Hellooooooo Mr. Wilson!: Phillies 3, Diamondbacks 2 (11)
by WholeCamels on Jul 29, 2010 10:49 PM EDT
157 comments
While there may not have been a lot of oxygen left in the hype chamber for tonight's Phillies game, it was still a big one -- the Braves, Cardinals, and Giants all lost, and if the Phillies could pull off their eighth win in a row, they'd draw within 2.5 games of the NL East lead, and 1.5 games behind the Giants for the lead position in the NL Wild Card race.
So when Kyle Kendrick pitched an outstanding game, it was sort of deflating that the Phillies' bats went silent for most of the night. After a Carlos Ruiz RBI double in the fifth, and a line-drive home run from red-hot Raul Ibanez, the Phillies took a 2-1 lead into the ninth. And surprisingly, no sign of Brad Lidge. And, par for the course, relievers Ryan Madson and J.C. Romero allowed the Diamondbacks to tie the game. But it could have been a lot worse, as the Phillies avoided more damage thanks to a brilliant play by Wilson Valdez on a ground ball for the first out, and a terrific turn and throw on a double play to end the ninth.
So while Valdez saved the game in the ninth, he won it in the eleventh. After Brad Lidge and Jose Contreras pitched a pair of hitless frames in the 10th and 11th, a Cody Ransom walk and a Carlos Ruiz single set things up for the shortstop, who already had two hits on the evening. Then, a line drive into the left center gap, and the Phillies locked down their second consecutive sweep and eighth victory in a row.
Tune in tomorrow night for Roy the Oswalt!
0 recs |
157 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Tomorrow night, I’d be curious to see what the ratings will be
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 29, 2010 10:55 PM EDT reply actions
Off Topic
Did anyone see that the Nationals got C Wilson Ramos from the Twins for Matt Capps? Apparently the Phillies were not the only felonious traders today.
by phillies fan in bowie on Jul 29, 2010 10:55 PM EDT reply actions
Yeah, that’s pretty damn good return on a guy who was god awful in Pittsburgh just last year. Nationals will have some kind of team in a few years.
by philsandthrills on Jul 29, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Houston got in on the action too. Gose for Wallace was a great swap for the Stros.
by philiafan14364 on Jul 29, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Worst. President. Ever.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 29, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
there are definitely worse presidents than Woodrow Wilson. He isnt even bottom half.
by uspsuperman on Jul 29, 2010 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
That's an odd comment.
Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce, Harding and Fillmore all deserve to be among the worst presidents. Wilson certainly does not.
He’s not even in the bottom 50%!
He was probably one of the worst racists ever to be president relative to his time.
He did do some good things though.
His actions after WW1 helped start a chain of events that led to WW2. I don’t know how much blame he deserves for it though.
Wilson's actions?
A lenient, but firm peace; by Petain and the British?
A League of Nations to settle disputes openly and without conflict; rejected by the Senate?
International boundaries settled fairly, with treaties openly arrive at; rejected by the Europeans?
I’m not going to say he was perfect; we can’t all be Roy Halladay; but he was sure as hell not the worst president ever.
True. Arguably, though, those were unrealistic goals for 1918 and by choosing to pursue them instead of realistic ones, he caused things to fall apart completely.
Also, to bring this back on topic, he was terrible at hitting the curveball.
Not to go all history dude on everyone but…
Wilson was a huge racist, no doubt about it. But to say he was responsible for the events that led up to WW2 is a completely inaccurate claim. Poor economical set-up is to blame, not any one person.
If you are going to blame anyone, blame Neville Chamberlain. His philosophy of appeasement fed the troll. Was the League of Nations a plausible option? Well, during the 1800s, it was plausible. European countries were keeping eachother in check for decades. This practice ended right before World War 1. If I need to go more in depth, just ask
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2010 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Ahh. Wilson. I like him very much.
But he no help with curveball.
And yeah, he was an idealist. But you can’t blame him at all for WW2.
I am really surprised someone such as yourself didn’t pick Andrew Johnson
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2010 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I admit, because I’m on the extreme Left (I think on FM outdoes me in this regard, and only just barely) I have a special hatred of Wilson. The sedition act was and still probably remains as one of the great violations of Civil Rights in this country ever, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to domestic policy which includes among other things like racism.
