Swish Recap of Jim Rome 7-17-06
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 11:09 AM PDT
63 comments
I think these are fairly accurate quotes although I was in and out of my cube. Nick will be some sort of correspondant on JRIB this week. I got the impression it was only for one day, but maybe not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On what he's currently doing:
"Sitting in the hotel watching Field of Dreams. One of the greatest baseball movies of all time...I just don't have the heart to turn it off."
On the Schilling HBP:
"It was kinda weird because the first couple pitches kinda set up the beanball pitch. Whether it was purposeful or not, just kinda put it in the memory bank. What's done is done."
Rome asked if he expected it when he stepped in the box:
"No, not really. I wasn't thinking that. I can see that the pitch to Jason Veritek didn't look so good, but it barely even hit him...That one definitely dotted me up. Lol"
Rome commented on Milton yelling, etc. :
"Well it's nice, ya know. That's one of the things we've always taken pride on the Oakland A's is to have each other's back. And Milton really had my back."
On Milton as a teammate:
"He's awesome. Regardless of what people said, unless you get to know the individual, you don't know. We come from opposite ends of the spectrum and we get along great. If you're asking me to say a bad word about Milton, I can't do it."
On he and Milton sitting:
"I've been dragged down with a touch of the mono lately. So it was just a time for me to try to get some rest."
Will Barry be with the team next year?
"When you think of Barry Zito, you think of the Oakland A's. Me and the rest of the guys on the team would love to have him for the next three four years."
On the Slusser article:
"I couldn't believe it was written. I never thought anyone would purposely hurt you or make you look bad in the public eye. When it comes to media, I've always been accessible and nice. And I'm learning that there are some people or situations you have to watch."
"In general I think it shouldn't have been written and it did not make me feel good that it was written."
"Was it personal? Ya know, maybe. I don't know. If someone had something personal against me, I don't know why. That was my first sort of run in with someone trying to bring me down when you're flying high."
"The veterans really stood behind me. The fact that it was written and the way it was written..."
"I'm not going to be one of those guys who shuts off the media in general. I'm one of those guys who has too much to say. Lol But now I know that there are some people that you have to watch."
"I don't think you can gain any better compliment than when the veterans are backing you up, especially for a young guy. (Mentioned specifically Jay Payton, Mark Kotsay, Frank Thomas, Jason Kendall.)"
On the 5 punch out game:
LOL "What he said (re: Richie Sexton), he could've walked five times, well not me. Guys were saying `you couldn't even hit the broad side of a barn'. Guys put wood putty on my chair so I could fix the holes in my bat."
"After the first three stikeouts I got a hit and I thought okay, it's ending for today. But then they just kept piling on. I would have just been happy to get beaned."
On his dad's influence (I think I missed a bit of this):
"My dad was one of those grind em out catcher guys. Obviously we're a lot different in some senses, but he's my hero, my idol."
0 recs |
63 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Thanks for posting.
-Nick Swisher
by kaweahkaweah on Jul 17, 2006 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!!-- Susan S article
by novaoakland on Jul 17, 2006 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i still don't think she was purposely trying
by larrysgurl on Jul 17, 2006 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't blame Slusser...
by Floridafan on Jul 17, 2006 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then, not for nothing, but he's an idiot.
And I think that's a classless act. Sorry, I love Swish, but his response to that situation is just plain dumb.
The correct response: "There's nothing in it. I might have changed a few words, but big whoop. You worry when they stop talking about you."
by Ozzz on Jul 17, 2006 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't want to get into this again,
by bigelephant on Jul 17, 2006 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You still haven't pointed out one thing wrong.
by Ozzz on Jul 17, 2006 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not going to argue about what he
by novaoakland on Jul 17, 2006 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well maybe he should read the f'ing piece.
by Ozzz on Jul 17, 2006 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The content of the piece is irrelevant
Journalism 101
by novaoakland on Jul 18, 2006 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, no ....
Journalism, love it or loathe it, agree with the approach or disagree with the approach, is still a craft-based profession -- meaning that what they teach you, over and over again, is "balance," research, ledes and nut grafs, and inverted pyramid -- i.e., content.
by monkeyball on Jul 18, 2006 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spoken like a true Republican.
