Balta1701

So I'd assume Morel will be on the bench tomorrow as a backup?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 12:26 AM) We seem incapable of making in-game adjustments. Basically, what you see in the first quarter or quarter and a half is what you're going to see all game. I find that supremely frustrating. I'm not even as mad at the lack of in-game adjustments as I am about the fact that "You're playing the Green Bay Packers and your game plan doesn't expect them to pressure the QB". There was nothing done to help Cutler the entire portion of the game I watched. It was the Martz offense all over again, long drop, look down the field.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Narrowed? I'm not seeing it. Can you show me? Here's a good summary of the federal education data. Edit: Same data basically, more graphs.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Of course it can. The issue, however, as with most government spending, is when one time money is used to create jobs, they are inevitability temporary jobs. Government investment into construction, however, can and will create jobs. The problem is, most of these are union jobs...which you can see on display right now if you drive down i55 to Central Ave. I pass by that area on my way to/from work, 3 days a week, and it's pretty common to see a few clusters of workers, and in each cluster, 2 are working and 3 are watching them work. If that's the kind of jobs we are creating, do we really need to create more of that kind? My question back in reply is...Do we have the type of infrastructure we need to run a 21st century economy? If we do, then no, we don't need those kind of jobs. If, OTOH, we have most of this nations sewers being 100 years old, dams that date back to the depression, rail lines that can't handle high speed transit, a power grid that can't handle distributed generation, schools in downtown Chicago that aren't air conditioned, and roads and bridges dating back to the 50's and earlier that are uniformly in disrepair...then every time you fix or update one of those, you're creating capacity that businesses can take advantage of, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of human capabilities. Just because the construction job ends doesn't mean that the economic benefits go away if there is useful work to be done. We're something like $2 trillion behind on standard upkeep right now, let alone developing new capabilities like high-speed-rail. The Stimulus put a whopping $35 billion into that $2 trillion hole.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) Part of the problem is the game plan this coaching staff has against Green Bay. 49ers ran the ball all over Green Bay last week and we come out with the pass happy Martz offense I thought we got rid of last year. Run the freaking football and maybe their pass rush eases up a little bit. Why they aren't using Marshall on quick out routes or slants to get yards and the ball in his hands I'll never know.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:47 PM) That ball hit the ground. He had it...but by the standard of earlier this game it'll be overturned.

You get that much time and that's the pass you throw?

Melton does the Clay Matthews hawk thing!

Wow now that's a true bs call.

That is how you deal with the all out blitz, get rid of the ball quick!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:49 PM) Nah, he just needs to go raise more money for his campaign and lob a few more jokes while embassies continue to get attacked. It's okay, everyone like you doesn't give a f*** that an ambassador to our country got raped and killed. Just crook the neck a little, stick your nose up just enough to look like a competent wise ass, look at the telepromter amd read it, raise some more money, and talk about how much Republicans suck and call it a day. Yeah, that guy in the chair only you can see is one giant arse.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:02 PM) They need to double Matthews on every play. That guy is single handidly disrupting our offense on almost every play. Cutler needs to get the ball out faster too

Big play Shea! Saved 3 points

Bump

QUOTE (That funky motion @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:13 PM) These NFL network guys are embarrassing. "They got lucky" - Irvin I think. Ouch.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:08 PM) that had to be the worst thing ive ever seen in my life. Id be happier if they had Rebecca Black sing a thursday night football song. Who thinks this crap is ok?

QUOTE (South Side Fireworks Man @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 06:35 PM) They should just play through it. I hate when they delay the game because of light rain then by the time they start the field is soaked and then it starts raining later in the game harder than at any time during the delay. If it's raining lightly but about to rain harder, makes much more sense to delay the game so that you don't burn both starters in 1.5 innings.