America’s involvement in World War I is simply indefensible. I struggle to think of a reason besides Wilson’s Anglophobia and Messiah complex that we lost over 100,000 men in the fields of France. Complete victory by any side in World War I would lead to disaster down the road and Wilson foolishly assured an Allied victory with a vindictive French peace.
I’ll give the devil his due and defend the graduated income tax and the incorporation of the Federal reserve, but any amount of good they engender is crushed by the sheer amount of repression he unleashed at home and abroad.
So in summation, fuck Wilson.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
WWI’s involvement hinges on the idea that there was no reason for the sinking of the Lusitania.
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2010 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
How does the Sedition Act compare to, say, the suspension of Habeus Corpus? And really, you must blame the House for the Sedition Act, who passed it unanimously, I believe.
In any case, the US declared war upon the sinking of many American-flagged ships, the destruction of civilians and property (ie, the Lusitania), the Zimmerman telegram and other such issues. If you’re looking for an unjust war, look no further than the Mexican War.
This is not to say that The Great War was all fun and games—it was hell—but you can’t totally blame Wilson, either. As a leftist, in any event, you should have a certain sympathy for the democratic pre-war French Republic, as opposed to the reactionary German Empire.
What I’ve always said is that the only difference between the worst totalitarian regime and the largest democracy is the body count. Democracy fucks you over with a smile, Totalitarianism fucks you over with a scythe or your fascist weapon of choice. Stalin had the Gulags, Hitler had the Concentration camps, FDR had the internment camps, Bush had Gitmo, Lincoln declared martial law ending the right to Habeas Corpus
A smile or a weapon, some are nicer, but the overall arching idea is still present in any sort of government
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2010 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions
This is an interesting case study in how drastically the political winds can shift over the years. A time traveler from 1913 would be extremely perplexed to see a conservative defending Wilson from the hatred of a left-winger. Senator Taft may be rolling over in his grave.
HOW DID I MISS THIS DISCUSSION?!?!?
I don’t purport to know a ton about Wilson’s domestic policies, but I do think it’s unfair to say that our involvement in World War I was indefensible. Even just taking the wider historical view, America was eager to flex its muscles as a budding superpower, its interests were aligned with those of the Allies, and it’s not like the involvement was entirely unprovoked. I agree with TP that he perhaps set too lofty of a goal for postwar Europe, but he gets points for actually, genuinely believing in the importance of a League of Nations, and literally killing himself to try to preserve the peace that vindictive Europeans seemed hellbent on shattering.
Also, as a historical aside, victory for either side in World War I would have led to a terribly vindictive “peace,” as Brest-Litovsk showed. Knowing what we know now about what WWI did to Germany, it seems probable that Central victory in the war would have mitigated the atrocity of the second world war, but that wasn’t nearly within the scope of foreseeability back in 1917.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 11:50 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
My ultimate point being, it’s unfair to blame Wilson for the peace Clemenceau imposed, and it’s also unfair to have expected Wilson to foresee all the consequences of an Allied victory.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 11:55 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think it’s fair to blame Wilson since he lured the Central Powers into premature defeat with the 14 points and then didn’t deliver because he was too much of a pansy to put the French in line. A total and complete failure of leadership in Wilson’s part, and that’s not even touching his failure to include the Republicans in the League of Nations ratification and thus ensuring America would not enter.
Ass.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
So, it's Wilson's fault that France wouldn't listen to him? How, exactly, should he have made this happen? Declare war?
It’s Wilson’s fault that the Senate wouldn’t listen to him? Again, how should he have done this? Disband the Senate?
Wilson was not the leader of the Entente, not at any point, certainly not in the way Roosevelt was the de facto leader of the Big Three. It’s really unfair to saddle him with the harsh peace, especially since he fought against such a peace. The Peace of Paris was, to an admittedly small degree, a compromise from what the French originally wanted.
Here Phrozen admits that he knows nothing.
Long story short there’s a word, it’s called “debt”. Both the British and French Empires owed a lot of it to the US. He had an insane amount of leverage over the French if he had chosen to use it, but he did not, since he was a terrible leader and a person.
