Balta1701

Man, the Bulls are really screwing a game they needed. Chandler only has 5 rebounds with only a little time left, so his 10 rebound a game streak is probably coming to an end.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) This offseason went by so fast. For some strange reason it was about a month shorter than usual. Hopefully it will be a while before we have another long one.

Ordered from PapaJohns.com quite often. Works just fine. They send you an email with an estimated delivery time, and things there seem to be just as fast as when you talk over the phone. Only problem I've had with PJ's is that they don't have an option to pay with a credit card online, so I usually wind up calling in order to charge the thing.

I think the Bills released Shane Matthews. He's probably got as good of a chance of being the #1 as Orton does until Grossman gets hurt.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) I think I must be misunderstanding something. How would a party have "the gavel" in all the committees by having just a 1 seat majority? I didn't think it worked that way. Some committees will have Dem chairs and/or Dem majorities in that scenario. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of "the gavel"? As far as I know, when you have a majority at all in either house, you get the committee chairs. Which is why in 2001, the switch by Jeffords from voting with the Republican Caucus to voting with the Democratic caucus, which only gave the Dems a 1 seat advantage, was enough to put Democratic chairs on the committees. The party in control of the house, whether by 1 seat or 20 seats, chairs the committees.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) Was that the question...? If it was I apologize because I was referring to the debate over when the egg becomes a "life". So was I. After an egg becomes an embryo, it is capable of growing, but not capable of survival on its own. In fact, some embryos wind up being created but not successfully implanting themselves in the proper spot, and thus wind up not surviving. Hard to call that murder, IMO. Just like it's hard to call the tens of thousands of frozen embryos which are created and destroyed at fertility clinics murder since they're simply not viable on their own.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Knees gave out and retired a long time ago? Well, my knees sure seem to fit that description...

Ok, so to answer some of my own questions from last night...CNN So even if the number of level 1 units has dropped, there has been a decent increase in the number of level 2 ready units. The only part that worries me is This So the number of level 2 units is up almost 50% from October, yet there are still over 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, which means that none of those drawdowns we talked about in December have happened yet.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home? Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation. Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option. Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.' Is it winnable? How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place? And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite? I don't think so. PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise. It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country. When we win, they get to share in the glory. So, let me give this counterpoint...the Dems have offered up quite a few alternative options, such as the Murtha plan, which the Republicans labeled as "Cutting and running"? You're asking why the entire country isn't doing everything it can to win? Well, let me put this to you. Paul Bremer is about to release a book saying he needed a hell of a lot more men/troops over there. The U.S. has basically run out of reconstruction funds over there due to fraud, waste, bribery, and the insurgency, and the Administration isn't planning on providing more. Would you be in favor of a significant tax increase to fully fund the war over there, including a large expansion of the army through whatever means are necessary? You ask why the entire country won't get behind it...fine...let's propose getting the country 100% behind it; put enough troops and funds in there to actually rapidly rebuild everything and put an American squad on every street. Even if it takes a million men. That would be doing everything possible to win. Do you think that's a good option? Would you support that? Even if you or your family wound up having to pay a thousand dollars a year for it and had to send either you or someone close to you over there to fight because we need the manpower?

