bmags

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 05:48 PM) And the link is.................... He was doing the math on your anecdote.

out.

I think he meant "1 billion" per season.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) For this year. Going forward? I smell an early 90's like run by them. This is no hyperbole. AA shredded two of the top 5 worst contracts in baseball, fattened up their system, and got a stud 5-tool CF for two relievers and a #4 starter. He's done this in like two years. Honestly that is an unbelievable 2 year run.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) Yeah why would KW sign Dunn knowing full well he would hit .160 What an idiot!!!!! Yeah...dunn is the only problem, isn't he.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 06:21 PM) Lash out at Jerry or the players. Jerry gave the sell order, and the players are the ones who sucked. Yes, don't lash out at the person who put together the team.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 05:55 PM) Jays fans are probably pretty excited about getting Rasmus. However this will certainly die back down when they realize they have zero shot at winning their division or even making the playoffs any time soon. I know the feeling.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) Also, someone tell me why I should sell the farm for an OF that has 1000 PA, mediocre power, run production, batting average, etc. that also is a below average fielder according to UZR? Yeah, toronto really sold the farm.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) I know that the problem is the structure of our gov't. We shouldn't need a super majority to pass anything, but we do. I just gave an example of what it feels like when I read the paper/listen to the news about what is going on here. It is bulls***. It seems that the politicians don't care about the consequences of their inaction to its citizens, they just want to bicker with each other and name call. Also, super majorities are bad for the country, because that means that a congress can pass whatever laws they want without hearing the other side, and the other side could be valid and good for the country. What we really need is another couple major parties to compete with the Dems and GOP for votes. Then maybe if there is no super majority possible, then there will be compromise again. there won't be compromise, there will just be a long-term give and take.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) you could probably put joe borchard back in charlotte and he would be our top prospect again. our farm is a bunch of crap. okay, we get it, but a top 50 prospect would be top 5 on a lot of teams.

Edit: where are these "sox get money back" posts coming from. Are they just implying the salary dump or is someone saying they gave us cash?

I go on vacay for a week and am so behind. So De Aza is CF?

site crashing for anyone?

Yeah, you guys are right. Nobody knows what a debt ceiling is. And (hint: it has nothing to do with this hint I just stated). And in a fragile, prolonged recovery after a banking crisis, taking money out of our citizens and soldiers hands is a great idea. I mean, it might even dip us into a second recession, where the GOP can then take the presidency and start passing great deficit busting laws like Medicare part D again and launch war with Iran.

Eh. Whatever. Your characterization of what's happening isn't true. And the real problem is the structure of our government. It wasn't built to be able to handle disciplined partisanship like the current atmosphere is. It was fine when political parties weren't as ideologically defining, people LOVED when southern conservative democrats were democrats because of jim crow, and it made compromises so possible. But the senate and house have written up so many rules it makes it too difficult to get anything to pass. The Senate is a check on the house, and vice-versa, that should be enough, it also has a president to check them AND a supreme court. BUt apparently we also need a super majority to pass legislature in the senate, etc. etc. If we make it so the voters vote a party into power, that party rules to their ideological vision, they succeed/fail, new party comes in, passes their new vision and cuts old party ideas except for ones the voters like, rinse repeat. People are putting too much emphasis on the personalities of congress and not enough on the structure.

I wonder if i'm old enough yet where Rongey can no longer use it to discredit my statement that it doesn't matter if mark kotsay wasn't the sole reason we lost the division last year.

thanks doods.

well, to be fair, the dems (still in majority) could have raised the debt ceiling after those december compromises the GOP leadership agreed to, but wanted the GOP to own it. Instead of doing that, the GOP is now demanding highly regressive cuts, and in return will raise the debt ceiling. Regardless of how this turns out,t he debt ceiling needs to be abolished. It's way too dangerous a bargaining chip. An economic atomic bomb and the GOP is north korea.

It's the idea that you would constantly make better choices than these people eligible for government assistance. Do you really know their plan or why she's putting herself and family in that position? Probably not, you just know that you always work hard and make the right choices and they are just lazy and moochers. Being poor really, really sucks. I don't think that can be emphasized enough. 32k a year and below witha family regardless if the mom is working or not is a miserable existence that is exhausting. It's pretty easy to lose empathy with it as you move out of that bracket, see yourself as working hard, and project that other people aren't there because they are lazy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 07:39 PM) I tend to side with you more often than not, but then you're taking a sect of society and telling them screw you because they made a different choice than you would have. For example, what if me and my wife held jobs helping underprivileged children, where the job may be rewarding in knowing we are helping kids that would otherwise get tossed aside and have almost no chance, but it pays us almost nothing? Are you saying f*** us, we shouldn't be able to have kids because we didn't choose to go into a more lucrative career path? I ain't buying that brand. Within one generation you'd have effectively put numerous valuable societal jobs into extinction because anyone that has them can't have kids. Having kids isn't and never will be a privileged for the f***ing rich. Now, I'm not saying this doesn't have a breaking point -- such as having more than 1 or 2 kids when you can hardly make ends meet as it stands...but come on...telling people not to have a single child?! Overboard. bravo

Let's just remind everyone that this is money that congress already agreed to spend in december, but is now threatening to ruin everyone in the world's lives because they voted on it in december.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) Europe has a lot less right-wing politics in general, though they can up that count to "1" now. Regardless, it pretty thoroughly demolishes the idea that most terrorists are muslims. That's not true. There are a lot of anti-immigration right wing nationalist groups that have gotten powerful in europe over the past decade.

well, there's nothing that says we have to reign in debt via refusing to pay our bills. We could just raise the debt limit and then make proposals to reduce our deficits.

Because when republicans make a grandstanding political move holding the country hostage, if the democrats don't submit to their demands and the country defaults on it's debt, they were playing politics. Meanwhile, letting the debt ceiling raise while letting the republicans vote on a message of disapproval? That is policy at it's finest.

austerity budgeting in a economic slowdown, on the other hand...would definitely make the economy worse. So we SHOULD do that.