Balta1701

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) one good thing to see last night, Viciedo was crushing the ball Was there a lefty on the mound?

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) I think balta makes a great point. SOMEONE TYPED THOSE WORDS!!!!!

No one cares about what the candidates wives are saying except: 1. People who are paid to pretend they do 2. The most active partisans on either side 3. The person who thinks that anything positive said about the speech proves that the media is in the tank for candidate x.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) How come my reaction to Michelle's speech wasnt quoted? Greg is just part of the liberal media bias because no one wants to report my score of 4 out 10. And almost all speeches are a waste of time. Except when I give them, then you should all pay attention because Im going to tell you how it really is and why if only we were a fraction of as good as the greatest generation we could not only fix this mess but also send the first cloned human to another galaxy. Who is coming with me! Depends on who you plan to clone, obviously.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) Im laughing with you! You hear them don't you...they're everywhere...they're laughing at me, why are they laughing?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) Michele Obama's speech was unbelievably bad. Admit it You finally got your rant against Whitey. It just took 4 years.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 5, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) this thread LOL Don't take away my fun, I'm enjoying this!

Peter S. Canellos, Boston Globe: Ann Romney was so good that the opera was effectively over before the fat man sang. John Dickerson, CBS: If Mitt Romney's problem is that voters don't think he's authentic enough, listening to a woman testify to her authentic adoration certainly conveys authenticity on the object of her devotion. Alessandra Stanley, New York Times: The adversity she glossed over with such poise was hers to overcome, not his; her energetic, excited performance highlighted her appeal even more than his steadfastness. Sara Gaynes, Boston Herald: Signs are good so far for the former first lady of Massachusetts, who’s wowed fans with her classic style. I didn't think it was possible, but I think he topped Ann Romney's speech tonight Chuck Todd on Chris Christie's speech “Democrats wish they had the diversity of speakers and deep bench [of the GOP] to show America …” NBC's Chuck Todd ( ) They said the speech was touching, it was poetic, it was humanizing...many of them had tears in their eyes, Ann Romney who we hadn't heard from during this campaign, connected. Luke Russert, NBC. “Her speech was just one of the many memorable moments and I have to say this Wolf, when he came out and her talking about the love for him, I had a tear in my eye — and I think lot of people did" -CNN's Erin Burnett "First night of the Vagina Monologues in Charlotte going as expected." CNN's Erick Erickson. (Oh, wait, crap, that one was about Michelle Obama, not about the RNC).

Maybe the reason why you go to the press with this is that you've tried saying it in private and felt you didn't have success.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 11:04 PM) I've seen you say this many times, it only works to a point. You can have replacement level players at all 9 positions making league minimum. So they are all "worth it." You still have a horses*** team on the field, though. It's not all about ROI, it's about actual production as well. But if every one of them is underperforming their contract, then what is the total team salary? Leaving the pitching staff out, that means your total team salary for your position players is $6.5 million. Meaning...you now have the money available to go out and assemble the greatest pitching staff of all time, and while you're at it, still have a ton of money available to sign a major offensive threat somewhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 08:58 PM) So what are we talking about, $5 trillion dollar deficits? Sounds like a win-win economic policy to me. Now that's what we mean by stimulus!

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 07:49 PM) How long should a big revenue team like the Sox wait for Viciedo to reach his potential? LF'ers are a dime a dozen. Like any position, until he becomes more expensive than his production would justify.

Oh come on Alexei

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) Would Youk have had a DP if he caught Morneau's ball? Maybe. It was hit really hard but he had to backhand it so it'd have been a long plant and turn to make the throw.

The disconcerting Quintana inning...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 04:38 PM) You didn't really look at the numbers, because according to you the levels of government spending were working before they were cut back in the mid to late 30's. The numbers really don't show that. The government spending levels never got over 22% of GDP during the entire Great Depression. Spending never went over 30% until the late years of WWII. The amazing thing is that the levels went from over 50% (1945) to under 25% (1947) in two years. The late 40's was full of recession and depression, right? Because that is what happens when you drastically cut government spending... If we boost government spending to 70% of GDP for the next 3 years, I'll be interested to see what happens when we decrease back to 35%. Deal?

