Soxbadger

You can quote Malcolm X until the cows come home, but compromise is how a Republic runs. Just because you believe something, doesnt mean that 90% of the US doesnt agree with you. So you can keep hoping that the 10% on your side are going to some how overpower the 90%, or you can try and give a little and get something for the 10% as opposed to getting nothing. The best compromises are ones that everyone walks away believing they lost.

Yeah seems that I should have refreshed my recollection on the US great depression instead of just going with my knowledge of Europe and assuming that the US was suffering similar problems.

The US had a huge amount of capital in the Great Depression? (I really have no clue, I always thought hyperinflation was a risk in the US, but I could have been wrong.)

Im not sure what you mean. The German hyperinflation was partially a result of massive borrowing during WWI while at the same time printing money... Also im not sure if its relevant, but wasnt the US still on the gold standard? I believe Germany went off in 1914, to print more money and then never could get their act straight.

Well the war definitely helped the economy bounce back (and it has nothing to do with stimulus) Lets look at WWII. First you have a drastic increase in demand for US goods (weaponry) Second you have a drastic decrease in supply of world made goods (rest of the world is under attack factories are destroyed, no China to even compete with) Third you have a drastic reduction in the supply of labor (the draft). If the US had all 3 of those things today, our economy would surge. The problem is that we dont have 1, we dont have 2 and we dont have 3. So if you want an economic burst a la 1941, you need the conditions above. I personally dont think FDR's new deal made a big difference, the biggest difference it made was the mentality of the American public. Instead of going down the route of Germany with hyperinflation leading to no confidence in the govt, leading to the end of the Republic, FDR kept people believing in America.

Who is saying 2009-2011 is the best we can do. You play the cards your dealt, Obama unfortunately was dealt a s***ty hand, most of which had nothing to do with him (think of the housing crisis). You can either fold, or you can play the hand out. As much as Obama hasnt done what I wanted, at least he has tried to do what he can when given a crappy deck. No way would I ever respect anyone who thinks that "letting the system fail" will somehow solve our problems. Letting the system fail would result in the end of a Republic in the US, i dont care if I have to eat 1,000 pounds of s***, I would not let the US fail on my watch. As for your graph, What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah!

If this is what happened with Obama as President, I can only imagine what would have happened with McCain/Palin. And I guess Im agreeing with Sullivan, first time for everything. As for the rest, Obama is just the President. His position as President comes with "sway" but it does not come with the ability to unilaterally make change. If McCain was in office, would they have attempted Health Care reform? If McCain was in office, what would we be doing about immigration. Im pretty sure that McCain has advocated far more involvement in Libya than Obama. And I dont agree that there are 2 central questions of American govt. In fact the actual statement is kind of butchered. He starts with the 2 problems of self-govt (power and money) and then changes it to the 2 most central questions. 2 biggest problems does not equal the 2 biggest questions. And the problems of American govt will never go away as long as we are capitalists.

As long as I can remember man has argued over which gaming system is superior. Atari or NES (obviously NES) NES or Sega Super NES or Genesis

Wow you just killed Hank Hill.

Ive had my PS3 for over 4 years. So when I made the original choice between PS3 and Xbox, I added in 5 years of online use to the cost. Im not sure who wouldnt do something like that.Im not projecting out, Im talking about money that I have already saved. At 7 years (3 years from now) the money saved on PS3 free online will have almost bought the machine itself.

Its an entire system of scheming. Basically the school helps the person get loans, the school gets the money, the govt and the person are left to figure out the rest. Its all about money, and these private colleges have enough to make sure that congress doesnt strip their ability to give govt loans and financial aid.

$50 for 5 years = $250, I could almost buy an Xbox 360 for that amount of money. In my entire time using PS3 Ive experienced maybe 5 issues with online. 5 issues or $250, Ill take PS3 for $250 Alex. (edit) Different people use their machines for different things. If I was a hardcore online gamer, maybe superior service means something. But since the days of me being competitive online are long gone, I just want a free service that I can have fun with.

I didnt even want to get into that. I just meant the school has more money to lobby congress than the individuals who they are ripping off.

For profit universities are a serious problem in the US, unfortunately they have more money than the regular people they sell the classes to, so the laws remain favorable to them. My friend used to be a Dean for a school much like Phoenix.

You dont have to actually sign in to get to Netflix through the PS3. At least on mine it asks me to sign in, I hit enter, then it just goes to Netflix while Im not actually signed in.