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) I do and I agree with KAP that Bayh will also be a good canidate for Demo's Could anyone imagine that race Indiana which hasn't voted D since '64 and Mass which hasn't voted R since 84 To add on: Romney would grab VT,ME and NH with him and Bayh would grab Ohio and Kentucy for the D's See, on that I think you're totally wrong, it's still my opinion that even running Bayh wouldn't be enough to turn Indiana blue in the general, simply because it's so far in the red. SS2k5 disagrees, but that's my opinion. Bayh might be able to turn Ohio, which would be enough to win it on the other hand, if nothing else changed. But could Romney carry any of those states? Well, I find that pretty doubtful too. Romney seems like he's in a lot of trouble and may very well lose the governorship in 06. He doesn't seem like he'd be in a good place to turn those states, especially Vermont. Also, the Republican phone jamming case in NH probably hasn't made them look very good up there either.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) I don't know about Warner or Richardson, but Vilsack from Iowa doesn't stand a chance. You're right on Vilsack. If Richardson runs, he'd have a very good shot at that nomination. Good experience, been a governor, hispanic heritage, pretty good record as governor, run a western state which could help the Dems appeal to other states in the West, Energy Secretary experience helps him deal with what will probably be one of the most important issues in 08 as gas prices keep going up, etc. Only difference is, thus far he's another one of those guys who has said every time that he's not going to run for the nomination also. I believe him less than Gore when he says that, because the people of his state don't want him to be saying that he's running for President when he should be running that state. Warner also has a very good shot. Depending on what Feingold, Obama, and Richardson do in terms of running, he's at least somewhere on the list of people I'd consider.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Right on I hope they go with either Hillary, Dean, Kerry or Gore they will lose badly now if they nomiate a Warner, Richardson or that guy from Iowa I think the Demo's might win. The Demo's like Republicans would be smart to nominate a Governor. Because they are away from the fray of Washington. Dean cannot run. He will be running the Democratic Party through the end of 2008, and one of the rules of that position is that he cannot run for other major offices. Gore has said repeatedly that he will not be running in 2008, although even I'm not dumb enough to say that means he absolutely 100% won't run (even though he kept his word in 2004 when he said he wasn't running), but I'd say right now it looks like 98% he's not running. Kerry and Hillary...I would say I pretty much expect to see both of them in the nomination race, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that I won't be voting for either of them in the primaries. One of the things that the Repubs used effectively against Kerry was the fact that he had a long voting record in the Senate, and as a Senator, he'd been forced over and over to make votes that were compromises, or on bills which could be painted the wrong way by a good political operative, like his vote on the $87 billion - both Bush and Kerry in a sense flip-flopped on it, given that Bush threatened to veto one version of it - the version that payed for it with a few tax increases and had requirements on how the money could have been used, but Bush's people were able to make easy use of Kerry's vote on that in their campaign ads. So in that sense, you're probably right that the Dems should be hesitant before nominating a Senator again. If it was someone from the Senate, it'd be best if it was someone who was a short-term senator, who hadn't built up a massive 20 year voting record (Obama would fit this requirement, and he'd have my vote right now if he ran). A governor might not be a bad thing either, and Warner does seem really talented.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) i agree. mccain is a shoe-in. however, theres a long time to go until the election so who knows. I'd like to be able to say that he's wrong and the Dems could mount a challenge to McCain, but given the fact that the media have already 100% decided that he can do no wrong, it'd be almost impossible for any Dem to overcome him in the general if the election were being held this year.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) What circumstances are you referring to? And wrong about what? It's been scientifically proven as to when the fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The argument after that is a personal one. Yes, but it's also scientifically proven that if you put a fetus on a chair in your dining room and make it dinner...it won't live through dinner.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) Yes IT WILL BE WON... If we just gave up everytime it looked bleak this country first of all wouldn't have exisited. Or if in Early 1864 when everyone wanted to surrender to the south we would have been split in 2 pieces. The point is sometimes we have to fight the good fight no matter the costs. Just to put into persepective we lost more troops in 3 days in the C-War than in all of Vietnam combined. So wait, within 6 months of the bang-bang major victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg right before the 4th of July in 63, the country wanted to surrender? That sure doesn't sound like the history that I know.

QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) As much as I adore the credemeister, I think I'd kina like to see how he does this year before offering him a huge contract. If you think about it, even for most of last year, he was regarded as a dissapointment. He had a good few months, but I'd really like to see some real consistency out of him. That could depend on your definition of a "Huge" contract. If Crede convinces people he's healthy...he's still a pretty darn good player if he can hit .250 with 20 home runs and play gold-glove defense at 3rd, and that could be worth a couple years worth of a contract. Also, a lot of us still think the Crede of September has the potential to show up and stay around for a while at some points during his career...and if we were to sign him and then have the Rally Crede hang around, suddenly he could make any deal look like a bargain.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:53 AM) I think that is a possibility. But I think both houses will get very, very close to even, which in itself could make things better. If there is only a 2 or 4 seat gap in either house, there are always enough swing votes to call any partisan vote into question. But see, the one thing I still point to is that if the Republicans keep both houses, but even have only a 1 seat majority in both houses...they still will manage to hold onto the gavels in every single committee. That means that the Republicans will still be able to prevent the Democrats from having any sort of investigation, swearing in witnesses, or issuing subpoenas, just as they have done the last 4 years. I don't mind a 1-2 seat Democratic Majority in 1 house with the Republicans holding the majority in the other house. Wouldn't mind that outcome at all. If I had to give up the White House in 2008 to get 1 house of Congress in 2006 so that the Democrats could get subpoena power, I'd do it. Just so that there is finally some sort of check on Mr. Bush's power, and tens of billions more dollars can't simply disappear like they have in Iraq.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:07 AM) If the elections were held today, the GOP would lose five seats in the Senate. Not necessarily. Recent History shows the GOP has a strong trend of being able to pick up votes beyond where they're polling due entirely to turnout, driven by things like gay marriage amendments and so forth. Bush wound up quite a bit higher in the general than he was showing in many of the polls right before the election (albiet within the margin of error of most of them), the Dems have been showing leads in generic Congressional ballots since at least early 2004, etc.

