NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 02:25 AM) Easily Jimmy Carter, all he did was sent us into recession and our kidnapped soldiers had to spend 400+ days in captivity if any president serves his soldiers up as appetizers to the enemy is not fit to hold the office of president. And he has the guts enough to criticize President Bush on the war Carter is such a hypocrite I bet Carter knew how to use periods.

There is no good reason to bat Dye 3rd. Thome and Konerko are both far better hitters than he is. The only argument being made here is that Dye batted 3rd last season - well, that was true because we didn't have Jim Thome (we had Jurassic Carl). With Thome in there, he makes the most sense, and Williams has said so.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) Polish does. I'll see your Polish and raise you a Cheddarwurst.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) I think Kap looks like he's more in the right based on what reading I've done. Here is an actual post from Hackett @ TPMCafe. If you look carefully, you'll notice something is missing...any sort of endorsement by Hackett of his opponent, which is usually a sign of some sort of gracious acceptance. Oh, and then there's this: And then there's This Here's a more detailed piece looking at some of the Problems Hackett was having, and looking at what will need to be done to bring out more people like Paul in the future. As I read that last article, and I think about the grassroots campaigns of the Dems, I keep coming to the same conclusion. Some of the necessary elements are there, thanks to Dean and his ideas. And there is some good bottom-up stuff going on. But the engineering of the party needs work. They need management - something between Dean at the top and the grassroots forces at the bottom. They need a machine. They need a Daley machine. Seriously. They need some middle managers who can bring out the vote and the money, and turn the party into a well-oiled machine. Maybe over-oiled, in fact. Gotta grease the wheels, you know. But i seriously think that is what they need (in addition to adding more political figures who are gutsy).

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) Im not complaining. The only UD tickets that I will use is opening day. I bought the rest to unload. I sit in the lower bowl and I am happy that I do. On the attendance note, i have said all along I like it better when the park is empty, but thats just me. If you are a season ticket holder in the UD, you do have access to the lower level (just for those who don't know that). And I actually had the choice between Row 1 in the UD and much further back in the lower deck, and I chose UD. Front row anywhere in the stadium is hard to pass up. We're right above 1B.

Am I the only one who thinks doing that to this kid (clearly the parent knew what was coming) was just plain mean? No way I could do that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) Actually...this one, if true, could potentially prove some serious harm. It's entirely possible that, had she personally not traveled to a country in recent years, the leak of her name itself might not have done as much damage as it could have done. She'd mainly been in the U.S. for several years from what's been reported elsewhere, doing work on WMD's. If 1 specific country knew that her work was focused on them, it could expose more undercover operations which could have been designed to mislead that country. Probably not nearly as damaging as the leak of her name itself, which would have immediately exposed every one she had ever met or done business with, but the name of her main focus could expose more specific actions she'd taken, like specific phone calls or people she'd been in contact with through other means. Yes, I suppose it could, should that information linkage be made, etc. Definitely should be taken seriously. This, like the leak of her name itself, should be investigated, and anyone who is guilty of leaking said information should be punished severely.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:36 PM) So our intelligence agencies are now leaking the top secret information that she was supposedly looking at? When does the investigations into these leaks start? It already has, and Mr. Libby is going to pay for his mistake. Others may as well. As far as this particular leak, fortunately, I see nothing in the article of any substance that Iran wouldn't already know we are doing. But that leak should also be investigated, as soon as the Plame leak investigation and prosecution is complete.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) After we got the 1st email, I sent out this. hey brian, on feb 14 do i have to wait for an email from you to order tickets or at 10:00 am do i just try to get online to order with my acct # and password. i get my email at work and i'm going to be home on the 14th and if i need to hear from you i will have to change my email address. please advise me of the best way to handle. thanks I got back.. Better to be clear and ask questions! You can just go online at that time, you do not need to receive the email. As long as you have your account # and password you?re all set! Interesting. That's different than what most people on here (myself included) seem to have been told. And then there was at least one other person who apparently already got a special password. Me thinks the ticket reps are not delivering a consistent message. I'll be watching my email. If I see nothing at 10am, I'll try to login with my ticket account password. If that fails, I'll be calling the ticket office.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) Have you guys seen any links on where to go to buy the tickets tomorrow?? If by tomorrow you mean the closed sale for season holders (81 and 27), you will get an email tomorrow morning with your special password and a link to the site.

Some even better quotes in the Trib article from Saturday: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1,7037574.story

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) I didn't realize you two were so tight and that he actually confides in you, telling you his true motives. OK Chaos, I must concede, there is one person on this board who tends to blame everything on Bush (*cough* Sqwert *cough*)

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) I don't think it's marketing as much as I think most people believe in the inherent good of other people. Most democrats want me to believe Bush is a bad evil person and I don't. I'm supposed to believe he is a racist, oil hungry, religious crazed, war mongering, anti evironmentalist who hates women and our civil liberties. Well I don't believe it. I believe he wants the best for this country, and while his opinions may differ from others, he isn't an evil person. He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. The more ridiculous the accusations democrats come up with the more I tend to not believe them. That's what works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate Thank you for further illustrating my point with your post: open with the "good people of America" statement, make some wild accusatory statements and attribute them to Democrats (even though no on here is saying those things), throw in some hyberbole examples, and close with the labeling of the all Dems as not deserving of your opening statement.

