Balta1701

Update on previous issue: That was a brief suspension. Sounds an awful lot like a capitulation on the part of management.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) No one other than the straw man you are creating, again, is saying that enforcement at the border is the only part of any new policy. You are quite simply making that up. And yeah. I'd rather have a $40B virtual fence that takes another $20B to get right... than an $80B real fence that still requires the $40B telemetry anyway AND has much, much worse side effects. You think "Enforcement only!" is a straw man? Come on man. That is the only policy that the political right will accept. In 07, you had Bush trying to figure out a way to push a bill that the Republican caucus would be happy with, but they refused to move a bill that had any sort of guest worker program or any acknowledgment that there was anything which could be done other than increased enforcement. Enforcement only is exactly what the incredibly vocal minority that cares about this issue wants. And really, the "Virtual fence" is one of those things the budget hawks ought to be raving about. It's been a $20 billion money pit that has produced absolutely nothing except profits for Boeing. That could pay for 10 Obama trips to India! I used to use the line "Defense spending doesn't count", because people are happy to rant and rave about out of control spending, even spending that doesn't exist, but the moment anyone tries to say "maybe $100 billion a year to occupy a country isn't the best use of our money", "Oh my we can't cut spending, how dare you not support the troops!". If you're willing to keep dumping money into the southern border, I think it's probably fair to start lumping that in with defense spending.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) Yeah, I saw this about the Wisconsin thing, in the Trib. I mean, if the state had money at stake, I could understand halting work and studying the real positive vs negative of doing it, because its possible it may not be a good use of the money. While I am in general in favor of better and more rail infrastructure, that doesn't mean that every rail project is a good one. But in this case, its stupid x3. For one, the federal government already made the outlay for the money - if they don't use it, its just going to go to a rail project in another state. Why turn down free money and jobs and infrastructure like that? Second stupid thing, by doing this in this way, he makes it far less likely for his state to get big grant money in the future. Third and finally, this is part of a regional and national rail infrastructure, so this is not all about Wisconsin. What you have to realize is that there is a more important issue here...it's about pissing off liberals. It doesn't matter if you hurt the state, it doesn't matter if you hurt the country, it doesn't matter if you waste money or cost people jobs, method #1 of playing to the base = spitting on liberals. Liberals are concerned about the environment and want rail systems? HA! New Jersey has a similar one going with a rail tunnel to manhattan that would significantly relieve driving pressure on the tunnels/bridges, but the governor continues to refuse to pay for it using the federal funds allocated to pay for it.

Let's give some credit though, the Chiefs have had some interesting/good teams over the years, and that's a very rabid fanbase for that part of the country. I still occasionally will pull out the old Tecmo Super Bowl and see if anyone can tackle Christian Okoye.

link

The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence. Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy.

Light throwing in November? Right on schedule still.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 10:46 PM) Because Omar did nothing but hit singles. He had a good OBP, but his SLG was around .300. And UZR didn't like his defense at 3B as much as us Sox fans perceived it be. It's somewhat amazing that Vizquel wound up being so important to the turnaround despite being average...solely because the guy he replaced was so bad.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:31 AM) What does that have to do with defense? The poster was concerned about the arm in CF. There have been a lot of CF's great with the glove with zero arm through the years. I pointed out Lance Johnson, as he was a White Sox. I could point out Aaron Rowand who had a better arm, but he wasn't very accurate and looked like he was hunting for rattlesnakes often and his throws went straight into the ground. How did the Sox win games in 1990 before Frank Thomas arrived with Lance Johnson in CF and Ivan Calderon their big bat? Your desire for a smart ass comment after almost everything I post I actually enjoy. Basically, if you have the best hitter in the game and one of the best pitchers in the game, it's going to make up for deficiencies in other aspects of the game. Hence...your flaw is that you're judging the team only by wins and saying "Oh, the negative in the OF didn't matter, they won games."

QUOTE (beautox @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) I know this has been discussed a ton over the past few years; but with A-Gons pending free agency and the fact we could really use an established LH 1B, i would love to see KW use Escobar's helium rise in the AFL coupled with Viciedo's modest showing in the show and something like a throw in like Danks 2.0 and see if the padres would be interested. There is every reason to think that if the Padres were amenable to such an offer, the Red Sox or some similar level team would step in and beat it.

QUOTE (Bruce_Blixton @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 07:35 PM) True, his salary has become an albatross, but I don't think he's lost all his value. A lot of people (me included) were saying the same thing about Javy before we traded him to the Braves and we all klnow how that ended up. I'm willing to bet we could get a similar trade package for Buerhle if we agreed to send $4.5 mil with him. Trading Buehrle for a couple guys who have talent but some potentially severe issues isn't exactly the kind of move that would either restock the system or help the team win.

"This week, Mysterion's identity is revealed to be...Kenny Williams!"

Eventually, ice bars will be a distant memory...

Austin Collie's going to the hospital on a backboard. Appears to be moving his arms and legs.

Cold, even.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 05:28 PM) Sure, and if you can find me a prime Frank Thomas, than we can talk. And a prime Black-Jack.

Almost every bar does. I currently am not at one.

QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) He also throws a shot at JP Ricciardi (who fired him from the Blue Jays) in his write up about Adam Dunn (with the whole "unless you're more concerned about whether he likes baseball" or whatever he wrote). You may remember the whole controversy about Ricciardi saying that about Dunn on the radio. There's a difference between taking shots at a guy and what Law does with the Sox. If Law constantly called KW dumb that'd be one thing...but he constantly underrates the Sox, the sox minor league guys, and the Sox major league guys. Taking amusing shots at a GM is one thing, consistently underrating a team and everyone who plays for it based on some grudge is another.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 05:07 PM) Mark Reynolds is apparently on the trading block. I wonder if KW would like to trade for Reynold's big bat. Wonder who would be traded back? Package around Viciedo? I'm not sure I'd give up Viciedo for him. He's just so inconsistent so far in his career. Big power potential, but the difference between an above average bat and a below average bat is basically whether he gets a handful of hits. With 210+ K's almost guaranteed, so much depends on BABIP...plus, next season his salary jumps from the minimum to $5 mil, and then up to $7, with an $11 mil 2013 option (He's getting paid based on last year, not on this year).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 04:42 PM) If they change it for the playoffs, why wouldn't they change it for the regular season? I can understand hockey having 2 different sets of rules, but its not like its adding potentially hours to the game. If I recall correctly...the answer is that regular season rules changes and playoff rule changes require different procedures, specifically union approval in the regular season, and the Union wasn't ready to give up additional playing time in the regular season without additional pay with a lockout looming that will involve exactly taht issue.

Patriots 14, Cleveland Browns 34. I can't be reading this right?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) I don't know about that. He covered a lot of ground in LF and set a career high in SB. Set a career high in SB's because Ozzie was running him all the time though. He covered a lot of ground in LF, but there's less overall ground to cover in LF than in CF.

You don't know many geologists do you? Whiskey.

I'm not spelling his first name Suh attempted a field goal in the Detroit/NYJ game. He barely missed; hit the uprights. (Hanson was hurt earlier in the game).

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) A win is a win. The Bills are playing well right now, so winning narrowly over them isn't all that surprising. The Bills just have no idea how to win a football game, so the only shame is in losing to them. Hell, at least the Bears didn't need overtime to give the Bills a chance to lose.