lostfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2008 -> 07:43 PM) Its no more racist than Obama getting 90% of the black vote. /facepalm As I got at in the other thread, this is wrong on so many levels.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2008 -> 07:49 PM) I mentioned it in another thread, but why is it ignorance when WV votes for Clinton because of Obama's race, but not ignorance when 90% of blacks vote for Obama because of his race? Racism is racism. Why is it "worse" one way than the other. If you ask me, its why we never get past race in this country, because we have different standards for different people. Every time I hear this question it makes me want to punch a wall. It really isn't that simple. And (most) black people do not vote for Obama just because he's black. If that was the case then every black person who's ever run for president would've had overwhelming support.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 13, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) yea i'm totally surprised. i haven't been looking at any polls or really following politics much lately Barack is pretty much the nominee and could lose an important state for the Dems by 30 points. i didn't expect something like that to happen. figured the Dems would start to all support Obama now. From the beginning nobody expected Obama to win WV, nomination over or not over. The demographics favored Clinton heavily and she's still in the race. Even Obama said 20% would be a miracle or something like that (although he was just lowering expectations some). He's going to lose big in KY too. But it doesn't change anything, it's still basically mathematically impossible for Hillary to win, and he will get another blowout win in Oregon too next week.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) And if Obama loses the south, he's done for. In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election. The fact that it's even in play is news in and of itself. I don't think McCain wins CA, but if it's in play, it spells trouble for Obama in the greater part of the country. Seeing the polls, if California is in play, so is Texas (neither will be come the general election). That's why polls at this point really don't mean that much of anything.

Ok tell me, are they not voting for him because he's Muslim or they're not voting for him because of his "radical leftist" black (Christian) pastor? Which is it? Seriously? I know they're not divided into groups. If you know about one you have the capacity to know about the other and I would imagine the number who is only aware of one of those issues is relatively small. Truth be told, I would actually feel relieved if some people just came out and said they're not voting for him because he's black. I mean, you know they're out there, just nobody is really saying it out loud. At least then we'd see what's real.

The gap in the white vote is most sharply divided among older whites around 45 and up, BTW (they're probably the largest chunk of the electorate though). Whites in their 30s and under seem more likely to support Obama than Hillary.

I don't even know why the NYT would say that, that's just sloppy journalism. Obama's repeatedly said he would have talks with enemies and he does it rather loudly and flamboyantly all the time.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 13, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) GTFA. ??? I thought I knew all message board-speak

So how bad is it I didn't realize Tex was joking until about halfway through the first paragraph in spite of the green at the top?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 13, 2008 -> 10:34 AM) The definitely werent all his fault but a good pitcher doesnt collpase and start getting rocked as soon as his defense makes a bad play or two. Same thing with the 2-0 loss in Toronto, Crede made a 2-out error and Mark just gave up a bunch of hits in a row and that lost the game. I'm pretty sure he wasn't so much absolving Buehrle of any blame so much as he was saying it wasn't "100%" on Buehrle.

At this point, I think it'd be fair to give Florida their delegates but slice them in half the way the GOP did, so they are still penalized but they still do have a say just with less influence. It was more or less a level playing field there in all honesty since nobody campaigned (tired of hearing about how Obama ran ads there, he ran ads on national stations, it's not like he can just do them in 49 states, plus Hillary went to some authorized fundraisers anyway). However the MI vote is completely tainted and nothing short of a total re-vote can fix that, and that's not happening. The options were literally "Clinton" and "I don't care who but not Clinton," plus Edwards was still on the ballot. Also I'm getting tired of the Hillary camp talking about how Obama did this and likes it this way.