And that, Ladies and gentlemen, is why we're in Iraq.
by Ozzz on Jul 18, 2006 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No,
That's why "we" are in Iraq.
by bigelephant on Jul 19, 2006 5:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are people who still think that?
Read up, hombre.
by Ozzz on Jul 19, 2006 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you must still believe
see: Lebanon.
Wake up, hombre.
by bigelephant on Jul 19, 2006 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man oh man.
Here's some truth for you, courtesy of the CIA. In the year before the Iraq War, there were 400 acts of terrorism around the world. The year following, 3,400. The year after that, the Bush administration stopped counting - for the first time in over 25 years - because the number was ridiculous.
So keep on believing that your President is 'fighting the war on terrorism' if you want, but the reality is (and you can look it up, if you can detach yourself from Rush long engouh), that Bush's dumbass move going into Iraq has increased terrorism TEN-FOLD.
by Ozzz on Jul 20, 2006 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all,
- I just love that you keep on scolling down to respond. I respected and admire bullheadness.
- To blame the Bush Administration on the increase of acts of terrorism is so, oh, I don't know, maybe delusionally liberal. During the previous 8 yrs of the Democratic Administration terrorist groups throughout the world had free reign. Countries like the Sudan, Pakistan, Lebanon could do very little because they didn't have the might of the US and her allies to help. So, sure there were less acts of terror prior to Gulf War 2. So what? See point three....
- I know guys like to say the reason why the the international col
by bigelephant on Jul 20, 2006 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoop, sorry, con't
I wouldn't go as far as you and blame Clinton and his weak-kneed Administration on their pathetic handling of terrorist groups. But as stated early that period certainly allowed these muslim groups to train, get organized, purchase weapons and plan for attacks like what we saw on 9/11. So we now have a full blown situation where we have our CAN youth dieing in Afghanistan, we have US youth dieing in Iraq and we have Jewish youth being kiddknapped and dieing in Isreal and Lebanon. Why? Not because of Bush . Not because of Harper. But because we are in a cultural and religious war that will literally last for, if not years, maybe decades. Listen, I have a 9 yr old son. I fear for his future. If something isn't done now he may die in the desert in Afghanistan or be blown up going to school on the subway.
The time is now to act. Right now its Iraq. Tomorrow it might be N. Korea or Iran. Or it'II be too late.
by bigelephant on Jul 20, 2006 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PS,
by bigelephant on Jul 20, 2006 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way you son will die in Afghanistan..
9/11 sucked. And so the world went into Afghanistan and sorted it. And instead of actually completing the mission, the US went into Iraq, who had NO INVOLVEMENT in 9/11 (to quote Bush again), and Osama Bin Laden is still out there laughing.
Bush can't find one old man with bad kidneys and a respirator, with the world's most high tech, highly trained armed forces working alongside him, and now he's got war on three different fronts (none of which he's winning), and you actually think this is a positive move?
Dude, not for nothing, but you're smarter than that. You know this isn't going the way it should. And you know, despite your Rush Limbaugh/O'Reilly blaming of Clinton for all this (hmm, I seem to recall those same people kicking the crap out of him for daring to go into Bosnia, and firing missiles into African Al Queda-harboring countries), that what you thought when Bush went into Iraq - IE: He was going to get WMD - is not even close to why he went in.
A tenfold increase in terrorism. Almost a doubling of the WTC death toll. Half a trillion dollars wasted. 20,000 American lives fucked up. 2500 dead. War on three fronts. Torture. People arrested and detained in concentration camps without charge. The unfathomable removal of all civil liberties.
All that, and there's no WMD.
All that, and Bin Laden laughs.
I have a kid too, and I fear for him, but not because of terrorists. To assume terrorists are born wanting to die, or somehow 'hate freedom' so much that they one day just say "you know, I hate the Bill of Rights so much that I think I'll kill myself today", is mindless and puerile in the extreme.
Here's the reality, if you care - WE (the US, Canada and the rest of the western world) have been fucking up the Middle East, taking all it's wealth, supporting dictators and tyrants who sell us oil nice and cheap, for decades. We've meddled with their leadership, we've given billions to Israel, we've rorted and extorted them for so long that, eventually, they were going to get rightly pissed off about it.
