NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) Try now. OK, so, one step forward... I do now have the attachments section, but it doesn't actually work. I can click on Browse, select a file, the file name appears in the Browse window, and then I click ADD THIS ATTACHMENT. After I click it, the name leaves the BROWSE window, but the attachment doesn't take. Any ideas?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:52 PM) I've been otta touch. Someone asked about Pod's health and I have the same concern about Hermy. What EXACTLY was his back injury last year and what is the update for 06? With Marte and Viz being gone, I'm sure K Dubs has a plan and I'm wondering if it includes Hermy. I have no idea of his status, but would like to know as well. His back problem, from what I recall of a thread a few weeks back, is basically Sciatica (sp?). He has one or two discs that are being impinged. I had originally gotten the impression he'd have surgery, but lately I've heard he is spending the winter re-habbing instead. Back problems are of course tricky - surgery is no guarantee at all, and can be very risky.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:17 PM) I think you need to divide further, as the Christian Right Wingers and the Neocons are really two entirely different species. Probably so. I think I used neocons in a different way than the conventional group term. Maybe 3 groups. 80's-style, 90's style and 00's style.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:09 PM) I believe politics changed with Reagan. Charisma carried Ron a long way. Then the worse possible combination happened, giant deficts being accepted by the voters, the have your cake and someone else will pay for it. Cable TV and 24/7 news, instead of allowing indepth coverage, became news when you want it. There isn't any more depth, just the same shallow sound bites played 72 times a day, instead of 3 times on the network. Even though Kerry "disproved" and had great expectations for any appearance of flip flopping, the mud stuck and he couldn't shake it. The Swiftees just had to make enough noise, it didn't matter if it was true, no one had time to report the substance and Rush always distills it for you anyways. The GOP Media Network took a 51-49 election and with pretty red and blue blocks, tried to make it look like 90% of the country wanted Bush. And sadly, some people fell for. The GOP attacks our legal system when judges follow their constituational responsibility, they attack our freedom of speech and the press with cries of bias, they rack up deficits, and convince voters someone else is going to ride in and pay for it all. And if you consider yourself a REP, then they have convinced you to back their play and defend whatever slimy stock deal or campaign trick they use. So we have style over substance. The GOP attacks a candidate because she has no legs and that must be the only reason she was selected. Convicted before she even speaks. Perhaps that is why they may nominate McCain. He's a POW and they will be looking for a sympathetic figure. Excellent points. I particularly remember how bizarre it seemed, after the 2004 elections, that so many media people referred to Bush's new MANDATE. Excuse me? The guy skidded by in 2000 without the popular vote, and then won in 2004 by 51-49, despite being a war-time president riding a huge wave of social conservatism. And then people were SHOCKED when his popularity fell back and he couldn't get anything done in Congress. Some people really are easily manipulated.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) How can you say that? Bush pushed for a constitutional amendment codifying discrimination against a group of people. The first time that would have been written into the constitution since the 1700s. See, I think you're missing my point here. He speaks about the amendment, and about other issues, talking up a game for it to pass. But he gets about 75% of the way there. And that's not just Congress blocking him, either. He could get some of those issues moving if he wanted to. But I think he just wants to show that he's on their side, and then let's it dangle in the wind when it gets close. I really do believe this is the case, but it's very subtle. And for the record, I find the very idea of any law or amendment that is as obviously discriminatory as these marriage acts disgusting. Truly. I am firmly with the Democrats on this one. It scares the heck out of me that there are so many people in this country that are so full of hate.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:45 AM) Yes you can vote: but you have to declare which party's ballot you would like on election day. So I can walk in on primary day, pick a party ballot and vote on that one ballot? Gotcha, thanks.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:17 AM) The truth of the matter is, "conservatives" only vote Republican, because the party is supposed to be for "hands off" government more then the Democrats. The even-more-truth of the matter is this is becoming less and less true as time has moved forward here. It's interesting that you say the Democratic party is a wider variety of people. I tend to agree with that, at least by old standards. But, why is it that they are slowly getting away from that reach to "all sorts of people" and shifting their own focus to what's more "fringe" politics? By the way, this is good stuff. I like this kind of conversation. Along these lines, I really think that the Republican party is fracturing into two camps. One is the 90's model, which is highly pro-business, stringent fiscal policy, smaller government, and socially moderate (on the average). The other is this weird neo-con group, the religious right, who are socially very conservative, anti-individual-freedoms, and fiscally ambivalent. Which leads to something else that might spark some interesting discussion. I think that Bush played the far-right in both elections to get him into office, but despite outward appearances, I don't think Bush is a social conservative at all. I dislike a lot of his actions as President, but if you look at the really contentious social issues (abortion, religion in schools, gay marriage), he's talked a big game, but has stopped short of making any real moves. Frankly, I think he played the Cons, and they may not know it yet.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:04 AM) I was a proud "I" for most of my voting-age life until I decided I needed to be able to vote in party primaries and couldn't if I was registered as an Independent. I lived in states previously where I's could vote in both primaries, which I kind of liked. Now back in Illinois, and I am not sure how that works here. Anyone know off hand? If I didn't register as affiliated, can I vote in primaries?