Was the "Brian Anderson sucks/no he doesn't" thing beaten as heavily into the ground here as it was at WSI, and pretty much everywhere else that large groups of Sox fans gather on the net? If it was I'm glad to see it's finally abated.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 13, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) Anything Mariotti related, although today's was pretty funny from a man that doesn't allow you to respond via e-mail. But yes, Mariotti. Why do you read it? I don't. When someone posts a Mariotti article here or any other board I can usually tell even if I don't see the byline right away and skip over it.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 13, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) I think what happened was they didn't actually see the interview, had a second hand source tell them, and got on the GOP email service to spray out that Obama considers Israel a sore. That's kind of how the whole Jeremiah Wright thing gets perpetuated too. When talking to people it's painfully obvious who actually knows more than the couple of video clips and short summaries and drew their own logical conclusions and who is happily fed their opinions by the talking heads on TV and have only seen 2 minutes of him, if even that, and can't even quote anything other than a couple of inflammatory one-liners. That's one of the ways cognitive dissonance works. To be fair the Dems do it too when they talk about the war.

Either they are flat-out lying, or they just plain don't understand how America should conduct its foreign policy and they aren't taking it seriously. I think it's a little of both actually.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) I think in Wass's case, he was a gimic pitcher who got figured out. Anyone with a quirk seems to be the more times you see them, the easier that quirk becomes to figure out. Hell Dontrelle Willis is the perfect example of this. I think so too. I'm going to give it another couple of weeks before I give up on him though and start calling for Broadway (who I want to see up here). I really didn't expect him to amount to anything last year and I was kind of surprised he did anything at all. I expected him to be more like Day and Sukvich.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 13, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) Did Mark get some shotty D again last night to lead to the big inning? This defense Buehrle has been getting reminds me of the :lol: defense Danks was getting around this time last year. Also he really had no business pitching to Vlad, with runners on 2nd and 3rd and Buehrle being off. Just walk Vlad. No idea what the hell that was all about.

Considering he is a lefty power bat in a righty-dominated lineup I don't have any issues with Thome in the lineup and to be honest, despite the b****ing, I don't think most Sox fans do either. Thome is what he is, a declining Hall-Of-Fame-but-still-productive slugger. Having said that, he is a pretty one-dimensional player and I don't think his abilities are best utilized at 3rd in this lineup. 3rd is where you want your most consistent hitter, which at one point would've been Thome, but these days. He still belongs in the heart of the order but Dye is a better 3rd hitter now (in spite of those maddening 3 pitch strikeouts on pitches that bounce in front of him).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 13, 2008 -> 04:32 AM) Pierzynski leading off would be hilarious at the very least. It'd make the game entertaining. Haha... there is virtually everything that could be possibly wrong with that idea all encapsulated into one there. AJ is everything you want a leadoff hitter to not be.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 9, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) Id say the only other guy I have seen take over a game like those guys is Polamlu. Those guys seriously destroy offenses and will never be replaced. Polamolu is overrated (the Steeler fans I know have reinforced this belief too). Brown > Polamalu. Honestly I think the only way the Bears could've gone to extra help at S without a significant dropoff would've been to trade Briggs to the Skins and draft Landry with the 6th pick. Lovie thought signing Archuleta would accomplish that, lol.

The only way to restore your honor after a 4 pitch walk to Uribe is to kill yourself.

I don't really have the energy to continue this at the moment. For now I will just defer to the infinite wisdom of the armchair GMs here at Soxtalk and leave it at that.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 12, 2008 -> 11:31 PM) He's been losing velocity (of which he never had much) for going on 3 years now (aka since after 2005), and contrary to what KW thinks, this team should have been rebuilding last offseason and last July. So not only was it dumb because we should have been rebuilding, it was dumb because we gave a pitcher obviously in decline after a lot of innings a huge extension. Hindsight at its absolute finest

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 12, 2008 -> 11:26 PM) Instead of trading him for prospects that could have helped us, we give Buehrle a huge extension last July. Looks like this will be a move that we will regret for a long time, Buehrle looks washed up. lol. Like who? ...And give me one good reason why re-signing Buehrle was a bad idea at the time.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 12, 2008 -> 11:20 PM) Wait, why in the hell are we pitching to Vlad? lol