Nothing is private enough. You put it on the internet, some one can get to it.

I dont have Facebook, Ive always advised my friends that Facebook can only lead to bad things. As for the guys complaint, Facebook is about as in the public as you can make information. If you make information public, you have no legitimate expectation of privacy. Thus, if you dont want people to know you committed a crime, dont post a picture on facebook bragging about it. (Not saying that this is what happened in this case, but plenty of people post stupid things.)

Ha flip out? The worst I said was that some ones argument was absurdly idiotic (or something to that effect), and that was mainly just frustration. And its impossible to try and address everyone when posts are coming that quickly, so I get lazy. Im not getting paid for this, so Ill do what I want haha

Im saying that the option of keeping in Sale wasnt part of the argument. If Sale stays in the game and gets the out, we hope that Santos gets the 9th to save. But the series of moves that is being discussed is what do you do if you decide that Sale shouldnt face Jones. (Im not saying either move is right, Im on the fence on this one, I would have stuck with Sale but can understand the rationale.) Now if we are going to take Sale out, the question is Crain v. Santos. My argument is that if you are 100% sure that Santos is closing in the 9th, you bring in Crain to get 1 batter in the 8th. Having Santos pitch is a far riskier move. It worked, but I think its an added risk (once the decision to pull Sale was made). This entire hypothetical argument is based on Sale being removed. Those are just the parameters of the argument in this case.

With the Sox its not a bad day, its just another bad start to a season that I had much higher hopes for. I look at the talent, and I wonder whats wrong, something just isnt right. Ive been nervous all season about what the ramifications will be if the Sox dont do well this year and draw fans. I had big hopes for this team, and you sometimes just need to change, maybe just for changes sake. I just really want them to win this year, and at first I wasnt worried, but after the last week or so, even I cant just blindly believe. (edit) Thats not what people are saying. They are saying that if Ozzie did not like the Sale- Jones match up (whether you agree or disagree, Ozzie didnt like it), the next logical move would be Crain, if Santos is your closer. It has nothing to do wth the original decision to take out Sale, its what Ozzie did after that.

After 5 years of not criticizing Ozzie and basically letting things fly because he won the World Series, even I have come to the point where Im just tired. Just one day a season I want to feel that we are going to out manage the other team.

I have no problem with blow back. I just get annoyed when my point isnt coming across clearly and then I end up having to try and respond to several points at once, which I then get lazy and just blur everything together, which makes it even less coherent. But then I stop caring because its just a message board argument and I know at minimum I wont say anything to bury myself. Not to mention the game was going on and I was just hoping that Ozzie didnt some how find a way to snatch defeat from victory again. As for Santos compared to Soria. Im not saying Santos should never go 4,5 or 6 outs, Im just saying today, his first save at yankee stadium while the Sox are really struggling, is not the day I give him a difficult save. Maybe after he has 5-10 saves I start to give him a longer rope, but today, I give him every chance to succeed.

Why couldnt Ozzie have put in Crain instead of Santos to face Jones? (Thornton for 1 batter was if Crain failed, I thought a lefty was up next but now im not sure if Granderson was 2 batters)

Not expecting anyone to agree with me at all. Had an annoying day, and instead of my normal "Im not going to get involved" attitude, I decided that I was going to say what I felt. It happens once every 5 years, I stopped getting involved a long time ago, and for the most part I stick with that, but every once in a while a brief moment in time happens where I just cant stop myself. As for the second part, of course. Even a ball boy arguably has more contact with the White Sox than an average fan on a message board. But that doesnt mean that I as an average fan on a message board, dont have the right to make a logical argument about why that manager may have made a bad decision. Otherwise, why have the message board. If I just wanted to congratulate myself on my own brilliance Id start a blog or become a sports journalist (zing haha).

I said his argument was dumb, and most of that was because the poster doesnt seem to understand my argument, which makes his argument back make no sense to me. Once we realized that neither of us are on the same page, it hasnt been a thing. It has nothing to do with Ozzie, Santos or anything other than what I have seen in my life. I feel that I have seen players get messed up due to blown save situations, and after watching Thornton fail so hard, I just would be extra cautious with Santos. I stand by what I said, Ozzie shouldnt have put Santos in during the 8th if he planned to use him as the closer in the 9th. I would not have done it. The Sox won, Im glad to be wrong, I just think that we need to have a much better plan in the future. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.