Balta1701

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) NPR's Morning Edition has a weekly audience of 20 million - greater than Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. Now wait a second...are those numbers being counted the same way? You said weekly audience...that's typically not how the numbers are given for TV programs...the ratings for TV programs are typically given as numbers watching a show per day. Is that 20 million people listening simultaneously, or is that 20 million people who tune in for some indeterminate length of time while on the 10 minute drive in to the office if ESPN radio is on commercial like this particular poster does?

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:23 AM) They wont-the clear need is a LEFT handed bat I'm not so sure about that. Even if Konerko is retained...if Quentin never turns back into a big power RH bat...we're still weak from the RH side as well. I can't figure out where to find the numbers this year so I'm hoping someone else can, but I'm pretty sure our W-L is worse against LH starters than against RH starters this year. I know our OPS against LHP is quite a bit below our OPS against RHP.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:22 AM) But aren't you required to be a citizen (or have a work visa) to receive a drivers license? Or at least, shouldn't you be? In general yes...although in states with high immigrant populations (CA) this actually becomes a public safety issue. I'm sure you remember a few years ago where CA had debate over a bill to allow drivers licenses to be issued without a citizenship check...because if you have a large immigrant population that can't get licensed, they're still going to be on the roads, and they're still going to get into accidents...therefore you're requiring the people who are licensed to pay higher insurance rates because the immigrant community gets their insurance covered by everyone else. That's a different issue...and it winds up being one of those "how do you want to deal with the immigration issue overall" matters. The real reason I keep bringing this up is...when you come right down to it...if you are anti-government intrusion and pro-complete interpretation of the constitution...you don't get to choose which clauses of the constitution you want to ignore, or which class of people gets the constitution applied to them. All the other discussion is getting away from that point. The Tea party is a huge fan of certain constitution clauses, and I'm a fan of different ones.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are. If you're driving, the rules of states require you to have permission to use the automobile on you while driving. However, while walking or while in your own home...etc...unless the police have at least a reasonable suspicion that you're committing a crime, you have every right to ref.use to provide that identification and ask what suspicion they have that you're actually committing a crime. That's why the "check your papers" line is so commonly used in references to the Soviet Union...they had the full right to check your papers no matter what you were doing, just to make sure you were being good.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:04 AM) Oh yeah? Link me to this evidence, please. Sadly I'm not going to be able to fully prove it...but there were more than a couple people who wrote things similar to what Rosenthal wrote here. MLB.com

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) And I have yet to hear how providing proof of citizenship is in anyway different than me having to provide a drivers license and proof of insurance. Oh the humanity for having to come up with those two pieces of paper. Again, you don't hear tea partiers crying foul over that either. That one's easy and you ought to know it. Although I'll admit I've managed a full thread derailment and I apologize....it doesn't require papers to live in the country. It requires papers and permission to use roads. If I choose to not be driving and I'm not breaking any other law, by every standard of "government intrusion into my life" having to produce papers at the request of authorities is the definition of a government intrusion into people's lives.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) Protecting the country from foriegn invaders is supposed to be one of the things that our federal government does. As is regulating interstate commerce.

An awful lot of people put Quentin lower on their list in 2008 not because he was hurt...but because the injury was self-inflicted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) You don't think there's a difference between government action to combat illegal acts and needless government action mandating how Americans should live their lives (and how to spend their money)? I haven't heard the Tea Partiers claiming that we don't need police departments either, but that doesn't make their message of limited government interference invalid. Frankly...if the goal is protection of individual rights against government interference...it really starts to ring hollow when you say "it's protection against government interference in my pocketbook, with exceptions for funding additional police presence, border patrols, the defense department...drug enforcement...big business...corn subsidies..." and whatever other exceptions you want to add on the list.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) I'm going to vomit repeatedly next year when KW Jr. gets 500 at bats for the Barons, and hits .220 the whole time. While somebody who's hitting over .300 rides the bench. Of course, he'll go on the DL 3 or 4 times. That's a lot of at bats to get if you spend a month on the DL.

I hate holding CS's against some of the guys on this team (notably Alexei and Rios) because so many of their CS's come in situations where Ozzie decides he's willing to give up an out. Rios and Alexei are the 2 guys in particular that I feel like always run when there's 2 outs and a batter gets behind in the count, and they always get thrown out in that case.

Well...Delmon Young got hit last night. On an 0-2 count...setting up a couple runs. Sigh.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) I'd love to see one post where someone called Clayton Richard a "terrific young talent" before he was traded. I know Hudson had a few fans, but not too many. Before they were dealt a lot of people who are their biggest fans know thought those two kids were garbage themselves. Frankly, I was really starting to like Richard...not nearly as much as I liked Hudson though. 94+ MPH fastballs from the LH side are a good start. But that's not a guy I wouldn't give up for Jake Peavy if I knew I could absorb the salary hit.

