bmags

Not impressed with what Oladipo is giving thunder

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/buckle-up-folks This is so weird. Possibly being naive but hard to believe an 8 pt hillary win would still not see a dem senate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) I've got all the others from that year saved up also - the Konerko GS, Podsednik's HR, Hawk's call on clinching, "JOE CREDE". Still makes me smile. I think I continue to be Ed Farmer's only board backer in part because his Paul Konerko grand slam call is my favorite sox call ever. It was perfect.

They will be very very very good, but I still think there are diminishing returns there and it is not a foregone conclusion they are champs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) Rooneys_2005_World_Series_Call.mp3 A crucial piece because Joe Buck's call was beyond bland.

Yeah, I wish sox were in playoffs. But nostalgia and sports go together like cookies and milk. It will be fun reliving 05 even if we have another world series next year. It seemed so impossible, baseball was the yankees winning the world series or being in the world series. We were only a few years removed from that dragon being slayed, and suddenly it was our turn.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) I don't watch Fox News, so keep that in mind when I say this, but I do think the "they're just the GOP/Conservative mouthpiece organization" is not really true as much as it was 5-6 years ago. Two people I randomly see through viral videos online, like O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, are far from the conservative cheerleaders like Hannity. Both have gone after Trump repeatedly (Kelly especially). Beck, though not with the network now, is totally against Trump and the current GOP. Yes, they're all obviously much more conservative than their MSNBC counter-parts, but they're all not the extreme right version of conservatism either (like Hannity). You don't really get exposure to that though when you employ the blowhard extremists like Hannity who say the most outlandish things. So I agree, that's on them for the "monster" they created. Also Shephard Smith.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) They tried that "Vet's Choice" voucher system or whatever it was called starting a couple of years back, and that didn't work so hot either. Medicare-for-vets might be a decent option. The latter is what I'm thinking of. Vouchers are too confusing for people. The problem is coverage. Maybe partner with a hospital group to identify areas of vet populations that aren't close enough to mental health or outpatient care and create some provider spaces. But hard to believe that a medicare system with our existing medical provider structure isn't better than the provider model - especially for capacity issues.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) I don't know how whatever the "VA scandal" is supposed to have been became a political issue. (well ok, actually I do, but not the point). It's always had long wait times and been a pretty miserable experience, basically since Vietnam. I don't even know how you fix that actually. I think they need to decide whether this gov-provided system is capable of being fixed. I have my doubts considering it's funding.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 11:44 AM) The problem is that it's difficult to vote against your interest. If you have good, employer provided insurance, or if you are generally healthy, you didn't see the issue with the pre-Obamacare system. Catastrophe policies were cheap - even if you didn't really get much coverage. So unless you had a pre-existing condition, or your employer didn't provide coverage, there was no reason to see the problem with the system. I am struggling with how to vote on a measure in CO this year that would turn the state to single payor - no premiums to insurance companies, no deductibles for the vast amount of care. The measure will be funded by (1) the State would move off the exchange and under ACA would receive the amount paid to CO residents in ACA subsidies as federal funding; and (2) a 10% payroll tax - 2/3 of which is paid by the employer and the remaining 1/3 paid by the employee. I'm generally very in favor of single payor. But here's the problem: my employer covers the cost of my insurance premiums entirely. It's a really, really great benefit for me and I consider that in my total compensation package. I'm relatively healthy (knocks on wood), so my total annual expenditure on healthcare is practically nill. A vote for single payor in CO means higher taxes for me without the corresponding benefit so long as I stay healthy. If I paid insurance premiums, this would be an easy decision because I'd basically be trading those premiums for a deductible free insurance policy. Under ordinary circumstances, I'm absolutely the voter that the amendment would hit, but a vote against my pocket book is a tougher sell. So the dilemma is do I vote for the societal good, or do I vote my own selfish gain? I honestly think I would vote against that measure. Remember that Vermont tried this. THere is a huge benefit to this being done on federal level with ability to handle debt more effectively than at state level. You have larger customer base, more diversification to negotiate (read: dictate) rates to providers, and again, for states that are older (fortunately not colorado anymore) they would be bankrupted by that.

People don't know what medicare is. It's just there. It's medicare. Government needs to keep their hands off it.

I was in a dorm in missouri, and it turns out I now work on same floor as the other sox fan in my dorm that I watched the game with (did not really see much of each other before or after). I was tense as hell in that final game. Gamethread hyperbole galore. Rowand sucks, he can't hit a slider low and away to save his life! I calmed down a smidge post Dye single, but man, the feeling after that final out was insane. I was up until 6 am and had an 8am german test. One nice thing about Chicago - because of WGN being national I got to see the parade. I did drive back to Chicago to watch game at my brothers apt. for game 1. I listened to the sports radio follow-up for hours. It was so awesome. Yeah it was a fluke, but I get chills. After astros tied it up in game 2, I was so pissed. My friends called me when their radio went out in their car and couldn't hear the ninth. I remember telling them I didn't care and didn't want to talk, then sarcastically called the game "Scott podsednik, oh he hits a fly out to right fieee OH MY GOD " and hung up and ran through the hallways screaming. That s*** is forever.

