lostfan

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) At $190,000 a year, that's a very good salary. The reason the wealthy run for office isn't because of the salary or lack thereof. Its the campaign finance system, the financial demands, and power/influence relationships built around the wealthy. Plus, people like the President for example... they hardly ever have to pay for anything with their own money while they're in office.

I recall saying (not sure if it was on this board) that if Javy could build on 2007 with this improved offense that he had a good chance at a Cy Young. Granted, I didn't actually make a prediction, but the simple fact that I used the words "Vazquez" and "Cy Young" in the same sentence that wasn't something like "Javier Vazquez will not win a Cy Young" makes that statement look dumb. I did think we were set with Javy as the #2 though. Instead Javy has pissed us off all year. Like many, I didn't think Alexei Ramirez would be worth much this year and belonged in AAA, I felt he would be this good, but never this soon. I never lost confidence in Danks. I wasn't really that pessimistic about giving Floyd a shot, either. But I thought at least one of them would bomb early. I thought Swisher would bat 20-30 points higher. Maybe he still will. If he can, and his OBP still stays in the upper 300s and his OPS is comfortably in the 800s, I will still consider it a good acquisition. Basically, I thought this whole year would be a transition year in which we were better than the disaster of last year, maybe a couple games over .500, but nowhere near competitive, least of all into August.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:21 AM) Going by Obama's words earlier on Kosovo, he seems to think so. http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DVmMzAxODBjZTc= We are talking about an incoming NATO member who is trying to move into the Eurpoean community, and who has been recognized by the entire planet as a sovergien nation. You would have to assume that by "certain obligations" he specifically meant military action otherwise it's a stretch to draw that conclusion.

That article really draws some half-assed conclusions. What exactly is the author trying to say, because he never said it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) Didn't stop the NYT from running the McCain story, did it? No, that was just shoddy journalism. Trying to start something where there wasn't. That article was so lame, they never even came out and actually accused him of anything.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:51 AM) Another point, besides the one that you just made, which is EXACTLY it for me: How DARE the media run with this! Keep in mind that the Foley scandal broke pretty much right at election time in 2006, and this story was SAT ON for almost a year. The Enquirer just scooped every major news media outlet for a year. Now how does that happen? Because nothing was proven until he came out and admitted it himself. Prior to that, it was nothing more than a typical front-page Enquirer story which means nothing, and the only thing that was confirmed was the fact that he went to the hotel. The media (reputable ones anyway) doesn't run with stories until they confirm facts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:47 AM) For me its not that he cheated on his wife, though it doesn't help. The part that really cheeses me is tha the paraded his dying cancer ridden wife as one of his biggest reasons for everything in his campaign, and all of the policies that he wanted to enact. He wanted the whole rest of the country to make all of these changes because of the life changing experiences he has had, and it turns out that wasn't even enough to keep his pecker in his pants. If he had just cheated on his wife that would be one thing, but he used her to symbolize everything he stood for, and it turns out that wasn't important enough for him to consider as sacred. Screw John Edwards and the two faced horse he rode in on. Right. And I agreed with most of that earlier in the thread. Still, I think he's human.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:28 AM) We are not comparing the accomplishments of MLK and John Edwards are we? I knew somebody was going to ask that. No. I'm talking strictly about how everybody is ripping how Edwards is a s***bag of a person horrible person because he cheated around on his wife, to point out the fallacy of labeling someone's entire character based off one f***up. MLK just happens to be the easiest example because everybody knows at least most of his story.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:20 PM) OK, check out this screen grab. With all the hoopla from certain leftist pundits of racism in every ad or speech, look at all the interesting choice of words here, to go along with Obama's new logo. "The head throbs", "The American voter will get the shaft", "by not seizing the moment", "growing movement" Also, just interesting how this columinst refers to "Bill & Hillary Clinton, geraldine ferrero and OTHER Republicans." I wonder when they switched parties? Is he the same guy that was on Morning Joe last week? Basically he was talking about veiled racism. Which is there, but he was stretching so far it was embarrassing and making me cringe.

Well Uribe basically was only allowed 2 strikes on that at-bat, for whatever that's worth.

QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:42 PM) Hawk mentioned "no hits" too It's ok if the broadcaster mentions it nonchalantly at the start of an inning, as part of a routine score update. It's NOT ok if he uses the exact words.

Bah, there it goes.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) Germany and France aren't getting invaded. Really, if we don't defend Georgia in some way with NATO might as well be blown up as it is meaningless. Georgia was an ally who already was living up to their end of the bargain by helping with military actions. They already had signed treaties with NATO. They were going to be a member, Russia just invaded them before it was technically complete. This just further goes to highlight what a sound strategic decision by Russia this was. All we can really do is hope it backfires on them somehow like it did to us.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:05 PM) they have one with NATO. But I guess since they aren't full members yet we don't have an obligation to defend them. That's what I was trying to get at.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:01 PM) They already voted to be members and would have been a full member in 2009. The have already signed treaties with NATO and were alligned allies since 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO It was being fast tracked by the Bush administration but it still hasn't happened yet, like you just said they don't have full membership. It's not the same as Russia attacking Germany or France. That would mean full-blown retaliation and a big mess.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) They just did. It's a full on invasion. Since when is Georgia a NATO country? The dynamics of an invasion like that are completely different when you invade a country that has a defensive pact with multiple other countries. So if you attack a NATO country you get retaliation from the US, UK, France, Germany, etc (assuming they're not half-assing it like they're doing in Afghanistan).