And that's what you're seeing right now. If we left them the hell alone, they wouldn't have a problem with us.
Instead, you want to turn the place into glass. Endless war, where standing up to the 'good guys' equates to being a 'terrorist' and demands you be imprisoned without a hearing, without charge, and without due process, with the added bonus of getting tortured for good measure.
We used to be the good guys. We used to end wars, not start them. Yeah, I fear for my kid's future, but it's people like you, who want to make everything black and white, and take the attitude of "if I can't understand it, I must fear it, and if I fear it, it must be killed" that are going to make his world one that's tough to survive.
I don't fear Saddam Hussein - never did. But I sure as hell fear George W. Bush. Because he's done what Osama Bin Laden could never do - he's turned the United States of America into a fascist state.
The terrorists... have won.
by Ozzz on Jul 21, 2006 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the pot calling the kettle black
Some facts, if you please:
I think I posted earlier that a common straw horse Liberals love to point to is that no WMD were found in IRAQ. Its fact the Bush Administration offered this threat as justification for invading IRAQ.
Some context and historical facts are needed. The Americans and the Brits were receiving intell all pointing to Saddam attempting to produce WMD. For yrs he had attempted to sabotage and circumvent all UN resolutions to disarm. This fact was crystallized in the 1,500 pg 2006 The Iraq Survey Group Report, completed by the CIA:
"....Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future."
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted, a summary of the report says."
Saddam had a history of using WMD ON HIS OWN PEOPLE and firing rockets into Tel Aviv-into a country that wasn't involved in the '91 invasion but you continue to use the justification that the US didn't find any WMD in IRAQ AFTER defeating Saddam! This arguement is old and weak. Especially coming from you 'Oz.
The link between IRAQ and global terrorism during the '90s was well known throughout the world intelligence agencies. You know this also. After admitting the US had failed in finding any WMD in IRAQ, President Bush had this to say:
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said
Again, let's not forget the context. The American public had endured a Clinton Ad that did nothing but fire some long range rockets as an answer to the USS Cole terror attack, various USA Embassay attacks throughout the world, and the terrorist bombing at the WTC. Then 9/11 happens. Action was needed. Bush stood up and said "no more".
'Oz, there is no doubt war is terrible. It's ugly and has many orphans-the truth being one. So please, stop listening to CBC or watching CTV and CBS and give up your KOS membership and stop spreading all this hate!. Get behind those of us who support the President. A President who had the balls to meet a group a muslim radicals eye-to-eye and say "we're not taking your shit any more!"
You can do it!!!!!
by bigelephant on Jul 21, 2006 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utter rubbish.
Then, as the buildings came down, he finished his book about the goat. Bravo. Way to protect.
Then, with the ENTIRE WORLD helping combat the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan, he CREATED a second war against a nation that, by the CIA's own reckoning, was "not a threat to America or its own neighbors, with an army that has been largely decimated."
Why? Why do that when Bin Laden is still out there?
Because Hussein gave martyr bonuses to terrorists? Well, perhaps you missed King Saud's wife selling her family jewelry to donate the proceeds to the 9/11 terrorists' families a week after the WTC attacks. Did you miss that? Did you not see the Saudi 'martyr telethon', in which she donated hundreds of thousands of dollars?
I saw it. But then, hey, I watch CBC rather than Fox News.
You don't go to war with a nation because one man at the head of their government is objectionable. YOU. JUST. DON'T.
Especially when the guy who just attacked the fucking heart of your nation is still sitting in a cave sending text messages to his Kansas City chapter.
Support the President? Support him doing what? Staging three wars at once, and losing all of them? Fuck that, I'll go with the 67% of Americans who just today said he was doing a fair to poor job, rather than the 33% of wingnuts who think he's doing just great, despite the 2500 dead American kids, 3000 dead 9/11 victims, and 2000 dead Hurricane Katrina victims on his watch.
You should read a little history. The Germans did exactly as you're doing today. They figured they just had to join their leader because he only had their best interests at heart and everyone was against them...
