NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) Picturing Kent Brockman telling folks how he won't go on TV without his "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" is just disturbing, I tells you whats. Linky. Well, if it worked for the U.S. and France... Bravo. If they had just done things like this to begin with, instead of inciting violence, then I'd have a lot more respect for their government.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) Read my post again please. His intent was to incite hatred not violence. Sorry, I stand corrected. Same question, though. Do you think he wanted to incite hatred? I think its pretty obvious that what he was trying to do was create a common ground to stand on. Now, he may have been misguided (or some might think just plain stupid) in his methods. But how can you think for a second that Al Gore would WANT to incite hatred?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) His responsibility? Really? I don't seem to recall it being national news when a Van Hillary Clinton was traveling in, disregarded a police officers orders to stop, and then proceeded to drag the man 300 feet. Was there a responsibility to hold a nearly immediate press confrence then as well? I'll tell you what I sure don't remember it happening... Also out of curiousity, what is the proper amount of time and where does contacting the national media rank for a hunting accident. Should they have called the media immediately, or waited to get him to the hospital, or waited until the police investigated, or waited until the family knew about it, or made sure that the family was ready for the swarm of media sure to ensue, or made sure that the guy was going to be OK, or gotten even gotten off of the ranch where they were hunting? Where does specifically contacting the national media rank there? Stop it. Seriously. Whenever someone criticizes something anyone anywhere in the current administration does, the GOP'ers here immediately come up with something about a Clinton. It's childish and makes no sense. Are we capable of sticking to an issue here?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) While the Islamo-fascist governments of Iran and Syria are stirring up the pot trying to make as much out of this nothing as they can, the US government has punished those responsible for Abu Ghraib and they now sit in jail. I agree. On this one, the US appears to have handled things as well as they could in the aftermath. It was embarrassing that it happened, but the offenders were exposed. I hope the military has continued their attempts to avoid that sort of behavior by our troops.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Tell me what the similarity is between the US having the Saudi Kingdom as an ally and Al Gore going over there making a speech which is designed for no other purpose than to incite hatred of the United States?! Your not making any sense. Please tell me you don't actually think that Gore intended to incite violence. That's ridiculous.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) I'm no expert on this, but would cracking 3 million be a realistic possibility? Park capacity: 40,615 Max for 81 games if all 100% sell out: 3,289,815 Avg attendence for 3 mil: 37037 Capacity at 3 mil pace: 91.2%

QUOTE(J-MAN @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:23 PM) Heck with that - I'm hoping the entire season is sold out before opening day!!!!! Would be awesome to outdraw that team in Blue on the Northside. I'll point out something again that people may not be aware of. With the added 2100 beacher seats at Wrigley, believe it or not, the Cubs will open 2006 with more capacity at their park (by a few hundred) than the Sox have at the Cell. Weird, huh? So even if the Sox sell out every game, the Cubs will need to underperform on their typical 98% capacity rate for the season for that to happen. Will it? Maybe. If they have a lousy season, its possible.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) We know the Yankees, Astros, and Cardinals are going to sell out quick to. It is very possible that we will surpass the entire 2005 attendence before a single pitch is thrown... at spring training. Wow. Since we probably only have 200 or 300k (approximately, if we are a bit over 2 mil now) to go, I'd say that is likely.