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:12 PM) Perhaps they lack wisdom but there is definitely a rationale in the Russian regime reigniting the Cold War type atmosphere. That period of time when Russians were powerful, and scary is a source of pride for many Russians. Lets remember that Stalin is probably more popular than Gorbachev in Russia still today. Hence appearing powerful and frightening solidifies the regime's grip on power. The U.S., Canada and the NATO allies seem totally pooched by the way. I think Putin said something like "anybody that doesn't miss the old Soviet Union has no heart, but anybody who wants it back has no brain."

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) They are blatantly invading one right now. How many would be too many? Is there a threshold you would be Ok with, such as 'well, let them have 3 countries'. What I'm saying is I don't see them doing anything like that. If they did, they may as well just come out and declare war on the United States.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) Let's take it back one step then. They don't conquer or station troops in Georgia's capital, but the war brings down the government and brings a pro-Russian government to power. And Russian troops reach and take control of those pipelines across the country we're so interested in, thus giving them total control of the Caspian energy supplies. That's a totally reasonable set of goals for the Russians in this conflict...remove a pro-Western, anti-Russian government and strengthen their energy controls. What do we do then? Short of overt military action, which is unrealistic, I don't see what we can do. But speaking of that, this was basically routine during the Cold War, except we'd just deny it was us doing it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 06:47 PM) Options are limited, as I think the Iraq war has hurt our ability to build a coalition to sanction Russia. If the US is going to push for these countries to back US policy, we need to be able to defend them if they join us and Russia starts bombing the crap out of them. Right now I think the only thing we can really do is give these countries a means to defend themselves by suppling them with weapons. That, or just basically concede these countries to Russia. It is a really tricky situation as I wouldn't want to get into a conflict with Russia again. But what should the US do if Russia just invades all these former soviet Republics and claims them as theirs? If you mean "sanction" in the UN sense, that's impossible by default. Now, if Russia starts blatantly violating international law and takes over all these soverign countries again (simply on the grounds that they want to) I think the international community would probably consider that an open act of war. Russia's making a strategic move here that looks bold, but I don't think they're crazy. They didn't like the Cold War any more than we did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 04:58 PM) So...let me fire the counterpoint back at you. Should NATO really be expanding to areas that are far-flung from its base countries, and which are therefore hard to support, and which on top of that fact aren't totally in control of their own territory and the minorities in it? While Russia is certainly playing the aggressor now and they certainly baited Georgia in to acting, let's not forget that it was Georgia itself which launched this campaign in the first place by sending troops in to these restive regions. How much blood and treasure can America afford to spend on issues like this? I'm reminded of the situation before the first world war on this...wide-spread, intertangling alliances, which culminated in having a person of Bosnian nationality kill an Austrian leader in the middle of a Serbian city followed by Germany marching on France and Russia. If it turned out that Russia was willing to risk war with the rest over an issue like the treatment of a minority along its borders...would you be prepared to fight the Russians over the South Ossetians? And this is why Russia doesn't like it. I see where you're going with this. I actually don't get why we feel the need to do things that burn Russia's ass and we act like however they feel about it is no big deal. I read Russian news translations (as I do a lot of things) and they seemed content with the status quo for a while, which was "the US can't do anything to us, and we can't do anything to them either, so we're good, nobody's attacking anybody and no reason to escalate it." But for some reason we insist on the ABM shield in former Eastern bloc countries. Ok, all well and good, the U.S. isn't really that concerned with Russia as a national security threat, but they basically see it as a direct threat to their national security (to them, we are still the biggest threat, that never changed except we're just friendlier now) and a reason to escalate the arms race all over. Except that now, they can actually do it again. I wonder how they'd act if we scrapped the whole thing (which would probably happen if any Democrat gets elected and it's no guarantee to keep going with a Republican in office either). I'd imagine a lot of their anxiety over our intentions would go away.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) I do lose some respect for him, yes. Some. But obviously not all. It didn't, nor should it destroy what you think of him when you weigh it next to everything else he's accomplished (this applies to everyone, just using MLK as an example because everybody basically agrees on how great of a person he was).

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) I just made my case for Quentin in the MLB forums on SportingNews, all have which been covered here. I used to post quite often on TSN. I got tired of the people there though.

Also, they don't like having former Soviet republics in NATO but there is really nothing they can do about it. At the same time, they're not going to just come out and attack a NATO country unprovoked, that would be craziness.

I noticed almost immediately the tone of the 2 responses. They were calcluated and deliberate. To paraphrase them a little: McCain: I condemn this action by Russia, they must stop unconditionally. (Wants to come off as strong, accomplished potential world leader) Obama: All parties need to exercise restraint and we need to work out a diplomatic solution (Doesn't call out Russia directly, wants to be seen as impartial, and ready to reach out and work with others to find solutions)