Anyone with a functioning brain could see that giving into the French demands, even in a “compromised” Versaillies was to sow the seeds of a brand new conflict. Hell, Keynes wrote a book on the subject while it was happening.
Wilson’s inability to use American leverage, influence, and prestige to insure a peace that did not empower the Right-wing in Germany is one of the all-time great blunders in the 20th century.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Boy, you're rather harsh.
Essentially you’re saying that the US should have bullied France and Britain into accepting our way or the highway?
In any case, if you want a scapegoat to blame for the revanchism in Weimar Germany, look no further than Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Wilson could have done more, perhaps, but they were the driving forces.
Yeah, I’ve got to agree here, especially re: Clemenceau. I know it might have been asking a lot for those men to be forward-thinking instead of vindictive given the circumstances, but still.
And Jose, you do make a good point about America’s financial leverage, but I hardly think Wilson is the only president who would have failed to exploit that leverage. Keep in mind that the Great War essentially occurred within the context of the late 19th century, and it would have been considered international political suicide for the U.S. to take such a harsh stance against the (then-considered) world powers.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 5:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It’s only political suicide if you don’t have the neccessary means of enforcing it. In the context of Napoleon pissing off every great power in Europe you are correct.
However, I will point out that acting as a centralized pivot to keep contiential politics and powers in balance was Britian’s game throughout the 17th-19th century and it should be natural that as the US supplanted Britain in economic and naval terms that it would assume that mantle. Of course, Wilson’s Anglophile leanings would not permit him to exercise America’s new rule, as that would step on Britain’s traditional role and thus offend his personal sensibilites.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I actually think Weimar Germany has a legit beef in regards to Alsace-Lorraine, especially seeing that they were German to the core and were only “French” in that they were incorporated into the French empire under Louis XIV.
Saying Wilson “could have done more” is misleading seeing that he held virtually every high card possible to enforce a just peace, but he simply chose not too in a stunning display of poor statesmanship and not too subtle Germanaphobia. I mean really, he openly remarked during the negotiations that “Germans really are a stupid people.”
In esscence we are in full agreement that it was not Wilson who was the driver of the terrible peace, but we were disagree is in his ability to put an end to it.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed that failing to include the Republicans was a gigantic misstep, and Wilson deserves any blame he gets for that.
But I’m trying to figure out what you mean by luring the Central Powers into premature defeat. I understand the effect the Fourteen Points had in, say, the Balkans, but I don’t think it really undercut the German war effort. And keep in mind that, at the time, anything the U.S. did to bring the war to a swifter conclusion was universally viewed as a positive influence. You’d probably be right in asserting that there’d have been no World War II — or, at least, a much smaller conflict — had the war lasted until 1921 and the Central Powers been more completely defeated… but that would be an awfully hindsight-driven assertion.
And by “Ass,” you mean Wilson, right? I thought we were having a fun history debate, Jose!
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 5:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Of course I mean Wilson, I’m not going to call you an ass for our disagreement on the principles of involvement in World War I. Well, maybe, but we’re not at that point yet.
A large amount of people were inspired by the whole “Peace with no repariations” and were deluded into thinking that they would receive a fair peace. In retrospect, claiming that the 14 points lured the Central Powers into a pre-emptive defeat is somewhat far-fetched, but the inability of Wilson to deliever on his promise of the 14 points was a shocking setback to the Germans and only helped fuel German discontent.
What I’m getting at is a victor’s peace by any side in World War I, and the resulting harsh peace, would assure a World War II. Wilson choose to tip the balance at the wrong time and simple insured that there would be a victor and a victimized.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 30, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re of course completely right that as long as there was a victor and a victimized, there was going to be a World War II. I just don’t think we can definitively say that Wilson’s role in bringing about the victor/victimization dichotomy was that crucial — there were nearly an infinite number of scenarios in which that dichotomy would have come about, and a small number of scenarios in which it wouldn’t have.
As sort of a fun side note, it’s certainly interesting to imagine an alternate history where the U.S. didn’t get involved in the war. I don’t at all mean this in any sort of “rah rah America!” sort of way, but Germany might very well have pulled off a victory in the spring of 1918 under different circumstances. They very nearly did, anyway, and it’s a legitimate question if American supplies and troops were merely very helpful, or downright crucial, in that regard.
