bush's guard service became a 3rd rail. So, we can't prove Bush didn't finish his guard service. There is some evidence he didn't, which is why it was a question in the first place (a physical saying he didn't report, a couple other shredded documents, testimony by a couple of people), but nothing conclusive either way, and conveniently the documents which would be conclusive have all disappeared. And no one will ever touch that issue again, at least until 20 years go by and people are writing books about how bad the Bush Administration looks in the eyes of history.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) I know it's early but I think that the Sox will probably pick up Dye's $6 million team option for 2007 if he stays healthy this season. $6 million is just dirt cheap these days for the kind of production that Dye can provide when he's healthy. And I doubt the Sox want Ryan Sweeney on the roster as a fourth outfielder. I think he could take over for Dye in RF to start the 2008 season. That would give Sweeney two full seasons to develop his power in the minors. It's also possible that Dye or Podsednik could be traded after this season. The same reason the White Sox would want Dye...his $6 million option, would make him very attractive to any number of teams that want a corner outfielder who can hit 30 home runs. It's also possible Dye's injury problems could resurface at some point...so if he gets through this season healthy, that makes him even more desirable. If KW can get Thome for Rowand and a couple minor league pitchers, and get Philly to pay for most of it, he could certainly find someone who could use Dye and give us something we'd enjoy. That all depends though on what Sweeney does this year in AAA. He has a good year and keeps this power up...it might not hurt to fly with him next year, especially if the other bat guys we have all have good 2006 campaigns.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) If you think that the fake memo is all the evidence, or even the most important evidence, that Dubya skipped out on his national guard duties, then I really don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. Nothing I can say will change your mind. It is really amazing how lucky Bush got with that...as the moment CBS was proven to have run forgeries, suddenly every single question about Bush's guard duty dried right back up, as no one wanted to be connected with that embarassment. From that moment on...it was totally off limits...it couldn't even get used in response to the Swifty lies.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) The Swift Boat campaign was indeed nonsense. The obvious difference was that it was organized by a grassroots organization and not a major media outlet. On the other hand, Mary Mapes' unathentic documents were presented on air by Dan Rather of CBS News. There's bias everywhere, the the MEDIA bias in this case was definitely on the liberal side. How does the fact that it was organized by a "Grassroots organization" (which oddly enough was funded by the same grassroots folks that funded Bush's anti-McCain ads in 2000, or even Bush 1's Willie Horton ad in '88) change the fact that they were on the air spouting complete nonsense? Every single network ran stories on the Swifties...their ads got tons of free air time on the Cable networks, and they stayed in the news despite repeated reports which proved unequivocally that they were lying at every turn. CBS got what it deserved for running those documents. Rather is out of a job, their network took a ton of disgrace, etc. Yet all of the networks which ran the swift boat pieces got George W. Bush in the White House.

Center Field is Brian Anderson's job to lose. Plain and simple. He will have several months to justify that statment, IMO. We left Dye out there until June when half of this site was calling for Borchard to be called up, and that turned out all right.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) That and his change-up. So no fastballs or curveballs?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) Yup, Kenny has been very adamant in his belief that Anderson and Sweeney will become something special. And no matter what others say...I think he's right, and in 2-3 years we're going to have one of the best, young outfields in baseball.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) He gave up a couple runs on a Raul Ibanez HR in the first inning. He gave up a run (unearned) in the second. He really settled down after that. What pitches was he throwing? Last time I saw him he spent like the first 2 innings throwing almost nothing but 2-seamers.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) thome and triple dont seem to go together for me... but hey i'll take it! With Thome, surely we won't be last in doubles and triples in the AL again this year, right?

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) Right now I don't, but I am senior in high school and will be a freshman in Bloomington next fall. EDIT: Do you go to IU? So...if you want to correctly follow the marketing...you can't be red & white any more, you must in fact be cream & crimson.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) For now, all you need is a d/l and to be nice to the border patrol. Not sure how long that will last. I believe it's supposed to change some time this year...at least at the Mexican border that's what I've been told.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) We'll never have a good spring under ozzie. Look at the lineup he runs out there even though we are at home! As long as we win 11+ games in October...I won't mind at all.