I have to say, on this board anyway, I see a LOT more of the GOP'ers saying the Dems will blame everything on Bush, then any liberals or anyone else actually doing so. I've said it before, the GOP is vastly superior to the Dems at marketing. This is not an insult, its a compliment. They are particularly good at theme-building (Dems complain about everything and never contribute ideas), and reverse-position placement (defend the theft of freedoms by calling it defending freedom). Combine them, and the result is the argument made in this thread. Neat trick, huh? It works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:06 AM) I do understand that this was not a local disaster. I also understand that the first responses should have come from the local and state levels. As I've said, the Pres has to shoulder some of the blame. But it appears he's shouldering a vast majority of it. Regarding the first paragraph, I believe I stated the local and state responses were much better in the other two states. I've never given LA any credit for anything other than a major fubar. I don't see the press hanging Bush over this. Seems they are hanging Brown and Chertoff right now. Bush did nominate Brown, and could have pushed the response harder (and should have). But FEMA, Brown and Chertoff/DHS should be #1 on the blame list.

The initial version of the "Katrina Report" and a FEMA re-org: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ll=chi-news-hed Note that one of the main findings was that local evacuations and responses actually complicated things. Again, first responders are only meant to be that - FIRST responders. Command and control of emergency management needs to be handled at the level where all the available resources can be used and controlled. In this case, clearly federal. Some good ideas from Chertoff - response teams, satellite tracking, etc. But what is missing, that would really make it a more effective system, is the ability to self-declare disaster, and do so BEFORE it actually hits. If FEMA could have this authority in some fashion, they could truly respond as necessary. If that is not possible, then DHS or someone above FEMA needs to have the onus placed squarely in their lap to be there to make that call whenever FEMA asks for that permission.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) The problem I have is that the whole premise is based on the courts having jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter, the law Congress made to begin with. I go back to the Federalist papers when they were talking about the executive branch - and during "wartime" the president was (is) to be given pretty broad powers. I know that there is a witch hunt to make sure that the verbage "DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" sticks in the media. But if we are intercepting communications in an effort to nail these scumbags, that can supercede any law written by Congress or any powers granted by a court (FISA Court). You can argue, and rather strongly, that neither of these two apply in this case. Now, I'll get the argument that this isn't "wartime" because Congress didn't "declare war". The resolutions passed by Congress are pretty clear that the president was given powers to "conduct a war" even though there was never any formal declaration. And besides, there is no traditional "sovereign nation" to declare war on this time. Let me come full circle and say that FISA and other laws passed by Congress are applicable most of the time, and it's my understanding that FISA procedures ARE followed most of the time, but you wouldn't think that by all the lashings that are out there on ALL sides of the media. I have a different argument than the declared-war thing. My stance is that war powers should never extend to any action against US citizens, per my interperetation of both the Constitution and the Comitatus Act. Therefore, any spying of this sort against citizens without a warrant is not protected under war powers and is inherently wrong.

I've had Sprint for years now, and they have been great, save for one thing: the renewal process. They are always running deals for NEW customers, and I have to pull teeth to get them to make the same offer to existing customers (didn't anyone ever teach them that its cheaper to keep customers than to get new ones?). Other than that, they have been the most reliable network I've used. I had verizon for a little while, and Ameritech before they were bough by Verizon. Verizon was awful in every sense.

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) I think the fourth amendment, written before Carter's presidency, made it illegal for the government to spy on its own people. FISA creates an exception to that rule for the purposes of national security as long as congress is informed. Furthermore, the idea of "zones of privacy" was created under Griswald v Connecticut, also before Carter. While Carter did not violate FISA, he still broke the law. That's the way I interpret these laws anyway. I agree. It was wrong for Carter, wrong for Clinton and wrong for Bush. Was it more wrong for Bush because FISA had been installed to make it easier? I'd say so - I think he was more reckless with his powers than the others. But it was still wrong for any of them. And the argument of probably cause doesn't fly with me, because that label can only be acceptable legally when a court says so (or by a citizen of law enforcement while in situ act of commision of a felony, or immediate public safety in situ, neither of which apply here). No warrantless searches, period.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:22 AM) Top 5 worst presidents: 5) Abarham Lincoln (thank god the bastard was shot) 4) Ronald Regan 3) Andrew Jackson 2) George Washington (so overrated) 1) ..... and GEORGE W. BUSH The W in his name stands for WORTHLESS PEICE OF s***! Wow.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 11:23 PM) I also got caught in that and yes they are very different for me it was a tough call I do think he is by far the most over rated president he has always been top 10 in all history books which I can not see why. I would have added him if I had more places to put him. That amazes me - I mean that he could be in a top ten list. How can anyone put a man who openly advocated the annihilation of two entire racial groups/cultures in a list like that? Gotta love those selective history texts from grade school. Jackson rises up against the Electoral College (which I actually agree with) and came from some backwater hole, and made it to Prez, so he must be great, right?

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) First of all it is Andrew Johnson and secondly If you were to read my explanation you would have seen that I forgot to add him to the list. No, I am referring to Andrew Jackson, and I believe Balta is as well. Different guy. I myself got some of their histories mixed up in an earlier thread, but they are two different presidents. Andrew Jackson is about the most hateful man to hold the office. He outwardly stated he wanted to exterminate the entire American Indian population, and said similar things about Blacks. He was also paranoid to the point of mental illness.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 11, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) And the quotes that started this thread aren't Democratic "talking points"? Politics are so screwed up. Of course they were. That was my point. Note I said nothing about one party or the other specifically.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 08:10 AM) You've talked to these people? I do know a reporter who managed to get into NO before FEMA, then went on to see areas outside NO early on. The mess was everywhere. The only reason we saw so much about NO is the large population (and death toll) center. Response to areas in LA outside NO was horrific, and the same was said about MS in some areas. Of course first responders are there on the ground. And while you keep asking why no on understands first response, why do you not understand that this was NOT a local disaster? The resources required were regional and federal, and federal coordination was necessary for anything beyond initial incident response ( and would have been preferable for that as well).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 06:42 PM) I'm still sticking with Andrew Jackson. I second that. How he isn't on this poll is beyond me.