The reason I say that that’s interesting is because even assuming a subsequent World War II in that alternate historical timeline, it’s pretty clear that such a war wouldn’t have been nearly as destructive of a conflict as the World War II we witnessed. Simply put, a vengeful France and Britain pales in comparison to a Hitler-led Germany hellbent on world domination and the eradication of various ethnic groups. Food for thought, anyhow.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 6:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, but what about “Birth of a Nation”? ; )
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
by FuquaManuel on Jul 30, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I shit you not, I actually made a Birth of a Nation joke last night.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 12:06 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’ve always had a strong dislike for Kennedy
His foreign policy was shit to say the least
Eisenhower is up there too, simply for how he fucked up segregation, or on a finer point, integration
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2010 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Obama’s the worst
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I cought the Socialism refrence, I was more thinking about spending money we don’t have and taking the national deficit from -6 trillion to -30 trillion in a just 2 short years
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
The government is supposed to borrow money during a recession. It is supposed to run a surplus during good economic times. I learned this in sophomore-level econ.
They you also must have learned that by taxing the rich = bad for everyone.
You must have also learned that buisnesses employ people and by forcing goverment healthcare where for everyone working for you you need to surrender somthing like 8 thousand dollars a year forces layoffs
You must have also learned that by making the poor life easy people don’t have the drive to suceed.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Sigh.
I don’t think you have a clue. About anything.
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
by FuquaManuel on Jul 30, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Obama's what is the worst?
I’ll admit I’m not thrilled with Obama, myself, but to suggest he is the worst president we’ve had is rather ignorant.
Socialism
Before the Revolutionary war the American Colonies were ruled by the British. The king unjustly taxed these colonies to pay for a war with France while those on the “English Islands” were not subjected to such injustices. Then a few men steped up and said enough is enough.
Fast Foward a few years
It’s WW2 America is attacked by Japan and thrust into WW2 where in the African and Europe frount Patton whopped some ass while Russia hit from the East. It is an uneasy alliance that the 2 sides insted of building on can only focus on the diffrences of goverment opnion. The United States Marines (1st Marine Division) are charging up the South East Asian Islands and have reached Okanowa.
Then it happend…. America developed the Atomic Bomb.
Post WW2 America the ecenomy alnong with population was booming. No matter who you were you had a job. People were buying American goods and then what you could argue is the worst day in American history 1972 Nixon opend up trade relations with China. It took a people who were willing to work for next to nothing and put them to work and people who were willing to do whatever it took to maintain the life style they had come acustiom to.
Fast Foward to September 11 2001. George Bush was the Commander and Chief and proceded to attack Iraq and Afganistan. For the first 3 years the population was behind and supported the wars however as time has proven the more time goes by the less people rember. Every battle has been won however the war is being lost not on the line but the homefrount forgets the pain they felt.
With the shift of Public opnion about the War on Terror Jul 29, 2010 Obama is elected Presedant of the United States. He uses such power to Spend imedatly spend a Trillion Dollars on a “Bail out plan” where he invests goverment money into private orgnasations with the stipulation that they must run thier buisness how the goverment tells them to.
Now the Socialisim is defined as : is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
AKA you may work you may own money however in the end it belongs to the government.
Please ignore the spelling errors I know there are lots.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
My bad
With the shift of Public opnion about the War on Terror Jul 29, 2010 Obama is elected Presedant of the United States. He uses such power to Spend imedatly spend a Trillion Dollars on a "Bail out plan"
I thought the bank bailout bill was passed in October 2008 and that Obama was elected a month later and that he took office two months after that.
Osama’s first order of buisness was spend 1 trillion dollars that we don’t have.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
What the fuck?
There are so many errors in this garbage, it’s almost not worth responding to!
To start with, the American colonists paid fewer taxes than those in Britain. At no point were the taxes in America higher than those in Britain. Those same taxes were levied to pay primarily for the defense of the colonies.
If you want to be taken seriously, you’ve got to learn to spell simple words. Words like President, whooped, differences, opinion, Okinawa (you claimed to be a Marine, yes? Spell that one right, for crissakes!), economy, “Commander IN Chief,” organizations, or immediately. I mean, really. You don’t understand English, yet you want us to value your opinions on macroeconomics?