Mine: 1. Pods 2. Uribe 3. Thome 4. PK 5. Dye 6. Gooch 7. AJP 8. Anderson 9. Crede I like Crede protecting Anderson. And as far as 6/7, it occurs to me that having Gooch 6th helps Dye, who will occasionally steal a base. Gooch is a better situational hitter than AJ.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) since its california, im sure they all have dodgers or angel stickers... all the more reason to begin transporting rotten cantalopes with me on the way to work.... AMMO!!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!! AMMMOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! diediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediedied ediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediediedie iediediedie die! Oh jeez, you live in Cali? Well that explains the drivers right there. Glad you are still OK. Do the local arteries have bike lanes out there, like we have in Chicago? Those have been a savior here (though, as Balta points out, you still have to assume people won't see you).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) How the hell is that a crime? "possession of a look-alike substance"? It's illegal there to put Oregano in a ziplock bag? Yeesh. That one is new on me. But if he sold it, that is actually a crime - theft by deception. And I actually think the suspension, while a bit long (maybe a few days would have been better), was not so out of line. You have a kid telling other kids he'll sell them crack - sounds like the kid needs a hard lesson if you ask me. And that is what he got.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) Thome should bat 3rd according to reason and I'm sure he would if KW was managing. However, Ozzie is managing and I'm not sure if he'll agree with reason on this one. Did you not read my post above, quoting Ozzie about Thome hitting 3rd?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:32 AM) Hello? THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS. this country is not called the united states of the world. is the united states of america. unless you are an american citizen, YOU DONT HAVE THE PRIVILIDGE OF DUE PROCESS. the US government has no duty whatsoever to provide due process to people who have never lived in the US, and are trying to kill our troops overseas. i totally understand why there is such a debate about whether or not terrorists captured in afghanistan and iraq fall under the geneva convention. but there is no way that they fall under the US constitution. i simply fail to see your reasoning on how constitutional protections exclusively (and expressly) reserved for american citizens apply to a foreign combatant who has never even set foot in the country before (wouldnt matter if they did anyway, that doesnt make you a citizen). I said nothing about US citizens. If we arrest a foreign citizen, can we just hold them indefinitely? If some tourist is arrested in New York for a crime, can we do whatever we want to them because they are not US citizens and also not soldiers? There is due process for foreigners, even if its not specified in the Constitution. If the US decides it is OK to just treat these people in any way it chooses, then again, as I stated earlier, we have no ground to stand on INTERNATIONALLY as a country that protects personal freedoms.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) This has pretty much been the consensus that I have heard since he did so well in the playoffs in that spot. I've heard Dye-Konerko-Thome pretty much ceaselessly since the acquisition of Thome... Ozzie says Thome or Konerko behind Uribe/2-hole: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/courier...4SOXNOTE_S1.asp Hemond and Williams say Thome 3 or 4: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...LDTIMERS_S1.asp

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) geneva convention only governs combatents who, among other things, fight for a "nation" and wear uniforms so that they are identifiable. last time i checked, these terrorists wore street clothes as a uniform (at least the 9/11 hijackers did), or wear normal middle eastern clothing over where the open fighting is going on. they also do not fight for any common nation, much less common ideals (many, many different sects of insurgents, all have different reasons [some want saudi arabia to fall, some want israel to fall, some want the US to pull out, or any combination; others are backed by iran- my point is that the insurgency is far from unified]). on top of that, even if you were to call insurgents and terrorists an "army" (which they are not), you cant ignore the fact that they consistantly break geneva convention rules every day, yet once caught attempt to hide behind the same rules they have no regard for whatsoever. unless you are going to argue that beheading non-combatants is not a violation of the geneva convention. the geneva convention governs conventional warfare. we are not fighting another nation. it is maddening and incredulous hypocracy when one of those bastards tries to hide behind rules they gladly broke before they were caught. This argument is bogus - this is the US government trying to have it both ways. if the Geneva conventions don't apply, because these are not soldiers, then guess what? They are criminals. And in that case, where is the due process? This is why the program is illegal and embarrassing for the US. They are trying to play both sides. Now, I agree with Nuke that the report was poorly researched and can't stand too well on its own. Its typical UN bull. But the detainment of these people at Gitmo, for the length of time they have been there, is a travesty. Our reputation as a nation of freedom and justice for all is at stake on the world stage, and this Gitmo thing is making us look like hypocrites.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) The UN did ask. They were told they could tour the camp, but would not be allowed any contact with the prisoners. Did they tour it? If not, they screwed up. As far as contacting prisoners, I think the US would have been smart to allow them some limited contact, instead of playing the blockade game again. That might have helped defuse the situation a bit.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) A multinational organization opposes a prison camp for foreign fighters whose host government says that international law (Geneva Conventions) don't apply to their treatment and refuses to give them any legal process. And you think that's wrong. I don't agree with our illegal handling of prisoners at Gitmo. What I disagree with (and Nuke does as well) is that this report is not properly researched, it would appear. ARC visited Gitmo multiple times - why weren't they part of the report? Did the UN ask for/receive permission to visit the camp (I honestly don't know, I am asking)? These are basic things that are missing. The UN could do good with this situation, but they come off like idiots when they don't do their homework.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) unfortunately Ozzie wants him to hit #3... but he did extremely well in that spot last year, so I'll give the benefit to the manager of the World Champs. Where are you getting this Dye hitting 3rd in 2006? Aside from the fact that Thome is clearly the better choice, everything I've read, including words from Williams, says Dye hits 5th. Do you have a quote from Ozzie or something, regarding this upcoming season?