https://theringer.com/tom-thibodeau-minneso...7f95#.eimkxhkog In which tears the size of october cabbages fall down my face.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) Yes, but a year ago, Sanchez was coming with 3-4 additional prospects. No way they would trade Sanchez, Frazier and Torres now, as a package. Heck, Sanchez's asking price at the moment is more than almost anyone in the game because of his position and years of control. It would be like Sanchez AND the equivalent of Montas/Avi Garcia three years ago. That's too big of a risk for the White Sox. Yes. This is what has bothered me. Benintendi, Sanchez were very high quality prospects that you are able to get in packages because they are unknown and could fail. But the strategy of demanding ML talent means that we miss out getting these players when there is more risk, and the ability to get a wide range of potential stars in one swap. The White Sox are not a gary sanchez for chris sale away from playoffs.

Makes me want to watch old simpsons episodes and daily show episodes honestly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:43 AM) Oliver definitely has a tendency to drive a joke into the ground or to keep trying to make an unfunny thing stick throughout multiple episodes. I've yet to catch Sam Bee's show beyond a clip about "rigged elections" a coworker sent me a week ago, but that was solid. I like when Oliver does that just because it's a wink that they don't take themselves that seriously which is important in the middle of some pretty hard hitting stuff. But Oliver is much more like Colbert in his ability to make the audience feel like they are in on it. Stewart at his best did that too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:38 AM) Late 90's and very early 00's TDS (talking Colbert and Carell vintage here) parodied a lot of local and nightly national newscasts, not just political stuff and cable news. That's where you got stuff like Produce Pete. Welp off to waste my day watching classic TDS clips! p.s. Ezio is also definitely right in that TDS (and Colbert) reached its peak during the Bush years as a cathartic outlet for liberals. But a few years after Obama was first elected, it became more and more the Jon Stewart show with the best of the correspondents going on to bigger and better things and a generally weaker supporting cast with less funny segments. his interview with Jim Cramer is up there as one of his all-time best, along with his spot on Crossfire and when he interviewed Betsy McCaughey during the initial stages of the ACA. It's funny because even though I applaud it highlights my biggest criticism with Post bush years Stewart which was giving undue power and influence to cable news personalities. No...Jim Cramer did not cause the financial crisis.

The "let Noah be Noah" fails with me mainly because if he wanted to be taken as his own thing he shouldn't have kept exact same formula and show template. Kilbourn Topic/Image Add Absurdity Audience laughs Stewart Topic/Image Add criticism and humor Audience Laughs Noah Topic/Image Whisper to camera and smile Audience watches

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) I think Stewart was a specific person for a specific time. Before Bush was elected the Daily Show was basically what it is now (without the viral factor), but then 9-11 happened and we had that years-long period of absurdity with the Bush administration and Republicans, and his show evolved into a type of salve for liberals to cope with until we could get our own people back in charge. Once Obama was elected, that wasn't really needed anymore, and since Stewart never actually WANTED to be this cultural focal point, he recognized it was a good time to move on so he stepped down. There really isn't any re-creating the Daily Show from, say, 2002-2008. That time is now past. But, sir, you are missing good Jon Stewart from 2008-2010 of Jon Stewart vs. Financial Press.

Found this yesterday http://www.espn.com/espn/columns/story?id=...ciechowski_gene I remember coverage being great. But yeah, twitter/facebook now and the national coverage obviously wasn't there. There was a lot of dumb whining about "markets" even though houston/chicago was 3 and 4.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) I think he's borderline unwatchable. His comedic delivery is awful, and he isn't capable of the genuine righteous indignation on serious topics that Stewart was. 0/2 Yes, this is a good summary.

There's about equal chance that I'll watch a michael moore documentary or james o'keefe documentary

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:01 AM) I mean, I don't think people are really giving Trevor Noah his due. He's doing a solid job, but people are ignoring him, and any praise people give for him is muted with "but I really miss Stewart..." They won't let him be his own guy. I don't know man. He's just not good, and I think 80% of that is writing (daily show itself started to fall off after 2010 imo when Stewart started believing his own hype that he was uniquely wise and the true reasonable american), but they also don't have the correspondent pipeline they used to have. But then there is Noah. His cadence is strange, comedically, he tends to swallow the punch lines instead of emphasize them... but also it just feels like the daily show just doesn't have a point of view anymore. It started out with Kilbourn skewing the news, stewart skewed politicians and news, but now it just seems to peddle nowthis meme outrage fodder. Back in my day.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 08:56 AM) The Sox when most of us were kids had Frank Thomas, a very rare type of player that made it easy to love the team regardless of wins and losses. I really think it's that simple. If you have charismatic teams that compete, it's easy to be a fan. But even when you don't, having a guy like Frank Thomas makes it easy. The Big Hurt wasn't a media darling, didn't have great things to say in interviews, but was a fabulous player and person and his at bats were appointment TV. yeah, although tbh when I was a kid frank was often booed and people shouted "more money" at him. Wasn't until 2000 when it turned back around for him that I remember. His holdouts really hurt him, in the eyes of the fans back when athletes should not get a million dollars.

Sounds like the new look knicks didn't look that good.