In any case, you’ve apparently made the argument that Nixon was our worst president, not Obama.
The American Colinists had no want / care about the war with France. They were forced to pay the taxes put in place by the King that they decided enough was enough.
Those same taxes were levied to pay primarily for the defense of the colonies.
From who? See as the history books have it the only defence they needed was from pirats and spain.
My spelling has been critisized up and down. I understand I don’t spell well. However commenting on spelling errors and typos gives off a sence of desperation to discredit my arguement
Yes I don’t think highly of Nixon, However he believed in Capitolisim somthin Osama dosn’t.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
The "American Colinists" were PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE!
Ergo, they were involved in wars whether they wanted to be or not. Ergo, they were taxed for their defense. As an example, I oppose the continued fighting in Iraq. Under your argument, should I not be taxed to pay for it?
Incidentally, the Parliament levied taxes, not the King.
If you want to talk about a “sence of desperation,” you should not refer to the “Commander and Chief” as “Osama.”
Oh, geez,
My response to your post above needs more time. It’ll have to wait until tonight. (I want to make sure I have my stuff straight). This, on the other hand…
1) Parliament, not the King, levied the taxes. This is an important distinction because the complaint wasn’t that it was an edict from on high, or that it was used to pay for a foreign war (the funding sought was due to costs from the French and Indian War). Instead, it was that no colonists sat on Parliament and therefore had no say in the matter. This bears no resemblance to today, where those who cite this sort of thing ARE represented…they just disagree with their representatives.
(To which I respond: If we had to put up with Specter and Santorum for as long as we did…)
2) The WWII bit doesn’t appear to be relevant.
3) So your argument is that Nixon’s opening of China was bad…because it gave the US competition? That’s sounds like a failure of the free market to me: there was someone around who could do it cheaper, which is defined by some as better. (I disagree that cheaper is necessarily better, then again I don’t understand why people like Globalization either.)
4) The shift in public opinion towards Iraq was mostly due to the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the eventual realization (by those who hadn’t already come to the conclusion) that Iraq was basically guilty of just being there. Yes, Saddam was a very bad guy, but that’s not reason enough to go to war.
(If you really feel that way, then they should have done it back in ‘91/’92, when an invasion of an ally had just happened and there was actual reason for it. I don’t, personally, but either way I think that window closed).
Afghanistan was simply forgotten in the Iraq fervor and we lost our moral high ground for being there.
5) Essman already pointed out the point I’d make with the bailout. Don’t forget that said money is being paid back, though. And once the funds are returned, the coffers are replenished (or moreso than they were) and the gov’t is out of their business.
6) Obama, by your definition, isn’t a socialist. Look at cap and trade, which is a free market principle (once championed as a conservative approach to environmental policy). Even his healthcare plan relies far too heavily on private industry to truly be socialist in the same way that, say, Canada is. He’s liberal, sure, but not a socialist.
1: king had final say in everything
2: WWII was brought in as a timeline event
3: Were it not for Nixon then Americans would have been bought and sold by Americans
4. Not as a personal attack but Iraq had enough Chlorine to keep the entire world … THE WORLD going for 300 years. The arguement was brought up that it was not weapons grade however in all of WWII none of the Chlorine used was “Weapons grade” Sadam was a bad guy he had Chemical and Biological reasearch labs built in the back of 53" trailors that tractors would pull around. That’s why we invaded Iraq.
5. Socialisim is Socialisim who cares about the time frame. Anyone who owns a buisness knows there are 2 types: Those who are growing and those who are dieing.
6 Osama by my definition IS a socialist he forced private companies to take government money and then his advisors told them what to and not do do.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
1. Not at that point, or at least not to the degree that it had been true in prior centuries. Parliament was the ruling body in the UK. I will grant you that it was more true then than it is now.
2. Okay.
3. Not necessarily. There are a LOT of other places that have become manufacturing giants because they offer cheap labor that aren’t Communist. Taiwan, Singapore, India and Mexico come to mind, though I’m sure there are plenty others. If you want someone to blame for that, I’d start with corporate raiding and free trade.
