lostfan

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) This forum has 3 or 4 regular posters who work in some area of the financial markets. We actually have some real expertise here. lol, I noticed. I learn more about what's really going on from this forum between you, SS2k5, Balta, etc. than I ever do from reading the news. I've only ever had to pull my "look this is what I do for a living" card once so far. I guess I never say anything controversial enough and it doesn't look like bulls***.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) I hope, but don't expect it. Congress is hellbent on finding someone to blame, and instead of having the testicles to say "This is your own damned fault for not conserving energy at all!", they go looking for an easy target. You can't be honest with America like that. It just doesn't work. The public doesn't appreciate that type of honesty when it's aimed at them even when it's true (or especially when it's true), which is why I could never serve as an elected official.

You guys are too smart for me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) All the more reason to publish it, as long as it doesn't break any rules or laws. Let McCain state his peace. If he hangs himself with his own words, then so be it. If he looks good, so be it. I'm in the "they should've just published it" crowd. At the same time I'm against any further dumbing down of this already pathetically dumbed-down election news cycle. That's a fine line to walk.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) You totally missed it, but I focused on content as well when I mentioned them trying to force changes based on what was suggested. Like I said, if they want something specific to print, go ahead and put your own name on it so that it is what it is... the NYTs opinion, or at least their interpretation of McCain's opinion. And accidently you hit on the biggest point of all here, money. The NYT knows that they will sell more newspapers by creating controversy and catering to their audience. Rejecting the content of people that they don't agree with is probably the best publicity that they could create. The draft of McCain's op-ed was pretty controversial IMO. I can summarize it as follows: "Obama sucks and he is dumb. He doesn't know s*** about foreign policy, specifically Iraq."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 08:59 AM) Briggs too. Briggs got owned. The funny thing about Briggs is that while he still got a decent contract, by not shutting his damn mouth and overplaying his hand (fits in beautifully in the Bears defense, but otherwise has no special skills) he actually ended up with less guaranteed $$ than the original offer(s) he got. He listened to Rosenhaus too much.

Yeah, suffice it to say there are conservatives in media. It's a lot more than 10%.

Honestly, is asking for a (REALISTIC) definition of victory too much to ask? This is one of those questions I ask where I already know the answer to, but pretend I don't. In the context of the Iraq war, or Afghanistan, there is no such thing as "victory." It is completely abstract propaganda fuel, so that's the reason you always hear people talking about it but never actually saying what it is - defining it kind of neuters the word. "Victory" happens when we say it does, and when we get what we want. Unfortunately that works two ways, the enemy will declare "victory" no matter what we do, short of a genocidal campaign. So technically then we would "lose," right, the way the Soviets did when they left Afghanistan? No, not if our leaders stop using the language of the enemy propagandists.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) not too happy with this. I'm worried that future bear players will try to get out of their deals and use this as an example. I love JA because he stood up to all this nonsense in the past. Urlacher should have played out his contract or get traded. Not every Bear is the face of the franchise. Urlacher already barely had any leverage as it is. I recall Vasher doing something like this at the beginning of '06 and he was politely told to sit down, shut up, and play out his rookie contract and wait for an extension like everyone else.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 06:25 PM) Possibly, but Kenny balked at going after Hunter, Rowand, and Cabrera this off-season. He didn't balk. He whiffed. And I was pissed about it at the time but now I'm kind of glad.

And yes, Hester's extension will probably come sooner rather than later. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

I can't believe that people were actually worried about this. It was never not going to happen.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Even better... I lol'd.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) Am I the only one who thinks St Clair would be more than adequate at lg? Everyone's worried about that position, but I thought he looked pretty good there in his stint last season. I know he's also the primary backup tackle, but I don't see the reason he can't back up there while starting at lg. (If he's pressed into service at tackle, you use Metcalf or Beekman at lg.) Why not have the best 5 out there to start the year? It's really just Metcalf that I'm worried about. Beekman is a giant question mark, but the fact that they didn't let him on the field AT ALL even when the season was obviously a lost cause is a cause for concern IMO.

Obviously the Vikings will have an elite D-line, but their line has always been one of the better lines in the NFL (although not so much for pass rushing). However, the Bears have also had an elite D-line for the past few years now, in fact the defense is built entirely around it. Last year was the aberration because of a lack of depth at DT (which has since been addressed), along with Tommie Harris playing basically on one leg. I think people are already starting to overlook that. Defense isn't going to be the question with the Bears in '08. How competitive they are depends entirely on how the O-line plays, IMO.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 11:06 AM) And can you count on Williams as a rookie. Don't get me wrong, he was absolutely the right choice for the Bears at that spot, but can you rely on a rookie tackle to produce from the get go? There'll be a lot of pressure on him, especially considering he'll be protecting Orton or Grossman's blind side. I think Williams will be fine. I mean, even highly-projected rookie are never a sure thing, but I think Williams was about as safe as the Bears could get. Now what I'm actually worried about is whether the below average (I'm being generous there) play at LG is going to hinder Williams's learning curve.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 06:52 PM) Don't they have more important things to worry about? This is childish and low class, even for San Francisco. I agree. It does have a mild chuckle factor though.

The Royals are who we thought they were! And we let em off the hook! If you wanna crown em, then crown their ass!

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) this one is on thornton -- he sucked Well Danks giving up 6 ER through 4 didn't help either

The offense did enough to win this game. Blame the pitching - the best pitcher on this staff failed to deliver, which is rare, and the bullpen blew it in the 8th.

The velocity police on this site can take a deep breath now, Jenks is throwing 95-96.

QUOTE (robin23 @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 04:01 PM) They have played terrible for 8 innings what would make me think that is going to change against soria. Well I mean it's not like they're getting 2 hit like last night.

By the way, evidently you guys have forgotten about Joey Cora.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) You're not overreacting, that was easily the dumbest coaching move of the year. No, there's been quite a few actually but people haven't been getting too upset about it as long as we're winning.

f*** you Anderson for sending AJ around