Balta1701

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 06:18 PM) Picked up on that over on facebook. Quit poking fun, it's my first time since high school/first time as a married person. It's sweet, or something like that.

Orange vegetable...succesfully carved.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) I didn't mean that ad per se was the worst, but that he is. While it might be 'refreshing' for him to speak his mind, it sure doesnt' help the general tenor of things around Washington. He called Gibbs Bozo the Clown, wanted to have critics arrested and jailed for 5 years, the 'republicans want you to die quickly' thing you mentioned and even called a female advisor to the Fed a 'K-Street whore' (and not one peep from women's groups about that). And as usual, he projects his actions onto others, claiming what he does is mirroring what Republicans do. Claiming?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 04:29 PM) Just because you only watch Disney movies doesn't mean the ones in the list are not good. Kids need horror too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) Exactly a minute late Fast with the edit button I am though.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) Come to Texas to see the World Series! (Kind of sad. I'd rather it be on the southside of Chicago again). Everyone here ought to remember the last time the Series was played in Texas.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) oh yeah, I completely spaced off last year. WTF was I thinking? It's still pretty sweet that the Rangers beat the Yankees though. I liked it being the Rangers' former $250 million man and current creditor taking the slider to end it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 11:31 AM) Grayson himself is a new low. That guy really takes the cake. I'm not going to defend that Grayson ad, but really...that ad is only a new low once you've decided that every ad a Republican ever ran is automatically ok. That kind of personal crap has been run for years, and the Right has won race after race using it. The left shouldn't be using it, but neither should the other side. That's the whole point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) but NPR's reaction does seem a bit knee-jerk. Oh well, Juan can go on to be the next token 'liberal' at Fox News and conservative talk radio and TV now has something to rant about and get the base ANGRY! Yes, NPR's reaction was somewhat knee-jerk, but they're actively taking efforts to make sure they appear non-partisan. An example from a week ago is them sending out a sternly worded memo that they don't want their staff showing up at the Stewart/Colbert rally, under similar penalties. They've had issues with Williams appearing on Fox for years, and they jumped when he finally went for the part-racist point of view. Just like Rick Sanchez...it's a firing that they've been wanting to do for a while.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) It's amazing how much the right wing media is melting down over Juan Williams being fired. Not to mention the general ignorance of what NPR is and how it's funded, what editorial standards are (ha!) and how firing something for saying something stupid isn't violating their free speech rights. Oh come on, it's not amazing at all. It hits 3 points they love to hit on. 1. It's offensive to tell them they can't be afraid of Muslims 2. The media is liberal and oppressive and unfair 3. NPR is socialist and should be shut down.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 06:19 AM) early prediction - Paul Konerko signs with the Rangers, 4 years, $50 mill, after they resign Cliff Lee to a 7 year, $140 mill deal. The Yankees would respond to that with 6/$150.

(Crack) Brian Anderson: "Oh my God!" Aaron Rowand: "No way. No. No way" (Ball lands, Anderson leaps over Rowand).

Do you subscribe to the opinion that Brad Lidge should have pitched in game 6, to sort of get that taste out of his mouth? Tim McCarver: "I don't think that taste is there" Joe Buck: "Podsednik swings and hits a high fly ball, deep right center field, that ball is gone!"

Peter Orszag had a really good op-ed piece in the NYT on malpractice reform. Gives a 3rd option. Basically the debate goes like this...side 1: "Malpractice rates are going up, we should limit malpractice payouts in court (and conveniently hurt malpractice lawyers)." Side 2: "But if you limit malpractice payouts, you hurt the victims and you make malpractice less costly (and conveniently you hurt the lawyers who are funding my campaign). The thing lost in this back and forth is that this country has way too much malpractice as it is. People get hurt in our facilities at much higher rates than elsewhere. So, Orszag's suggestion is that rather than reforming the punishment side, we look at the incentive side. Empower a panel, he suggests through the AMA, to come up with evidence-based guidelines for treatments. Following checklists, having up to date records, stuff like that. Once those are established...offer doctors indemnity against some level of malpractice suit if they follow the guidelines. Physicians therefore only get in trouble when they get careless or go around the rules. Overall I think I like it and it's a novel way around the current back and forth.

Dallas Clark out for the season.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) Focusing on this particular thing - bundling, if you will - can best be controlled by the limit on the individual contribution level. If $2000 is too much, make it $500. Then anyone who has $500 to spare is worth more as a supporter than the average voter. Really, no matter how you slice it, however you change the numbers, nothing you are going to say is going to make me comfortable with the concept of direct private funding of campaigns. I simply will never believe "one man, one vote" isn't better than "one man, one vote, however another man a vote and $x as well". I'll give you the last word if you want it.

The Mets haven't confirmed it's Alderson yet, but they've said it's down to Alderson and Byrnes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) I fail to see how this aspect is a problem. The key here, is making the law such that any individual can do what they want, up to some relatively low limit. If people want to try to address 30 people at once, or 1000 people at once, they are welcome to do that. It is no different than giving a speech to 1000 people and saying "everyone donate!", and I have zero problem with it, as long as the law protects people's freedom of choice with it. Its only a problem, to me, if the corporation or union in any way pressures or blackmails people into donating, or makes it required, or penalizes them for not doing so. What I am saying, in essence, is that a person's vote AND any political donations they make should be a protected status. No one can penalize them, in employment or otherwise, for it. As long as that protection is in place, then convincing 50 executives in a room to donate is no different that telling 50 people in a public speech to donate, and both are OK with me. My response to that is pretty simple...that's exactly how it works in the books right now. No one can pressure people to give to a campaign legally. And yet, just about everyone seems to understand correctly that our system is as corrupt as possible. As long as people can give something to a candidate other than their vote, then whoever has more of that currency is worth more to the candidate.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) LOL. And yet they still employ a woman who wished AIDS and death on a Congressman. who?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Eh? Companies cannot donate. Their people can, to whatever cause they want, up to a certain max. How is that "one side" getting a monetary advantage? One side of what? If I'm Bush, for example, and 500 oil execs get into a room with me and pledge to give me $5000 each, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign. That's a huge electoral advantage that only appears because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the oil industry, to the point that they'll make that money back. If I'm Obama, and 30000 union workers each give me $199, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign, and that only happens because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the unions. Even if you tried to prevent "bundling" in some way, it's going to happen no matter what. Hard money is just as corrupting as outside money.

Bruce Pearl Story day. Part 2:

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:22 PM) And those highly paid execs are welcome to do that, as long as its of their own volition (thus what I added about blackmail). That, to me, is not the same thing as what you are saying. To me, it is entirely the same thing. One side is getting a monetary advantage because of a policy that they advocate.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) I wonder if Crede will ever make it back to the big leagues again... Nope. I will dedicate this one to him though.

I may as well post a memory or two here...This one starts for tomorrow...(might need to play in Windows media, for some reason winamp can't read this file any more).