4. I couldn’t find anything on the chlorine before 2006, so I can’t speak to what I don’t know. I do know they never found those roving labs, that the intelligence by Bush’s own admission was faulty. Iraq had been disarmed.
Beyond the WMD argument, there was also the fact that it was sold as an extension of the War on Terror, when there was no connection at the time of the invasion.
5. Because you listed it as an example of Obama’s socialism, the timeline matters. It wasn’t his idea. He wasn’t president when it was implemented. It is not an example of socialism in the Obama administration, and I have a hard time believing it’s a socialst program at all. A socialist wouldn’t have allowed the banks to repay the loan and get their control back (a key, because that’s why a great chunk of the funding from TARP has returned to the Treasury’s coffers).
6. Okay, two points here.
a) Banks and car companies were given the option to refuse TARP money (as Ford Motor Company did). That which they took, they agreed to. No one was forced to do anything.
b) I respect that we have differing opinions, and that you’re expressing yours despite apparently being in the minority of those who have chimed in on the issue. Having been in that situation before, I’ll always give people who want to have a real conversation the benefit of the doubt, because I never know what I might learn (or what others might learn from me, where applicable). I only ask, in return, that the conversation be respectful on both sides.
You’ve twice mistook the name of a sitting US President for an international terrorist. I don’t really consider that to be respectful. I know spelling isn’t your strong suit (as you’ve said before), but please do not do that again.
not going to argue points that don't need to be argued
3. I don’t blame China, I don’t blame Nixon, I blame the lack of import tax… if that SKYROCKETED then guess what it’s no longer cost effective to manufacture outside of the U.S. that would put people to work.
5. The bailout was what put “Tax payer money” in Private buisnesses hands and those "Private buissnesses were forced to opperate under goverment enforcement. Yes when the money is payed back the goverment hold is gone however untill it’s payed back what it is Socialisim.
6. A.FMC took the money and gave it back the next day however they were forced to take it.
B. You’re right I was wrong in comparing Obaman with Osaman and it will not happen again. Also thank you for having an intelegent arguement insted of the usal OMG learn to spell.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I did some quick research to prove you wrong however I can’t find anything
I was almost posotive Mike Rowe’s ford adds told the public they ahd accepted and paid back all the bailout money.
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Chrysler paid it back
GM is paying it back (as best as I can tell). Ford never took the money.
Before the Revolutionary war the American Colonies were ruled by the British. The king unjustly taxed these colonies to pay for a war with France while those on the "English Islands" were not subjected to such injustices. Then a few men steped up and said enough is enough.
Actually, this gets really funny. The East India Tea Company was being undercut by American smugglers, because they were having to pay a tariff to the Crown for each crate of tea imported to America. The Crown chose to waive that tariff as a tax cut on a corporation. The smugglers in Boston responded by throwing a bunch of tea overboard, in a little fracas now referred to as the Boston Tea Party. Thus, one of the key events in the American Revolution was Americans protesting there being too few taxes.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Before we start a series with the Braves, I am sooo restarting the Civil War.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 30, 2010 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I am actually in midst of watching Ken Burns’ documentary right now, so I’ll be ready.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 30, 2010 12:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Much love for Valdez tonight. Great game. You know, despite all the DPs, he’s really not so bad as backup IFs go. You could do worse, at least. Especially since we’re paying him in peanuts.
Beard
"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel
consider all the weirdness from last nights game.
The Phils put up 3 runs in a game started by KK, and won it.
The bullpen gave up the tying run in the 9th, with additional men on base and 1 out, and the team won it.
Wilson Valdez hit a ball towards SS with men on 1st and 2nd and it won the game and wasn’t a GIDP (because he hit it hard and lined it…not a 5-hopper)
Lidge pitched a 1-2-3 inning.
Brown’s AB was wasted by the manager.
Amazing what a week, a rookie callup and a major trade will do for a fanbase’s confidence.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Seriously. By the way, here’s John Sickels on Brown. (Who I still think should go back to AAA once Shane gets well.)