Well, with Young traded and Owens playing Wet Willie, I guess we know for sure now who is going to start in CF in 2006. Brian Anderson, you are cleared for take off.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:38 AM) I was thinking that was the rest of the forum. I also thought that there are a few here who fancy themselves Independents, but the rest of the group would not. I support more than a handful of GOP candidates, and consider myself an independent based on neither party really wanting me. Top of my head the anti-death penalty and balance the budget gets me kicked out of the GOP and my gun rights and balance the budget get me kicked out of the Dems. But to most here I look like a dyed in the wool Dem with a strange crush on DeLay. Honestly, if you put an I option in your poll that I saw, I'd bet the I's would not be too far from R's and D's. But maybe not, who knows. I just thought I'd stand up for that group. Neither party would want me either.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:37 AM) This is America... You only get two choices. Reminds me of what a Poli Sci teacher once shouted in a Comp Euro Poli class, speaking about Germany's electoral system. Something like (excuse the Anglisized spelling): SEI HABEN SWEIT STIMMEN!!! It means, "you have two votes". In mass elections for their parliament, they vote once for a party, and once for a candidate in the given election. The totals for party are tallied up, as a percentage of the vote. The use that percentage over the available seats to get a number, and that X number of seats goes to the X most popular individual candidates. Kind of cool. Again, I am sure I butchered the German, for which I apologize.

Seems to me there are at least two disparate ® parties right now anyway. The D's are more in the same camp, but they don't have their s*** together just yet. I think you are shortchanging this board by only putting in D and R. I am willing to bet there are a lot if "I"s out there, and maybe a few G, C and L's as well.

Hey Tex- Where is the room for independents? What if some of us have views that fall on both sides of the aisle?

QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:11 PM) White Sox finalize trade for Vazquez The Associated Press December 20, 2005, 6:57 PM CST The White Sox bolstered the tough rotation that won them the World Series on Tuesday, finalizing their trade for Javier Vazquez with the Arizona Diamondbacks. The White Sox got Vazquez and $4 million from the Diamondbacks for right-hander Orlando Hernandez, reliever Luis Vizcaino and minor league outfielder Chris Young. The trade was initially agreed to last Wednesday pending player physicals and the approval of commissioner Bud Selig, who had to sign off on the deal because of the cash involved. Arizona is to give the Sox $1 million next season and $3 million in 2007 to offset the salary of Vazquez, who is owed $24 million over the next two years. When the Diamondbacks acquired Vazquez from the Yankees last year, New York sent Arizona $9 million to cover part of the right-hander's salary. Thank you. So since he was set to make $11.5M in 2006 and $12.5 in 2007, with the offsets as they are above, his salaries are effectively: $10.5M in 2006 $9.5M in 2007 Hmmm. Not sure if I think this guy is a ten million dollar pitcher. I am glad we got something for Duque and Viz, but with Young thrown in to ARZ and us having to pay this guy such big money, I am not 100% sold on the deal. If he fulfills the potential people seem to say he has, then it's probably worth it. But if his numbers are like they were in 2005, I think we got the worse end of the deal here.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:27 PM) Be happy that the deal is finally official, than worry about how much money the White Sox are getting. Oh I'm pretty happy the deal went through. But the level of my happiness is pretty dependent on whether we are paying Vazquez 8M a year or 12M a year (equivalent). I'm just not sure he's a 12M a year pitcher.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 06:47 PM) Vazquez deal is official http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws I still want to know about the money. No final number in the article that I see. Anyone here a final on that? I've heard anywhere from 3M to 8M total.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:23 PM) Big blow to the Creation "Scientists", oops, I mean the ID proponents. Big victory for sciece, education, and church/state separation. And good to see that science and education will not be made to bend over in Dover. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1424933 A victory for freedom and the Constitution. Even better that it was a Republican judge, hopefully stemming the coming tide of cries of "activist judges" from the new-school religious conservative sect of the Republican party.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) wouldnt a judge trying to overturn roe vs wade be considered an "Activist Judge?" By Republican definition, isnt an activist judge somewhat trying to re-write law from the bench rather than interpret it??? Evidence would seem to indicate that the Republican definition of an "activist" judge is any judge whose interperetation of the law doesn't fit well with the Repulican Party's views. But yes, to answer your question on the surface, they describe an "activist" judge as one who "legislates from the bench". How that would apply to an overturn of Roe v Wade would be a matter of interperetation and labels on both sides, which is why that whole "activist" marketing scheme is really pretty laughable.

:headshake I'm just going to hope that the hatred/paranoia level about the Cubs here doesn't escalate to the pathological level it is over at WSI. HC spent a good while announcing for the Sox, and his namesake restaurant is actually pretty darn good.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) There is already a guy in there selling some club level tickets. I know, but he's selling sets of 2 (looking for 4), and I was looking mostly for Saturday games (his one Saturday game listed I'm out of the country). Oh well. I'll have to see what I can scrounge up in the spring.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:45 PM) Club level is sold out. I put a thread in Swapmeet asking if anyone around here wants to sell any sets of Club seats. I was thinking if some people did it as individuals, they might want to sell off some games. /shameless plug

BTW, does anyone know of a good place to check who was non-tendered for all teams? Will some site have a list up after today's deadline? Maybe MLB.com or Rotoworld? Just curious if anyone knows off-hand.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) Again, Perez could be back on a minor league deal. I am not in favor of it, I don't think it will happen, but it's possible. We still have too many strong OF minor-leaguers for them to do that. He'd just be in the way with this organization, whereas he might have a shot at getting on with another club.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) Hopefully there will be a few left for opening day for us split holders. We got the Hit and Run, so we already have that. I'm hoping to pick up some weekend Cubs game tix. And some other weekends as well, actually.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 11:38 AM) Stand in line. And I wouldn't hold high hopes.. we (30+ years on one account and 11 on another) have been told we aren't going to be able to get the 8 per account we usually get. Yeah, I got the impression that as a 27-game holder, we'd be very lucky to get any extras at all to the Cubs or Opening Series. But at least we get a pre-public shot at some other games we want. And we might get lucky on the big series.