From email I just got:

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) Yeah, as I said, I think more than anything we are seeing a greater divide in education results, between haves and have-nots. Similar to the income gaps increasing, with the middle thinning out. Actually, this is kinda not true either. The gaps between the haves and have nots have actually narrowed with time...although to my eyes this is mostly because we've narrowed the racial and gender gaps in performance somewhat, and for now that has overwhelmed the expanding inequality elsewhere.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) Sure it could. May still be a good idea, but, every time we pour more money in, we increase the size of the inflation snap-back later. Although "later" keeps being pushed out because the growth is so slow at this point. Assuming the Fed is willing to allow an inflation snap-back to happen (it isn't) or that the inflation snap-back is so fast that the Fed can't react (seemingly without historic precedent).

Good. Can't hurt.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) Even though the public school systems as a whole may seem to be going downhill, I do think kids are getting smarter generationally, and more capable. Though I do think they are losing work ethic and motivation - again, as a whole. There are always exceptions. Without even going to the anecdotes, nationwide, test scores, graduation rates, and general performance indicators have been rising for a couple decades now. May not be rising as fast as we'd like them to be, but "the public school systems are going downhill" isn't well supported.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) As Balta pointed out and highlighted pretty well, even Clinton wasn't convinced they were much of a threat...if they had been, more would have been done by his administration versus just "handing it off" to Bush and letting him take it when he had the time. This one's harder...because there were some people (Richard Clarke) who were in the Clinton administration screaming that something big was coming...but the timing is so messed up because the Cole incident happened right around the 2000 election. It was December/January of 01 when they were finally becoming sure that it was an Al Qaeda planned operation...and there's decent reason to think based on their statements that they felt like a military response to the Cole was appropriate, but they didn't want to commit the U.S. to a military campaign in Afghanistan right before Bush took office, so they handed it off to them, tried to set up special briefings on Al Qaeda, tried to get the NSA to listen, but couldn't get the appropriate meeting, in no small part because the positions just didn't have staff for several weeks/months thanks to Congress's normal approval process. By the time summer rolled around, "All the signs were blinking red", but it was so far past the Cole that if you wanted a military response to the Cole, it wasn't going to happen. The CIA and FBI could have still rolled up the plot almost until the week it unfurled, and frankly I would actually think there's a good chance that would have happened had the executive branch not run into the transition period...but the U.S. wouldn't have been able to respond to breaking up the plot by carpet bombing the f*** out of Afghanistan with B-52's, and where things go from there...eep.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) Stop here for a minute, and join me in August, 2001. How would it have gone over in America, if Bush for seemingly no reason at all, instituted the kind of securities changes that we now accept as normal. Federalizing airport security, long security lines, invasive checks, armed guards, bomb sniffing dogs, chemical and biological weapons detection systems, etc, in order to attempt to stop a potential 9/11, which no one outside of a few think-tanks and terror briefings even believed as a real possibility. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Democrats wouldn't have screamed at every step of the way, as would have 99.8% of American's? The biggest problem with this statement is that these steps wouldn't have been necessary to break up the 9/11 plot. According to the 9/11 commission report, the CIA and FBI had enough pieces to put the puzzle together, but there was no one putting the focus on Al Qaeda, "Shaking the trees" I believe was the term, to try to force someone to realize what was about to unfold. OTOH...You're completely right about one thing. Even the USS Cole attack was not nearly big enough to force the US into the kind of posture it was going to take to deal with Al Qaeda as a threat. We saw that when Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at Bin Laden, no one took it seriously despite the 100's of people already killed at the embassies. So then the question becomes...if the 9/11 plot was rounded up, which it could have been by the intelligence agencies...where do things go from there? And that is...one very messy question, because you could have still taken boxcutters, cigarette lighters, etc., on to planes, and Al Qaeda would have continued training and strengthening in Afghanistan where they had their safe haven.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) Wow, 8 months! For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this. You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO. To slightly switch topics... You're right here. With the number of positions turning over, 8 months isn't all that much time. This is why one of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that the government needed to expedite the handover, in particular by reducing the number of positions in the Executive branch subject to Senate confirmation, so that people can actually get to work on January 21 rather than waiting until April/May when the Senate finally gets around to confirming the assistant to the undersecretary of whatever. This part of their recommendations...was ignored by Congress.