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/7/29/1594761/rookie-profile-domonic-brown
Theres a paragraph on Trevor May two posts down from that too. Sickles seems cautiously optimistic.
by philiafan14364 on Jul 29, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Some Braves fans profess to be unworried. Others disagree.
http://www.talkingchop.com/2010/7/29/1593932/oswalt-to-phillies-almost-done
Wow…they are delusional douche bags.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
In fairness, there are two or three delusional folks who are responsible for nearly all of the delusional comments.
True, there are a few who make actual rational comments.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Here's another gem:
This trade makes me appriecate the Yankees. At least they give up good money (and show that they would give up good prospects) for top of the line players. All the Phuckers do is trade for top of the line players for nobodies.
Ha, ha, ha!
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
all that quote did was confuse the hell out of me, cause i feel like the braves were not too happy with the yanks approach each time they beat them in the postseason
"My grandmom's favorite grandson, ask my grandmom" --Rone
by layout ultimate on Jul 29, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s like he’s feigning indignation because the Phils were able to get Oswalt for what seemed to him to be nothing (of course, he knows nothing about the farm system, being a Braves’ fan, but just assumes, you know, since they’re Phillies that they all suck). What a line of BS. If they Braves had done the same, he’d be singing kumbaya.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
So what the Yankees have the decency to spend their money in overpriced boutiques in the city and we have, by scrounging around in outlet stores for deals on the same product are not properly distributing wealth. I love it.
In fairness, there are two or three delusional folks who are responsible for nearly all of the delusional comments.
That seems about right.
::puts hands in pockets, looks up to high corner of room, whistles::
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 30, 2010 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions
So, they have 2 good pitchers, 1 wild card and 2 horrible pitchers in their rotation.
Seriously? Who’s the wildcard? Hamels?
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
To them, yes.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Seriously, really?
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 29, 2010 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Starter SIERAs
Phillies
Halladay 2.94
Oswalt 3.34
Hamels 3.54
Blaton 4.44
Kendrick 4.91
Braves
Hanson 3.39
Medlen 3.69
Hudson 3.92
Lowe 4.18
Jurrjens 4.52
In a best of 7 series, I don’t know how anyone could take the Braves. Just doesn’t add up
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 29, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Is this sarcasm?
‘Cause if it’s not, it doesn’t make sense.
Starter xFIPs
Philles: Halladay 2.95, Oswalt 3.45, Hamels 3.79, Blanton 4.55, Kendrick 4.80
Braves: Medlen 3.71, Hanson 3.94, Lowe 4.08, Hudson 4.14 Jurrjens 4.75
Braves have a couple of guys with some unusually big xFIP-SIERA differences. That’s odd.
So if you go by xFIP, all of our top three starters are having better seasons than any of their starters.
Which I don’t think anyone would argue with you, except for maybe a Braves fan.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Small Sample Size Alert!
Well, in 7 reg-season starts vs. the Braves, Roy Oswalt is 0-3 w/ a 7.58 ERA & .354 opponents’ avg. It’s his worst record & ERA against any team.
So, they think Oswalt stinks.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Heh, yeah.
Of course, those are just stats against a uniform, not stats against actual guys. Here are his lifetime stats vs. the current Braves. Not much a sample, surprisingly.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/bvsp?playerId=4575&teamId=15
The funny thing is that they think their rotation is better than ours. And we don’t have “2 good pitchers” we have “2 of the best pitchers”
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
I vote we just ignore TC. They dont like us, we dont like them.
by philiafan14364 on Jul 29, 2010 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Some logic here...I like it.
when is Frank Wren going to wake his Ass up and see the Braves needs a Batter? This game Against Washington is Showing the team is not hitting. Get some help are philadelphia is going bnack to First? If you can’t see this maybe john scherhous should replace your stupid ass.
by jayball on Jul 27, 2010 5:41 PM MST
matchups for the nats series (era/fip/xfip/siera)
Fri: Roy Oswalt (3.42/3.40/3.45/3.34) vs. Craig Stammen (5.50/4.22/4.25/4.47)
Sat: Joe Blanton (5.85/4.85/4.55/4.44) vs. Ross Detwiler (not enough data)
Sun: Cole Hamels (3.48/4.30/3.79/3,54) vs. Miguel Batista? (4.09/5.13/5.04/4.82)
Valdez has been important to this team. He has been proved to be clutch a couple of times.
