Balta1701

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) Merkin already saying Sale has the ACE potential while Danks will be the new Buehrle for 1-2 puch.. Is Sale the real deal? He's unhittable if he can stay healthy and throw a good number of innings without his arm giving out. It's July where we start worrying.

QUOTE (sunofgold @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 07:31 PM) That is a great stat. I feel good about Sale's future as a starter with us. He might have some bumps in the road (hopefully not), but he should be a good one for awhile. I'm scared to death of this kid's arm. In both ways that you can intepret that line.

Just spectacular "Maps of the wind over the U.S."

Best Buy lost $1.7 billion in Q4 and will close 50 stores.

Some of the comments on that video today have at least been interesting. Here's at least 1 of the family's supposed lawyers, I have no idea what "team" they might have assembled, but it caught me as provocative that he chose these words: And since we really have so little physical evidence to go on, here's one more comment, I'm not sure if this could count as legitimate testimony if it were ever given under oath since it's not an autopsy.

4 IP, 6 K's, 2 H, 0 BB for Sale so far. Sox have K'd 5 in 4.2 against Harang, Viciedo just got our 3rd hit and Escobar our 4th on an IF single.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) It seems like, in the last few years, Scalia has just plain stopped trying. Its sad, and another good reason for SCOTUS justices to serve one term, maybe like 10 years, and be done. No re-nomination or re-election, just one and done. What really bugs me is...I can't blame him for not having read the entire bill or thought through all of the details of it, even with staff to help...but I can blame him for having Fox News/talk radio complaints about it that are 2 years out of date. I'm not paid to do this, I'm not given free government health care to learn about bills, but knowing that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed during reconciliation after everyone else hated it was not difficult.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) Something like that. One of my professors were at oral arguments last week (not sure which case), and he said that within two minutes of starting, Thomas was leaning back in his chair and looked asleep. And before that there was a long period also.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Why not just go by committee and let it all work itself out? I don't see a reason to have to anoint someone the job at the stage, especially if its Thornton or Crain when we know probably neither of them will finish the year closing (just a hunch) Some guys have found it tough mentally to be prepared for the "multiple role" thing. Not all mind you, but for guys who have to warm up pretty quick, they can get in a routine...we're up in the 5th or 6th inning by 1-2 runs, means we're going to need reliever x in inning 8, so I need to start limbering up and then be mentally ready to go to start the 8th...hmph the 8th passed and they didn't use me, whaddya mean now I have to pitch the 9th?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) After the contract he got, I can only feel so bad. Yeah, aren't the Giants still paying him for this year?

First back2back outings of the spring for Reed here, supposedlyl.

Like I said, that's why that video should never have gotten out of the police department's hands.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) FWIW parts of the law are sustainable, parts aren't. Ginsburg got into that during oral arguments. Of course, viewed on their own certain parts are "sustainable". The "small tax increase on high income earners" that was included in the law would be sustainable on its own as Congress is allowed to raise taxes (at least until a 5-4 majority finds the 16th amendment unconstitutional), but if you struck the health care provisions, then this law becomes a tax increase, and that's simply not what Congress passed. The law was built to work in a certain way. If the Court re-interprets the constitution and comes up with this fundamentally new set of standards, then it is creating a law that was never wanted or intended to exist.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) I completely disagree. It is far more intrusive, and outside the intended realm of SCOTUS, to knock down the whole law, then it is to making a finding on specific aspects or clauses of the law. And I completely disagree as well, especially given such a clear mandate and statement of legislative intent. But then again, I'm now expecting a 5-4 decision either declaring Medicaid unconstitutional or declaring that every change that happened to Medicaid since 1965 is unconstitutional, so whatever.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) He better not get injured for the rest of his damn contract. This season has been ridiculous from him. Especially coming from somebody everyone claims prides himself in his conditioning. BULL-SH** The only thing I'm going to complain about was him coming back for the Pistons game when he shouldn't have. That was bull. Otherwise...he's an older player on the downslope of his career. Even if he was in excellent condition, that's the chance you take with that kind of signing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) The alternative is to re-legislate by removing everything else, which would be in the true sense "judicial activisim". The court's job is to address problems of constitutionality and law, and only certain aspects of the law are problematic in that way. But that is re-legislating. It is creating a bill that would never have existed in the first place, never even been conceived of, and then telling the executive branch to figure it out until Congress un-does the law the Court created.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) The Daily Show did a good job of making fun of the media over this. (Copies post, pastes in 17 different threads, figures his post count is met for the day and gets back to work).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) Is there a video of it online? The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c C.N.I.: Cable News Investigators & Dick Cheney's Heart www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c C.N.I.: Cable News Investigators - Hoodie Threat www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) Eh? I think maybe I used poor wording. What you quoted tells me that SCOTUS can and should be able to strike down ELEMENTS of the law, without striking down the whole thing. There is no clause like what you were hinting at before. Personally then, I can't wait to have law sitting on the books reading that a clause is "Essential" when that clause is no longer on the books.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) but there is not per se severability there. Exactly, because they actively stripped it out and said that there is no severability.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) Why am I not surprised? I expect him to play 10 minutes and get injured again. It's make or break this time. He gets hurt again and that's it for any chance of him being a valuable playoff contributor. He might give you 10 minutes as a backup if he is somehow healthy for a few of those games, but he won't have been a part of the team or offense at all if he goes down again.

Lillibridge gets the start at 1b today.

Stalkers

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) This is true, and I laid out why in a previous post. Insurance only works when a larger pool are paying in than the insurance company is paying out in claims...otherwise they insurance company operates at a loss, and companies that operate at a loss go bankrupt and disappear. This goes for any sort of healthcare, including Government operated healthcare, where the income/other taxes they'd require HAS to cover their expenses, or again, it becomes insolvent. Even non-profit insurance companies cannot operate at losses. Without the mandate, the attached revisions, primarily the pre-existing clause, becomes infeasible for the insurance companies to operate... TL;DR: Without the mandate, the pre-existing clause would allow you everyone to never bother with insurance...until they're sick, hurt, or suddenly need it. Insurance markets cannot work if nobody is paying in until they need payouts. And the "Medicaid expansion" part of this bill was constructed the way it was because it was assumed it didn't need to go farther since the coverage requirements would bring the other people who needed coverage in to the health care system. If you didn't have that, either you'd have vastly increased the medicaid expansion money to cover more ground, or you'd have done a completely different bill structure (an employer mandate or just dumping them onto Medicare). And if the Medicaid expansion was done a different way, then you'd need to have done the Medicare reform differently in order to bring about a different level of cost savings. And you'd have had to structure the tax provisions differently. Only part of the bill that doesn't really have the "Essential mandate" was the student loan reform part. I guess that can stand. This is a case where the legislators knew a court challenge would happen and could spell out how they wanted to law to function if that part was struck down, and they said "we wouldn't have written this bill at all without this portion."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) So, you're right...why'd they release it? Once again poor journalism standards abound. It was for ratings and controversy, not for the good of anyone, or the story itself. Because honestly, it's not the responsibility of "journalists" to make sure that "Grainy security camera videos from the police garage" don't get released, its the police department's responsibility. If they're leaking it to you, you might as well assume they're leaking it to 17 other networks and get yours out there first, because you're probably right. Not a matter of journalistic standards to me, much more a matter of police practices.