Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) That is the equivalent of illegal search and seizure being OK, because in the end, evidence of a crime makes it OK. That is also the same as it being OK for people to monitor your communications, because some people use them to commit acts of terrorism. If you don't protect the rule of law for all, you might as well not have it. You don't get to look for something illegally, just because you are pretty sure something illegal has happened. Our justice system doesn't work that way. Here's the problem though...if a private financial institution is assisting people in breaking the law, and either a government or a set of governments is looking the other way...then we go in a different direction...because now we're going in whistle-blower directions. If there are people using these accounts to bypass tax law, and the bank knows this, then the bank itself is willfully breaking the law, along with the people who are using the accounts. If there are financial firms doing this and this government and other international governments have not stopped them, despite it being reported to them, then those governments are complicit in the scam, and your tax dollars are going to pay for it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) I assumed he meant actually private information, which is definitely illegal. If he just means a salary and name, and the teacher is in a publc school, that information is not private or protected. Yeah, I've gotten salaries, names, seniority info, etc., nothing I'd actually call private, but it surprised me to hear you say that was illegal to give out.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) Yes, and it is per se illegal. It's illegal to post private financial information of teachers? Then why have I been able to find that information online for public teachers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) I think it is funny that the same person made these posts. Wait, so who exactly is bribing Assange to stay in school? Anyway, this is a side issue. Here's my general point...I see why "releasing private financial information" gets your hairs to stand on end. I'm hoping you see why "Releasing private financial information of people who are knowingly violating tax laws" doesn't really bother me. If they release those documents and there is zero evidence of anything illegal or untoward, if there's no evidence in those records of tax havens or of willful avoidance of the law, then I'll agree with your grievance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) Don't tell me that good ol hearted Julian isn't making a dime off of this. I don't believe that for a second. But he's not selling ads, and he's not selling the information. He is taking contributions, but that's a different thing in a tax and legal sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) That can also be reported to the proper authorities by the recipient of the info. I just can't see knowing that information is stolen, receiving it, and then profiting off of it, being OK. Who exactly is profiting off of it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) You are a step past that though. We are to the stage where the NYT has the information. The first thing they should do is report it to the proper authorities. I'm not a big fan of people's personal information being stolen. Like I said, if that doesn't bother you, go ahead and offer yours up. I especially don't like it being used to someone's personal gain, which is pretty much what is happening here. I do see your point, I guess though there's the added layer of complexity because supposedly they're actually breaking the law in the process.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) How about if I steal all of your banks information and give it to someone else. You don't see a problem in that? How about posting it publicly, is that OK too? If it isn't a crime, it should be. That is personal financial information. If a person wants to whistleblow it, that's one thing, but this isn't going through legal means. This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information?

Cool, I'm not that much older than you!

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) No doubt in my mind the Cubs get either Pujols or Fielder next offseason. The Cubs spending that kind of cash? I'd be stunned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) Where is Wikipedia stolen from? F***, I'm just off lately. If I read a Wikileaks document, have I committed a crime?

Zero butt-talking?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) Post your social security number on here if you don't believe it is. If I read a Wikipedia document, have I committed a crime?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Right, the national parties carry a lot of baggage with them. Stuff that absolutely shouldn't matter at a local level, like their stance on abortion or border control or national energy policy or foreign policy. Abortion regulation is probably a more important local issue than a national one. Local areas are where things like parental notification laws, security for providers, etc., are decided. Energy policy is another one...some of the best areas in the country for renewable energy are areas covered by feed-in tariffs which are set locally. Gas blends and ethanol usage are set locally to control air pollution covering metropolitan areas.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) Are you saying their attendance has dropped by 1 million over the past 4 years? That is not true. You're right, I phrased that wrong. Their attendance has dropped by 250k from their peak attendance a couple years ago. If that's a $50 a ticket drop, then that's ~$10 million less revenue. Can anyone tell me that if the Cardinals lost Pujols and dropped into last place, they couldn't see another 500k drop in their attendance?

The Dodgers signed Marcus Thames. Their OF looks something like a Thames/Gibbons platoon, Kemp in CF, Ethier in RF, and Tony Gwynn JR. On the bench.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) More guilty? It is guilty or not. They are each committing a distinct crime (I believe that possession of stolen items is a crime in Switzerland anyway). Is "Information" an item?

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) The numbers suggest they had a tough 1st 1/4 and easy 2nd 1/4. Thats it. Either way, they went 5-0 in the games in which they were fully healthy. And even those "Fully healthy" games were only fully healthy in the sense that Noah was there. He hurt his hand in either Boozer's first or second game back, and it was clearly affecting his performance even when he was in there.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) Assuming the value of a win is $5 mill and not the other way around, a 5 WAR player using the 40/60/80 rule is worth $45 million during his arbitration years, which is still quite a bit below his current contract. If he has one great year durng the contract, it justifies the entire thing. Again, the WAR number only counts as a bargain if you compare it to the hypothetical value of that season on the free agent market.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) Here is my question, even pre-Poo Holes, when has the stadium in St Louis ever been empty? That is a faithful bunch there. They are almost Cubs-esque in their Cardinal love. BUUUUUT...right before Pujols, their 1b was this combination of chemistry and biology named McGwire. That thing put butts in the seats as well. This is a regularly successful franchise. They've had 1 losing season since 1999, and 7 playoff appearances in that stretch. The Cell wouldn't be empty if we'd had 7 playoff appearances, 1 WS win, and 2 WS appearances in the last 10 years. That said...they've made the playoffs only 1 of the last 4 years, and in that time, they've seen their attendance dip by 250,000 people per year. The Cardinals have been successful enough that they haven't had to concern themselves with a period of losing and rebuilding. I can't see any way they'd avoid doing exactly that if they lost or traded Pujols.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) Carlos Quentin agrees to 1 year $5.05 million per Rosenthal Somewhat more than I thought he'd get after last year. Another down season and he legitimately becomes a DFA candidate.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) And my point is that trading Pujols in the middle of the season will likely piss him off and make him not want to re-sign with the Cardinals. Especially if the stories about him being on the touchy side are true. So, yeah, you could probably get some good prospects by dealing Pujols. But you *only* do that when you've given up on re-signing him. And if you've fallen completely out of the race (Which shouldn't happen).

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) Considering the Packers haven't been behind by more than seven, well, yet this season, I'd say they have a chance. I really think this game will come down to special teams and what Jay Cutler shows up. After that Jets game I'm not sure I can officially doubt you again...but I can't narrow down what might cost either team this game. The Bears lost the last game because their defense finally broke for a long pass play at the end, because Forte didn't get the ball enough, because their ST didn't score a big play, their defense didn't really create turnovers, because the O-Line couldn't hold back GB, and because Cutler had an inaccurate day. Change any of those and the Bears still probably win the last game.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Do you reasonably expect STL to win a bidding war for him? Yes. Albert Pujols is worth more in revenue to the Cardinals than to any other team, Yankees included.

Link