Kyle Kendrick also looks like he has finally settled and has come along. Maybe after the Phils optioned Kyle to Triple AAA before Jamie Moyer got hurt, he realized he had to step up his game.
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
Anyone troubled by the stat lines for Howard and Werth?
Seems as if the recent hot streaks for those two might be coming to an end, unfortunately.
Both are hacking away at bad pitches once again.
Werth was hot for a little longer than two games but yeah…Werth was terrible tonight and Howard terrible the last two nights. But that’s ok, other guys picked them up.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
We need both of them in the long run or it won’t be okay
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
We also need Rollins and Utley and Victorino.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
We need a goddamn team.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jul 29, 2010 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Just a couple bad games for Howard, and one for Werth.
Must chill.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jul 29, 2010 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a bit of a history of being unable to understand that concept. Also, apparently, an inability to learn from mistakes.
http://www.thegoodphight.com/2010/7/22/1581862/les-miserables-phillies-at#42674387
http://www.thegoodphight.com/2010/7/6/1554927/hot-cole-braves-at-phillies-game#41410446
http://www.thegoodphight.com/2010/6/11/1514406/a-boston-massacre-red-sox-12#39611330
Weird re-reading threads is like looking at old pictures or listening to youself on tape. Yeah we all get nuts but it’s baseball to use a cliche…gotta have a long view. Though this slumpma was more painful than most. But a CG and Halladay pitching every five days, the Reds series and Miracle Moyer all in one season! Could we ask for anything more. As luck would have it yeah Roy Oswalt for little cost.. I’m still slapping myself. But I bet if any of us spent a week observing another team we’d see all the same bad plays and horrid AB’s along with all the memorable performances and amazing comebacks. I also think people are more on edge after losing the WS last year and this year losing the Cup. It was alot to to get over and as the Phillies are really the city’s Champions right now people will have higher expectations of them.
Reading those comments was painful. Do you happen to keep a list of all the folks you shoot down with simple logic and basic baseball knowledge?
"My grandmom's favorite grandson, ask my grandmom" --Rone
by layout ultimate on Jul 30, 2010 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Was down there tonight, without the wind blowing hard in from left center, raul could have had 3 hrs it looked like
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Jul 29, 2010 11:37 PM EDT reply actions
if it were resized you wouldn’t be able to read cole’s name on the poster
"My grandmom's favorite grandson, ask my grandmom" --Rone
by layout ultimate on Jul 30, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Written and Directed by John Singleton… 1) When did he start going by John instead of Jonathan? 2) Is there anything this youngster can’t do?
"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel
Cause the Roys in the hood are alawys hard
Come talkin that trash we’ll pull your card
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Jul 30, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh so you say you got Alex Gonzalez, a 32 year old free swinging strike out machine with some pop and some prospect pitchers for Y. Esobar a young SS that projects well, hits for average and has some pop . I’ll raise you a Roy fucking Oswalt plus 11 million dollars for which I only paid a young cost controlled 4th spot starter who spent half the season on the DL, and 2 position player prospects.
Amusingly, Escobar has suddenly gotten his groove back in Toronto. After hitting 0 homers all year for Atlanta, he already has two since the trade.
Yeah I know. Did they just not want to pay him? They are a well run club, I can’t see them making rash decisions based on 1/2 a season of down performance. Good SSs are baseball uranium. I was so suprised they did that. I expected years of cursing his name along with Prado and Heyward.
I wonder if Escobar was tanking just to get out of town, consciously or subconsciously. If that was the case, then maybe their decision was rational. That is, maybe they knew he would be good for another team, but believed he would never be good for them.
I dunno.
I've got to ask: what the fuck does this mean?
Millhouse, I mean. I don’t get the expression…
Yeah, I saw the youtube, and I've watched The Simpsons, but what does it MEAN?
Is it “everything’s going to be good?” “Everything sucks?” “I might as well chop my balls off and eat them ‘cause we’re never gonna win again?”
And whatever it does mean, why?
I don’t understand…
Clearly Valez did not want Baez stepping onto the mound so he head to end things himself.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
- Grandstand Gems: A trio of fans got defensive on Tuesday night
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