William F. Buckley Jr., one of the great voices of conservatism in this country and the founder of the National Review Magazine, has written a piece declaring the Iraq war a failure, and suggests that it's time for Mr. Bush to figure out a way to try to acknowledge defeat and mitigate the failure rather than trying to push for all of his objectives. Naturally, he obeys the 11th commandment and carefully avoids putting blame on Mr. Bush for either launching the debacle or for the incredibly inept execution of the post war rebuilding, but it's hard for me to be amazed by seeing Buckley saying this. It's worth your time to read the rest.

Hey, Republicans, you want to be able to vote your cronies billions of dollars in contracts, be as corrupt as you want, declare war on random disarmed countries, make this country reviled around the world, and still get me to vote for you? Here is how you do it. Right now, I can see no other way to even begin to clean up the morass of corruption that is Congress and the White House other than to totally remove the lobbyists from the equation. As long as there are lobbyists, then there will be a reason for elected officials to work for the benefit of someone other than the voters who elected them. That is where a huge number of these problems start.

Oh, 1 more interesting thought I just had. Who would you rather have on your team if you could pick between them and their contract details were the same...Ben Wallace or Elton Brand?

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 12:41 AM) All good points. It's just Tyson will never be a fifth of the offensive player Brand is, while Brand rebounds just as well. Obviously Tyson is a better defender, but the trade is just indefensible, was then and is now. And I don't see how this will be our conference to lose anytime soon, we are 2 studs away from having a chance, and finding a stud big man scorer and 2 guard isn't easy, and with Brand you have 1 of those on the roster already. Yes, we are 2 studs away from having a very good chance. With luck, those Knick picks will cover at least 1 of them....hopefully the Big, which is harder to find. The other? Well, that's up to Pax and Skiles. Hopefully Tyson can be a part of it. Right now, no one in their right mind wouldn't take that trade back, especially if we could still deal Curry to the Knicks for their pick. But this is still a team that's building and trying to grow, and I just can't say that there never will be a way to defend that trade...a lot of that is hope...but hopefully it won't be missplaced, since I like watching guys who wear the word "Chicago" on their shirts carrying around tropies.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 12:45 AM) I second that. It's gonna be so sweet watchin those two hit back to back this year. THUNDER....

Aside from just Thome's abilities...there's another real good reason why this lineup might have one Hell of a lot more thunder next year...Thome. Trib yesterday Just from watching highlights, it sure looks like Thome is one of those guys with real good power to every field, including a lot of bombs to the opposite field. That is something that every person here knows this team was sorely lacking last year...up and down the lineup, we had person after person trying to pull every single pitch. We had Konerko early in the season declaring he was a "Pull hitter", AJ saying Walker was helping him try to pull the ball, Crede, Uribe, and Rowand constantly popping up outside pitches because they're trying to pull them, etc. These guys don't need to hit the ball the other way every time they're up. But if their goal is to just pull the ball, they're going to turn into outs. When their goal is to drive the ball, they hang back on it just a little bit more, and they take what the pitcher gives them. When they did that last year, we saw Uribe catch fire for a couple weeks, we saw the Rally Crede of September, and we saw Konerko be one of the top 2-3 hitters in the AL after June 1. If Thome keeps it in these guys' heads that they don't need to pull every pitch, that every so often they can go the opposite way when people pitch you away...then suddenly those popups will turn into solid singles the other way...and this team will be absolute murder to pitch to. If every single person in that lineup hit as well as we have reason to believe they can...this team could score more runs than the Yankees. It's not likely, and it'll take a lot of work, but it's quite possible. 1 last thing to remember...last year, there were only 49 runs between us and the #4 offense in the AL (Cleveland). That's not a big difference at all. The difference between the #4 spot and the #3 spot was 75 runs. So we could make a serious jump in how our offense measurs up with just some small improvements.

If the Crede of September and October decides that he can't cut his hair and he needs to stay around for about 6 more months...he will be hitting 6th or even 5th before you know it.