Sammy Sofa

Because it confuses and frightens them as if it were demon wizardry. I keed, I keed. Maybe.

So supposedly Lou himself said at the convention that a deal for Roberts looks to be unlikely. Pass on Bedard and move on, please (unless by some miracle he can be had without giving up Pie and Hill...which seems ridiculous). If we're gonna trade, trade for a quality or at least non-suck SS.

Very descriptive blogger with a lot of information versus this post with two sentences. Unless you have anything to back up your claim, I'm gonna go ahead and continue to assume that it's true. Some of the people on BCB are claiming that the modus operandi @ HJE is to "make things up." The people at BCB tend to assume the worst of any site about the Cubs that isn't BCB.

Stop skyballing.

And you can counter it...how?

I think most of us would pick neither Kenny nor Jim as a GM if we had our way.

I hope I never see those blues on the players again.

Harry from Mac, Jurko, and Harry said he has an inside source that tells him that Roberts will be a Cub in two days. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: which two days? Two days 'til tomorrow.

What? I can name 4 superpowers in the past century alone that have caused more death than us: the Empire of Japan, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China. What millions upon millions of people has the United States been directly responsible for killing? Actualy, that's a good point, I wasn't thinking...I meant to say prior to other modern superpower, the USSR, but I screwed up. I was thinking from the viewpoint of sustained empires throughout history, a la the Persian, British, Spanish or Roman. The other two are where you run into with what I find too subjective about this. Most historians wouldn't count Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany as comparable superpowers or even empires to what we're talking about with post-WW2 America, USSR, or even other superpowers/empires throughout history. Of course, you could also argue that what we generally believe is a "superpower" didn't exist prior to 1945. If that's the case, you could even further argue that China was by no means a superpower during Mao's time and has only relatively recently reached the point where it could even be considered a superpower. That leaves the only models for superpower-dom as the USSR and the USA, in which case my more deaths point falls apart. But at the same time, is being more benign than the Soviets any great feat? The subjective part I throw out there with the deaths is how can you even accurately judge it? If our money or weapons are involved in conflict, aren't we arguably responsible for the deaths? No, you're not gonna trump Stalin's numbers, not even close, but again, does that really make us truly "benign?" I'd still argue we have easily been responsible to varying degrees for millions of deaths over the last 60+ years. Is that truly benign? We've shown no qualms with pushing other nations into conflict, or choosing sides in them and supplyin them with weapons, resources money or even military aid/advising. We've entered more international, large scale armed conflicts ourselves than any other nation or superpower since WW2. Is that really benign? Do we do a ton of good? Of course. Are we benign? In my opinion, not even close.

I'm comparing the good and the bad that superpowers in human history have contributed. I think America has done more good than bad. It's not a fact declaration but it's just my opinion on the matter. Fair enough. My argument is that in the less than 100 years we've been a superpower, we've been arguably responsible for more deaths than most, maybe all, other superpowers throughout history. To me, that alone right there keeps us from really being too benign. I disagree. My comment wasn't meant to be a statement of finality or anything such as that. It was merely a comment based upon the fact that I think the America-bashing that we see in this country and abroad is not totally in tune with the reality of the situation. And don't pretend like I'm being some ultra-nationalist whacko by saying this. I'm obviously not beyond attacking my own country's past and present. I have SUPER problems with our foreign policy decisions. We should have never even BEEN over in Afghanistan in the 80's. I don't think you're a whacko. I just don't think it's an assertion that can be made so simply.

People don't care...yet they continue to read/post in this thread.

It's my opinion. Name a superpower more benign in human history. That's what I'm talking about when this is too broad and subjective. What are we comparing? Not sure why you are on the attack on this issue. I said nothing about resting on our laurels. Didn't even come close to saying anything like that. Because declaring ourselves to be "the best superpower" seemingly implies we've reached some kind of finish line and we can declare ourselves the winner. How can we be the "most good" or "best" or "most benign" if our run isn't even done?

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is. What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all. My post had zero to do with your post. It was just a random thought. And it's a random thought that is ultimately unrealistic since the world isn't a static, non-subjective place. There's really no way you can definitevely come to a point and say we're "the most good." There's also no point in ever bothering to rest on our laurels since our goal should always to be doing better since our capacity to do good is so great, as is our capaciy to do "bad."

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is. What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all.

Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so. You mean like blaming Reagan for the CIA's funding of the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? I think that is a poor argument, but there is something to the notion that we shouldn't have done that. I don't necessarily believe that what we did there, in supporting those groups politically and monetarily, has directly lead to the terrorism we experience now. What we gave them they really weren't using against us until we went into Iraq. However, there is something to the notion that to some extent, our foreign policy is flawed because we are willing to sacrifice a bunch of "little picture" scenarios for "larger picture" scenarios. It's this whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, no, not if the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. It's like when one reads stories about how elite units of our military are training insurgent groups in Iran. Sure, it'd be nice to not to have to deal with the Iranian elite, but do you really know what you're attempting to replace them with? My gripe is less with the wartime support and more with the virtual abandonment of our supposed allies almost as soon as the Soviets were gone. That's infinitely more damaging than supplying them with money ad weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets. Hell, we're almost doing it again now. By the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan was already an afterthought. Outside of a few isolated areas where we have troops, the place is still wild and unchecked, and we seemingly have zero problem leaving that way. Ooooh, their leader looks like Ben Kinglsey and he wears funny hats and he seems so nice when he comes to DC...everything must be fine! WE WON! Bah. We don't give a rat's crap about "hearts and minds."

http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Thread%20Failed.gif The thread may re-apply for a passing grade upon actual completion of any kind of new trade with the Orioles.

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians No, I knew him as the guy who killed hundreds of people in US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and killed several US Sailors on the USS Cole. that too, but my part was true as well I doubt anyone in this country other than people in intelligence or people who followed the Afghanistan conflict ad nauseum knew who Osama Bin Laden was before he started being an international terrorist. People knew who the Mujahideen were, etc., but not Osama specifically. Osama was basically a nobody in the Soviet/Afghanistan outside of some money he pumped into it. He had next to know combat/frontline experience. That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.

Well, if a lot of those are double plays... But yes, otherwise I agree.

I have little doubt Sandberg gets the nod after Lou's 4 years, whether he's ready or not. They won't be able to resist the PR, and it covers all the bases...if the Cubs fall off a cliff and get worse during Lou's time, Sandberg is seen as the hero coming in to right the ship. If they stay competitive or better, Sandberg is the hero coming in to keep things steady. Personally, I don't know how good a choice he'll be, but I think the organization is setting it up for him to step in after Lou.

The only thing I regret about not getting Roberts are the rumors that Burnett might be had for something like Dempster and DeRosa. Other than that, meh.

I was just IMing a friend of mine in Baltimore who is saying he's hearing on the radio that the rumor now is that Angelos has likely killed the deal. Anyone hearing anything similar through a more legit source?

Pass. I'd have no problem trading Pie if a semi-capable CFer is available, but Melky isn't that guy. He's insanely over-valued by the Yanks, as they always do, and insanely overrated just because he's a Yankee. If he could be had for cheap, sure...but that's pretty much impossible.

All around, yeah.

I think people are post whoring at the length more than complaining. Fixed.

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier. The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him. You're more worried about the Clintons than the people who gave us Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and "Vietnam scrambled McCain's brains"? Odd. Yes, because the Clintons have outplayed THOSE people twice, and those attacks hinged on the Republicans having a truly viable candidate to rally around. Bush, unfortunately, provided that in both of his elections from his name alone.