Balta1701

If you want to use the quotes around it to use the technical term, it's "Liquefaction."

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) Twins are paying Matt Capps $7 million. Just so you are all aware, that is more than half of what Jesse Crain will be paid for the duration of his contract. And it will be paid in 1 year, not 3. That is sweet (though it's not as if their team is going to be any worse because of it) Link

Link to a solid piece The numbers given here are generally consistent with estimates published in peer-reviewed literature as well.

I've gone from getting "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" to "Forget you"?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) "Any and all means", doesn't mean illegal to me. I do not believe in the sacrifice of my rights here. And I don't believe in enabling the cover-up.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 09:05 PM) I seem to remember you poo pooing the idea as Viciedo as an OF when I brought it up months ago. I still think he belongs at 1b, but if we're not going to trade him immediately, it makes no sense to keep him at 1b in the minors.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 01:44 AM) LeBron didn't exactly go to a hated rival either, he just wanted to party. Updated.

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 01:15 AM) No one really knows how this will play out but I could see either the Cards (or other teams if he hits FA) offering initial contracts/extension of like 6/180 or 6/190 with some or a lot of money deferred. That would give Pujols a paycheck for quite a few years and really give him a chance to chip away at bond's home run record if he stays healthy. Still think his elbow is a cause for concern. I think they'll laugh at that. They might well take less money per year for more years. He is already 31. If he signs for 6 years, that means he hits FA again at 37, and that's just not a good time to hit FA based on recent standards; even if he's on fire, he'll be getting 1-2 year deals, not 5 years. You give him 10 years, you might get him under $30 million a year.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Wouldn't mind him as our emergency starter. Couldn't we just get Freddy for cheaper though? The big difference is that with Freddy's arm condition, it might be darn hard for him to be effective out of the bullpen; it's been written that he needs a long time to warm up and stretch out to get his arm ready to throw. Galarraga has done the bouncing-back-and-forth thing already in his career.

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) How many more years is Danks arbitration eligible? When will he hit free agency? John Danks has 1 more year of arbitration eligibility. We can offer him arbitration after 2011 and he can not become a FA. He will be a Free Agent following the 2012 season if no contract is reached.

There is no catch-all thread so don't take this post's location as me thinking this only affects Democrats. The FBI is reporting that a bomb capable of inflicting multiple casualties was found and disarmed at the location of the Spokane, WA Martin Luther King Jr. Parade yesterday.

I'm only putting this in this thread since we don't get the chance to beat him outright. Joe Lieberman will not run for Re-election in 2012.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) Well its hard to guess when we dont know the accusations, but part of the problem (presumably) is that you are talking about US citizens violating US tax law, through a Swiss company and having a Swiss banker report it to a non-govt entity. The question is, if the guy is doing it purely to report crimes, why was it given to wikileaks exclusively, instead of the IRS, Dept of Justice. I would say if the Swiss banker had turned over the documents to the US, and the US did not take action or completely ignored it, then he would have a good argument that he released it to Wikileaks because of the inaction of the govt. But going directly to wikileaks is concerning. Makes me suspicious. There's more to this though...as far as I can tell, he has attempted to report it previously but has fallen on deaf ears, which is why he decided to go the data theft route.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:55 PM) Now that is where your assumption is completely wrong. I NEVER said it was OK. What I said is that illegal means can't be used to justify illegal means. We give all criminals these rights. We can't pick and choose that. You never said it was ok...but you have a problem with any and all reasonable means that could be used to establish that it happened. To me, that's tantamount to acceptance. And if you can afford a government, it's a great way to cover for yourself.

DR1 is the Eastern Conference player of the week.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) Pre-existing conditions are basically ANY health problem a human has prior to applying for health insurance. If you ever lose your job and go off health insurance for a given period (without paying out the ass for COBRA) then your given problems (be they from obesity, to diabetes, to ulcerative colitis, to f***ing cancer) can all be considered pre-existing conditions when applying to a future health insurance provider and thusly denied. I did cartwheels when this was included in "Obamacare" but of course the Republicans are going to do their best to get that monumental bill retracted. You're missing the issue there Steve...he said that "Most" of those issues were self-inflicted. No where in this post does it establish that most of them are things like cancer. You in fact include obesity and Diabetes in there as things that can be reasons for an insurer to deny you, which is exactly his point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) Your logic is circular. If someone like Jared Loughner decides that Obama is committing crimes and breaking the law, should he be able to shoot him to solve that problem? What if he has evidence that Obama is breaking laws that he got from Wikileaks? Where exactly does the line of what you can do when someone else breaks the law end? Who gets to decide that? Your logic is just as circular here, but we're not going anywhere. I just think it's quite interesting, psychologically, that 2 crimes get committed, you have zero problem with the bank and the government and the people committing the initial crime, and I have no problem if people break the law to expose that crime.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) There has to be some sort of respect for law here, otherwise our freedoms are a sham. I know it isn't ideal, but I have said in other situations, that people will die because of our constitutionally protected freedoms. I see this falling under that sort of umbrella. People can't just decide on their own which laws are OK to break, and that be all right either. But take note...(again assuming allegations are true) you're quite explicitly choosing which side has to respect the law. By your own standard...if there's no respect for the law then freedoms are a sham...so if a government and a corporation are failing to respect the law, then our freedoms are sham.

#3 on MLB.com's list of 3b prospects.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:38 PM) No obviously you commit more crimes to justify it. Besides there is a massive difference between stealing and releasing private information, and reporting on wrong doing. This could be done a totally different way. As far as I can tell, the only reason why this is happening this way is that the governments involved are more than happy to look the other way, if everything alleged is true. Who do you turn to when the government protects the corrupt? You can't turn to some other part of the government.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) I posted that in squared-circle because I didn't feel like going back tons of pages for this thread. You are a better man than I. I went back 1 page.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) I'm not a fan of deciding and changing laws as you go along. That is a major red flag for sacrificing the rights of individuals. That is slippery slope, ends justifies the means type stuff that everyone was against from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009. So what do you do when the government decides to be in on it? Just put your fingers in your ears and send them a bigger check?

This bit is very, very, very vague on what is in it...but it sounds like Selena Roberts has an enormous piece coming out in next week's issue of Sports Illustrated on Lance Armstrong and the juice.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) I would hope anything more than pay and positions would be protected information. It certainly should be illegal to attach someone's name to those bits. All though we have salary information for every single office holder in the country, so maybe it is legal. I've definitely gotten names along with salaries at public universities, quite commonly.