Yea. For the money, he is great. Solid defender, good power, and came out of his slump inpressively. He is perfect for RF and the 5-slot for us.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/16/un.guantanamo/index.html Notice the second paragraph. They didnt visit the prison and based their report solely on what a bunch of terrorists and terrorist lawyers said. Why we allow this corrupt, hypocritical and completely anti-American organization to take up prime New York real-estate is beyond me. Why we we also continue to fund its activities is also a source of puzzlement to me. I agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution. Pulling out helps no one. Instead, as awful as this may sound to Dems and GOP alike on this board, I believe we need to get our hands a lot dirtier in the UN. I think we need to find our way back to the forefront of the organization and start making changes from within. And I don't mean Bolton-style changes (which is to say, pay no dues, ignore most countries, and complain a lot). I mean taking the time and effort to mold policies that will straighten out the UN. This will take time, and support, but it can be done.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:11 AM) When is Hillary going to figure out the country doesn't want to hear your garbage. I was once hoping for Hillary not to run in 08 but now I am just to see her and extreme liberal friends fall on their faces. If Hillary wins 40% and 100 electoral votes I will be shocked. I dislike Hilary pretty intensely, and I can't see voting for her for Prez (unless the GOP alternative is Tom DeLay). But you need to get with reality, my friend. Hilary is not nearly as far left as some of the others you will see in the Dem primaries in '08. On a handful of issues she is pretty far left, but on the whole, she is closer to center than quite a few in her party.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) The government is under no obligation to report this. That is true. If that is how you believe the government should operate, in secrecy, that is certainly a valid method. In the US we have a long history of not allowing the government to hide stuff and operate in secrecy. I don't think it would be a step forward when the Veep can shoot someone and be able to hide that information. I also believe it would be state law to report a shooting, but I may be wrong. Maybe the victim has to report the shooting. Is a hunting accident less of a story than a blow job? Than a petty breaking and entering at an office (Watergate). An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? Right on, Tex. GOP marketing machine running smoothly. Dem complaint machine running smoothly. And yeah, its a pretty damn important story.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) Hmph, there certainly are some differences in the way the AP is presenting Gore's speech and the way other sources are doing so. (This one from the "Arab News") This was why, when I jumped in earlier, I first stipulated that I was skeptical of the "news source" used for the speech. Indeed, his speech was not nearly as inflammatory as was suggested by earlier citations.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:35 AM) It's the moderates of both parties that gets my ear when they speak. I know pushing the party line is not their motivation. Put me in that camp as well. I'm tired of hearing from the entrenched polar camps, who will vote with their core regardless of obvious stupidity. They serve little positive purpose for anyone.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:45 AM) You're wrong about Wisconsin. Al Gore got 48%, John Kerry got 49.7%. New Hampshire Al Gore got 47, John Kerry got 50. Ohio Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48. Colorado Al Gore got 42, John Kerry got 47. Nevada Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48. You're wrong about NM too. Al Gore got 48. John Kerry got 49. What does that mean? A whole lot of nothing. It means that a relatively small number of people (with the exception of Colorado) voted more in one direction than the other. 2 percentage points doesn't consist of a seismic shift of anything. It might also be explained by the power of incumbency on the side of the Democrats in 2000 and on the side of the GOP in 2004. It might also be explained by the fact that more people liked Al Gore than John Kerry. Or it might be explained by the fact that the GOP really really turned out. Elections are won on the ground. And turning out your base which is what the GOP does is the key to winning. When the Democrats come back to that, they'll start winning too. I'm waiting to hear the Dems have lost 5 of the last 7 elections again. Conveniently forgetting that more people voted for Democrats in three of the last four elections. This bulls*** polemic is still bulls***. Oh yeah and the "liberals attacking Bush for something they supported" is not a very good argument either. Because you're saying the Democrats are cowards for taking the President at his word, and getting angry when the President was wrong - and possibly on purpose. Please. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well put.