BigSqwert

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) God forbid we limit the rate of the increase in spending on entitlements. Yeah...who cares about medicare and the like? We need to keep tax breaks for the rich during a time of war.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers. Wow! Impressive study done by this guy. He noticed things about the 1 Wal-Mart he visited and provided us with some excellent results. I guess we can close the case on this issue seeing that he actually verified that most of the employees at this 1 location have worked there for several years and there is very little turnover. QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) Second, while the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained. Exactly what does that mean? A little vague here if you ask me. How does everyone else gain? Gain what? QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) Third, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at the new chain store, it is almost guaranteed that their pay will be higher than before and they will enjoy new benefits that most likely had not been available to them previously. Almost guaranteed? Based on what? Where is the evidence? Is this based on his opinion?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:14 PM) I strongly doubt this is true but even if it is does anyone really give a s***? I thought we were in Iraq to set up a democracy. Democracy isn't about beating and torturing prisoners of war (which I am not claiming happened in this case). So if it's cool for us to do things like this then we seem like hypocrites in Iraq where we expect them to set up a civilized democracy. You claim to be anti-communist (in your avatar) but you are all for Communist tactics.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:08 PM) You mentioned Bush post-9-11. Who can forget the image of him standing on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn telling the firefighters that we're gonna get the bastards who did this. That was a timeless moment right there. About the only good moment of his regarding 9/11.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:20 PM) Maybe we could actually spend the development money in getting some alternative energy methods further along in their maturation processes. Amen to that. You telling me we can put a man on the moon, create robots that mimic humans, make laser-guided missiles and nanomachines but we can't make a vehicle that doesn't rely on fossil fuels?

From MSNBC: Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support. Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense spending legislation. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44. Prior to the contentious vote, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told colleagues that “it is wrong” to consider the issue of drilling in the refuge as part of a defense bill that would provide money for troops in Iraq as well as relief for Katrina hurricane victims. “We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain (of the refuge) for oil exploration and development,” countered Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She called making the oil available a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports. 'Legislative blackmail' Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has fought to allow oil exploration and development in the refuge’s coastal plain since 1980, angered many of his Senate colleagues by attaching the drilling measure to the must-pass defense spending bill. Senators determined to protect the refuge from development found it difficult to oppose the politically popular defense bill, which has money for troops in Iraq, relief for Katrina hurricane victims and help for low-income families to pay energy bills. “This is nothing more than legislative blackmail,” fumed Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., an ardent opponent to opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies. Senators grumbled at being kept in session nearly to Christmas because of the legislative standoff. But Stevens was unapologetic and unrelenting. He called the development of ANWR’s oil a matter of national security because the country needs all the domestic oil it can get, said it was a fitting subject for defense legislation and dismissed environmentalists’ arguments that drilling would jeopardize the refuge’s wildlife. “The extreme environmentalists think it’s their playground, that they should set the policies for Alaska,” Stevens said, reminding colleagues on the Senate floor Tuesday that a majority of the Senate repeatedly has voiced approval for drilling, only to be thwarted by filibusters. A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.

I know I won't be committing murder now. I didn't realize that I could recieve the death penalty for doing it. Now that I do know I definitely won't be killing anyone. Thumbs up America for putting in something like that. I'm sure murder rates will drop to zero now.

I hope I'm not the only one posting in here. Someone join me!

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) That's all they said it would be. I never saw that. Oh well...it's a nice cover.

Am I the only one disappointed that the SI book is merely the world series magazine with a hard cover? I thought it would be new material but maybe I'm naive.

Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee come to mind. And Joe Crede...sort of.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) She was responding to me. I said put Garland's ass on the plane instead of McCarthy because Jon is dead set on testing the market. Then she said something about giving Konerko's contract back and gave me the eye roll. Her reply was meant as sarcasm.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:02 PM) Are you ready to gamble on him leaving and us getting nothing in return? I'm not. huh??

QUOTE(drowninginflame @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) I'm not holding my breath Phew! I was getting worried.

QUOTE(drowninginflame @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:32 AM) I don't wnt to lose BMAC, it doesn't matter anyhow...Tejada won't be coming to the southside anytime soon. Thank you Nostradamus.

We shouldn't have included Vizcaino. I think the 3 guys in total is too much for a mediocre pitcher.

My bad

This just ruined my day. From the NY Daily News: CHICAGO WAY: Javier Vazquez, who has piqued the Mets' interest, may be on the verge of getting shipped to the Windy City. A baseball insider suggested the White Sox are the most likely destination for the Diamondbacks pitcher, possibly leading to a trade involving Jon Garland (a free agent after the 2006 season) or Jose Contreras.

That is a solid argument.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 10:57 PM) Jim Thome should hit his 500th Home Run in 2007 with the Sox assuming he stays healthy. He has 430 Home Runs in his career and if he breaks 500 as a White Sox, has 3 or 4 great seasons, and finishes his career with the Sox he might go into the HOF as a White Sox. Just isn't the same. Frank hit all 448 of his HRs as a Sox player. So far Thome has hit zero. Getting his last 70 with us won't feel as good although it'll be nice.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 02:24 PM) thomas belle Most definitely.

So who's this Konerko you guys are talking about?

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 01:57 PM) I hope Frank retires than. I hate to say so but I agree. I would hate to see him on another team. There is no chance we sign him now.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) Take Bruce Levine with a grain of salt. Why would he make that up?

QUOTE(Wanne @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 02:01 PM) El Duque and Crede for Hank Blalock?...and maybe throw in a Diaz. I'm all for that move but I couldn't see Texas going for and old pitcher like Duque. They want good young arms.