Since Sacrifice bunts don't count as at-bats...I'm not quite certain what you're trying to say there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:20 AM) I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party. But sir...the reason why the racial angles and everything else comes up is that "limited interference in all aspects of their lives" is a slogan that goes away the moment that it becomes inconvenient. By far the best example I could ever give of this effect is SB 1070...which, whether you want to admit it or not, is by definition a gigantic government interference in people's lives. "I'm from the government and I'm here to check your papers to make sure you're not breaking the law" is about the most classic oppressive government line you can come up with, yet, that bill has gotten virtually zero anger out of the tea party. I can come up with a solid variety of continuing examples from the past couple years as well. "I'm from the government and I'm listening to your phone calls to make sure you're not breaking the law" would be one of those things that would get a legimate "limited government interference" group riled up, but because the Terrorism excuse gets applied...no one cares. I'm from the government and I'm here to torture you until you talk, or I'm from the government and you don't get a trial because I say you don't...same exact line. The center of the Republican party is no more hands-off than the center of the Democratic party, it just picks different issues to be hands-off about.

I think if it were me...I'd offer PK14 arbitration because I'd take him back at 1/$13 if he wanted that. OTOH...I don't think this organization will offer him arb. They got rid of the "you don't offer a guy arbitration, you can't sign him" rule, correct? As long as we can still immediately sign guys who we don't offer, the only guys it makes sense to extend an offer on are Putz, Jones, and probably Vizquel. I don't know what will happen with Jenks...he might well want to stay...but other teams might still have their interest piqued by his arm and offer him a million or two. No way you offer him arbitration. Putz...I think he'll go. I doubt he has a strong connection here and some team will offer him $4-5 million for bullpen depth/backup closer spot at the least. Konerko...I'm scared he winds up in Minny.

QUOTE (chisoxt @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 06:15 AM) The problem is, the money we are pissing away to Peavy, Linebrink and Teahen preclude the team from making 'the big time moves' of which you speak. Just resigning Paulie would IMO be a bigtime move and only one that gets you back to some of what you had this year. I'd say a bigger part of the problem is that sometimes you make a big time move for a guy who won the Cy Young award 2 years before you traded for him, but a few freak injuries happen and he winds up on your list.

So I get the Royals if I go on July 4? Sigh...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 03:18 AM) You're on a roll tonight, greg. And you're right. There is no guarantee. But 8 missed Octobers in 10 years proves the way we've been doing things doesn't work, either. You named those teams. But I counter with the Reds, Rockies, Giants, Rays and Rangers. And it's not like we have to start right at the bottom. We've got some legitimate pieces. And we can spend more money than any of those other teams you named. By my count...there are 30 baseball teams right now, am I right? 8 teams make the playoffs each year. Therefore, every year, you have approximately a 1/4 shot at making the playoffs and a 1/30 shot in winning the world series...if everything was equal (it's not, but for the sake of argument let's assume that it is). Therefore...simply by probability alone...every 10 years, an average team should make the playoffs 3 times and win the world series 1/3 of a time. Now...take a moment and realize that the Sox are in the same league as the Yankees...who it is safe to say will make the playoffs almost every year...and that distorts the probability somewhat. The sox would then have a 3/13 shot of making the playoffs in a given year. Therefore...over a 13 year period assuming the Yankees exist...an average team should make the playoffs 3 times, and win the W.S. maybe 1/4 of the time.

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:43 PM) OK why are we hitting this guy again? Going to the plate, already thrown out, goes out of baseline and goes after AJ Pierzynski's head rather than trying to knock the ball loose.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:43 PM) I think you better pick your spot with hitting Delmon. Hitting him whenever you feel like it is pretty risky considering all this series means at this point. We already had him up with nobody on base early in the game the day after the incident. We chose not to hit him that game.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:42 PM) Josh? Yeah, him. Typo. Morning. Coffee. Blah.

For a good long part of the day, I thought it was going to be harder for anyone to look stupider talking about the incident between the sideline reporter and the Jets than Clinton Portis did today. Man...I underestimated this guy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:33 PM) and the thing that no politician is willing to say, but is very true, is that a significant percentage of those people got themselves into this situation. It wasn't Obama or Bush that did it to them. However...it certainly is true that a significant percentage of them (not necessarily a majority, but a very good chunk) were totally screwed by the bank/financial institution they were dealing with.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) lol at that "I'm about to lose my dollhouse" sign. What in the f***. What does President Obama have to do with you having negative equity anyway? I'm under by about the same amount but you don't see me marching on the steps of the Capitol holding angry signs about it. Well, frankly the HAMP program has been an abject disaster, probably the single worst policy thing they've done since taking office. A whole lot of people are stuck in negative equity foreclosure situations still paying money on the mortgage while the bank tries to sell the house because of that program. (Somehow I doubt it was directed at that program though).