Clemens paid a visit to the Rangers today.

It seems Natalie also delivered a guest lecture on counterterrorism at Columbia University.

So, right now Alaska is cleaning up the 6th largest oil spill in the state's history, after a pipeline just west of the border of ANWR began to leak. Just figured I'd point that out.

There's also a valid question of how much money each state wants to put into enforcement of the warnings versus how much money each state wants to spend dealing with treatment of those who wind up sick. If a state decides that it'll be very costly to set up a system to monitor and check each of those chemicals, they may decide to just deal with the medical consequences as they'll be cheaper than the enforcement. (like auto companies do when they decide whether or not to start a recall)

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:32 AM) Except that the foods we eat are largely not local, so locality becomes irrelevant. If we bought all our food from our local commune, then this is obviously a non-issue. So for food labeling, if some toxin is bad for you in California, it is equally bad for you in Utah. Ok, so let me do this with numbers. So let's say something is toxic when you're exposed to 1 gram of the stuff. Let's say there's 1/2 gram of that toxin in a particular foodstuff in a year. Now, in the middle of no where in Wyoming, there's fairly clean air. So if I eat that foodstuff for a year, I get exposed to 1/2 of a gram of that toxin. But because it's at low levels around me, I never approach the gram I need. Now, let's say I live right next to a highway in California, a short ways from a port and some large manufacturing. Let's say these places put out that same chemical, and in the course of a year I inhale 1/2 gram of that toxin. Now, let's also say I want to consume the same amount of that foodstuff as the person in Wyoming. In 1 case, the body would easily remove the stuff, while in the other, it would reach toxic levels in the body. So no, something is not always equally bad in each state. It can depend on the amount you're exposed to just in your everyday activities.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:30 AM) When someone gets on a plane, nobody expects terrorists to take over the cockpit and fly it into a skyscraper. That's news. When American soldiers invade another country, one expects that they'll meet resistance in one form or another and that they'll incur casualties. Is that clear enough? So let's see, thus far in this thread, you've said that the reason the media should have reported on 9/11 was that the hijackers weren't wearing military uniforms, but that it's ok to not report on things in Iraq because despite the fact that they aren't wearing military uniforms, the war in Iraq is a war while the war against Al Qaeda is not. You've also told me that the articles by Conservatives bashing muslim extremists didn't appear until after 9/11, but that articles by Conservatives have been bashing muslim extremists since the 1970's. I'm so dizzy I'm going to step out of this thread and let someone else try to piece this together.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) I agree with this, on many issues. Though on this one, I see no need for 50 different states' ideas of safe foods. I actually do see that there very well could be a need, for multiple reasons. For example, it's entirely possible that in some states, you could be exposed to more of a toxic chemical than you are in other states, just due to where you are. In Utah, I probably find less toxins around me than in downtown L.A., for example. So, if getting up to a certain intake of a toxin is the problem...then I'm much more likely to have problems with the amount in a product in California than I am in Utah.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:23 AM) This is going to fillibuster now for obvious reasons... enjoy. I was surprised it didn't end up here sooner. Thanks.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) Funny, I don't recall the hijackers wearing military uniforms. :rolly After all that's happened, it's mind-boggling that some people still can't distinguish between soldiers and terrorists. I don't recall many of the suicide bombers in Iraq wearing uniforms either...and you just said/agreed with statements that the liberal media is only reporting on suicide bombings in Iraq because they want to hurt Bush, and then said specifically that you feel the media shouldn't be reporting on those things because they're a war. So which is it...should the media not report things going on in Iraq because it's a war, or should they report on them because they're not wearing uniforms when their cars explode?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) So liberal media has been bashing Islam forever. Conservatives started after 9/11? Personally, I read that one more as saying that the Liberal Media shouldn't have reported on 9/11 because it was a war and the media shouldn't care about casualties in a war, but I guess it's open for interpretation.

You know...there's got to be something slightly askew when Moveon.org sends out an email with the subject header: "What winning would mean".