What you're inviting is fascism. What you want, is fascism. And because of people like you, the terrorists have won.
by Ozzz on Jul 21, 2006 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Backed into a corner
Ironically very few people thought going to war in Iraq was a mistake. With the information they possessed at that time all the info and intel pointed to the fact that Saddam needed to be taken out. If you recall the President's State of the Union Address he clearly targeted the "Axis of Evil"; Iran, N. Korea and Iraq. Iraq has been taken care of but now we witness the others ramping up their nuke capabilities. It's Leftie Libs like you and your Commie brothers and sisters who'd let these rouge states build up their WMD and threated the Free World.
Everyone hates war. No one wants their loved one dieing in some desert in the Middle East. But make no mistake about it my Oaktoon bating friend the front line is in Iraq-not East side of the Columbia River. And i'm not sure about you, but i prefer that. Has there been mistakes in Iraq? You bet.
The number one biggest mistake was that Rummie and the President started listening to guys like you and started decreasing the number of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. They should have INCREASED the numbers- and completely taken over the country by declaring Marshall Law. Anyone out after 11 PM would be shot. Plus they shouldv'e allied themselves with ONE party- the Sunnis, the Kurds, I don't care, but arm them to the teeth. The Middle Eastern cultural demands and expects might. They respect power. It was the US folly to try and Nation build. Bad mistake.
Interestingly though, we rarely hear about WHAT the Left would do in Iraq. They seem to be too busy making asses of themselves running around yelling about polls and such. Pity really.
As for our friend Bin Laden- don't kid yourself 'Oz. If the US really wanted to find him they wouldv'e done it by now. But stop and think about it. What harm does he do. Sure he sends his little videos from his caves about his crank messages of retributions and threats but really, he is harmless. In fact 'Oz, I'II let you in on a little secret...it's better that the US DON'T find him. Think about it.
by bigelephant on Jul 24, 2006 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"A touch of the mono?"
by salb918 on Jul 17, 2006 11:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm worried.
by Sharon on Jul 17, 2006 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jul 17, 2006 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not terrible,
by rebus on Jul 17, 2006 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no way for us to know if he'll be better
by Sharon on Jul 17, 2006 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swish
by pickinmachine on Jul 17, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jealous much?
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey!
by Jennifer on Jul 17, 2006 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sharon gave Nick mono?
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last time I saw Swish was last season.
So there.
by Sharon on Jul 17, 2006 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad news, everyone--
-Cindi.
by Nico on Jul 17, 2006 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I have mono as well, I can't hear out of
by theblackpearl on Jul 17, 2006 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have testicular mono--
Testes, one, two...testes, one, two, three
Uh-oh. Three's not good, is it?
by Nico on Jul 17, 2006 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't that be Testicular Trio instead?
-Nick Swisher
by kaweahkaweah on Jul 17, 2006 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they were bruised would you then have a
by theblackpearl on Jul 17, 2006 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First Kotchman, now Swisher
by andeux on Jul 17, 2006 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which one's Humbert, and which Quilty?
by monkeyball on Jul 17, 2006 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, facials?
by salb918 on Jul 17, 2006 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there...
by Leesa on Jul 17, 2006 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not for free.
by Jennifer on Jul 17, 2006 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the recap! :)
by Poppy on Jul 17, 2006 12:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he actually said LOL?
by larrysgurl on Jul 17, 2006 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was LOLing...
by Jennifer on Jul 17, 2006 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh good. i was worried he actually said LOL. that
by larrysgurl on Jul 17, 2006 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
<pout>
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good lord
by larrysgurl on Jul 17, 2006 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I know
by luvsthecurveball on Jul 17, 2006 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, and ...
by monkeyball on Jul 17, 2006 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big Hurt
by Larry E on Jul 17, 2006 2:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's all I know:
So in other words, he's day-to-day with a bad pun.
by Nico on Jul 17, 2006 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's very cool
by Squeaky on Jul 17, 2006 2:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Now Ive been trying to read the Slusser article
by Amnesiac727 on Jul 17, 2006 10:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Link
by alamedagirl on Jul 17, 2006 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
by Amnesiac727 on Jul 18, 2006 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
