Re: Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox!


Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> remarksman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > > Winners of the 2005 World Series, who presumably shook off the curse of
> > > the "Black Sox" with their dramatic 1-0 victory tonight. The game ended
> > > with a close play at first base as the runner representing the would-be
> > > tying run was coming home from third base -- in vain, as it turned out.
> > >
> > > Just as the Red Sox last year ended the curse of Babe Ruth by winning
> > > their first World Series since 1918, the White Sox, as I said, ended
> > > the curse of the "Black Sox" by winning THEIR first World Series since
> > > 1917.
> > >
> > > Shoeless Joe Jackson played on that old White Sox team, just as Babe
> > > Ruth played on that old Red Sox team.
> > >
> > > Food for thought for those who insist that we can never "turn back the
> > > clock" to a pre-universal suffrage society. Baseball is a reminder
> > > that we never stray far from our roots.
> >
> >
> > really, professor?
> >
> > and do our roots, then, also extend back to the pregame "Latino Night"?
> > did the europeans arrive from Aztlan?
> >
> > lol
> >
> > i watched as players waltzed forth and line up to cheers based on ...
> > uh ... being born brown
> >
> > that's the american way?
> >
> > bleah
> >
> > when's Japanese Night? Trobriand Islander Night? Freckled Folk's
> > Night?
> >
> > and as for White Night, ferget it . . . alliterative but obvioiusly
> > racist, probly a plot by the Klan . . .
> >
> > lately MLB seems always to Get It Rong -- advertising on the bases,
> > anyone? -- and this most recent PC pandering with the National Game is,
> > at least, consistent
>
>
> MLB's PC pandering is certainly "rong", but that's not what I was
> talking about when I was said that "baseball is a reminder that we
> never stray far from our roots". I was simply hearkening back to Babe
> Ruth and Shoeless Joe Jackson.
>
> And an avid and avowed leftist such as yourself is in no position to
> complain about "PC pandering".
>
> And - not that I give a *** - but I thought that you hated me, so why
> would you engage me on this topic?


i just had something to say, we're not engaged! jeez you havent even
offered me chocolates 'n a ring yet

and here i thot you were a traditional guy...

.

Quantcast