Which prisoners are ok to rape and hitch aren't? We need to know the rules here, and you've decided that you're a good person to judge, so please let us know when it's ok.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) Of course that is what you got out of it. Do you want me to go the other way? Getting out of the great depression required expansion of government spending from 20% of GDP to >50% of GDP and maintaining that enormous level of spending for 3 years. Our response to a financial industry explosion of similar intensity, with $8 trillion in wealth eliminated in the housing bubble, has been to increase spending at the government level from 35% of GDP to 40% of GDP. Which is, of course, why I keep saying that we need to be spending a lot more. It took an enormous boost of spending to get out of the 1929 wall street collapse, a small boost of spending got us out of freefall, but wasn't enough to drag the rest of the way out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) Total government spending is now at 40% of GDP. The last time it was over 40% was WWII. During the Clinton recession and 9/11 period of 2001 it was 33.33% During the double dip of Bush it was 37.04%. During Carter's stagflation recession of 1980-81 it was in the same 33-34% range. During the oil crisis recession in the 70's it was right about 30%. The late 40's/the 50's/early 60's were spent entirely under 30%, except for 1 year. In other words, multi-generationally high, and still not working. So, there has been no time since the 1960's when the economy was "Working"? Otherwise, what definition of "Working" could you be possibly using? Because otherwise, you've pretty well demonstrated that total government spending as a share of GDP really doesn't have much to do with anything in terms of economic performance, other than the basic "Federal spending goes up as a share of GDP when a recession starts because of unemployment benefits, health care for newly unemployed, and the actual shrinking of the GDP".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) And historically?If you count state and local spending as well, it was climbing steadily through the 50's, 60's, and 70's, shot up during the 80's, declined from 1992-2000, then shot up again from 2001-2008 and has basically held steady since 2009. If you just count the federal spending, it shoots up during recessions, then declines during expansions. In 2000 it was at the same level as it was in 1968.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) You assume so much in that post it is not worth my effort to educate you any more. I told you I don't endorse his being raped. I told you I want him to fear being raped. That's pretty cut and dried. You accused me of wanting somebody raped which is not the case. You won't apologize for it. Good for you. You get the last word with your refusal to apologize. You win. On to the next topic. None of us win as long as there are people like you who think "ha, it's be great if he has to watch his backside in prison!" is an appropriate punishment, joke, or anything else.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) All I can say is I strongly disagree with everything you just wrote. Are we talking about a man who killed nine people 10 people or whatever he did? I will not deal with him as a civilized person. He is not civilized. And to make it clear I don't want him brutalized physically ... but to fear that??? Hell yeah. I know a woman, one of my best friends, who was murdered when she was 24 by a scumbag piece of s*** who is serving life. I want the same for that bastard, to fear every day the rest of his life as he made her fear before he killed her and after he raped her. I strongly disagree with your position. You are disgusted with my stance? I am with yours equally. And for you to not apologize after accusing me of wanting somebody raped? I am horrified. No I will not apologize. You are the one who said you want him to fear being raped in prison, yet you yourself cannot come forward and say that you think prison rape should happen. So basically, either you want him to fear something that never ever happens, or you are happy to look the other way when it happens and feel that your conscience is clear. If you want to say that he should fear being raped, then come forward and tell me why you think prison rape is ok and should be encouraged. Otherwise, you're demanding that he be kept in fear of something that never happens, which is just silly. Either you endorse prison rape so that he fears it or you believe its a bad thing. Take your pick.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) Don't you read before you post???!!! I said I am happy he'll FEAR his getting raped every day of his life. I repeat do you read??? I expect an apology. I want this bastard to be afraid every day of his life. He KILLED a ton of people and ruined lives of many more. I never said I wanted this piece of scum raped. Give me a f***ing break please. No. I will not. Your position disgusts me. "He should fear being raped" is not an appropriate reaction or response to this. It is beneath us as human beings. Your only justification for that is that you want him to feel fear like he made other people feel. That is a terrible justification. It is no excuse for tolerating prison rape in the first place, treating it like a joke, or in any way treating it like an appropriate response to anything. The only way a person would legitimately fear prison rape is if...there's a reasonable chance of prison rape. It should NEVER occur in this country. We're better than that as a people. We wrote that into our constitution in amendment 8. You want punishment for him? Fine. He will be, based on our system. He will probably be put to death, eventually. Wanting him to fear prison rape is simply a disgusting, unjustifiable desire for revenge at a sickening level. Deal with him like a civilized person.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) Now where is spending as it relates to GDP? I'm actually surprised by this one, I figured the sluggish growth would have pushed the share of government spending to GDP to be going up since 2009. Government spending shot up versus GDP in 2008/2009 thanks to Wall Street destroying the economy, but it literally hasn't changed since 2009. Man, the state and local austerity has hit harder than I thought.