Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:38 PM) Which is amazing. They own the white house and the Congress, and they are afraid to use it to do anything they want. They seem to be perfectly content to just sit back and blame republicans instead of actually using their position of power to actually do anything. Yup.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) Or force the government to give you billions... THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT's how it works.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) I was going for health care there. I know what you meant, but you replied on a post specifically about the lack of approval of nominees for standard positions. So you kinda set yourself up for it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:32 PM) They shot themselves in the foot by letting a few people hold health care hostage for too long in their own party. I really wonder if the window might be gone now. There's 2 possibilities. They could easily double down and actually decide to create a better bill, after realizing that it's their own people who are turned off completely right now. Or this could just as easily kill the President's agenda.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:35 PM) Then they just close down. I don't think that's what happened to Goldman is it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:33 PM) They are also too scared to fight the Repubs in the trenches on this. I really wonder if it is because the support for it is lukewarm at best, and they know they aren't winning the public battle either, so they don't have any political capital to take the fight to the streets anyway. Support for having a head at the TSA is lukewarm at best.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) LMAO. You had 60 votes in the senate and a huge majority in the house. Go pass some s***. Oh wait, you couldn't, because your own party couldn't do it. How big of a stink would you make if they tried to change the rules so that 1 Senator could no longer block those nominations? They're not actually filibustered, that's a single Senator bringing a hold. The only way to stop that would be to change the rules.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 08:49 PM) I agree with what you probably meant. Companies do not have the right to violate any laws in defense of their profitability. We could also discuss the moral and ethical responsibilities but I'm guessing I would probably have a longer list than you. But if it hurts their profitability to not break the law, isn't it their moral obligation to break the law?

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:54 PM) I think Republicans will make huge gains in the I agree they.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 08:20 PM) Because it's all about health care. BS. It's because your heroes won't let them pass anything. The Dems are too scared to change the Senate Rules, and the Republicans are using them to the extreme.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) I'm sure, also, as Rex was alluding to, this wasn't about Obama and his policies, this was simply about a dumb woman who couldn't run her campaign, right? Wrong. Even in Massachusetts, this was about Obama. That's all I'm going to say on this whole thing. I'll agree on that. Between getting every Dem disappointed in the Health Care bill by not really fighting for a good bill, pissing off every Republican by attempting to do anything at all, and 10% unemployment, yeah.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 06:29 PM) and once again, why? Hasnt LA demonstrated twice that they dont give a s*** about NFL football? Were either Al Davis's shenanigoats or the LA Rams a team that you could get excited about? Really, it's simple numbers. If Angelinos are 50% as likely to be NFL fans as people in Houston, Philly, or Dallas, then LA will still sell more tickets than any of those cities. The LA Basin is 12 million+ people. Even the other big ones, outside of Chicago and NY, are 5-6 million. And a lot of them can afford luxury boxes.

Switching topics. Kinda. One of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission was for Congress to work to streamline the process of handing over between administrations, because the several months it took for the Bush administration to get its people named, confirmed, and briefed on national security issues was one of many contributing factors to why the 9/11 attacks were able to happen. The Dems have even larger Senate majorities than the Republicans did, so getting that right should be easy, right? Sigh. Maybe if they appointed Chan Gailey to some position, that'd get approved.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) You forgot that they might relocate...to Canada. I think that in a few years, once they get the legal aspects worked out, it'll be a race between the Bills and the Jags to sign the contract in L.A.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) Thats funny, I was watching it with my Dad last night, and he said the exact same thing about the background check. Hopefully it ends up making sense. With as many different Moles as they had appear in the L.A. CTU, somehow I don't have confidence.

I believe a good counterpoint to the discussion in the Rep. thread is Bill O'Reilly last night lamenting the fact that you can't make racist jokes about Arabs any more.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 02:24 PM) Eh, I dislike these one year deals Hopefully we lock him up next year. we can still tear this up if we need to

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:20 PM) The Bills made a vast mistake on that one. Did we really expect anything else? This is like expecting a Clippers draft pick to stay healthy. Not gonna happen.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:30 AM) ESPN sources reporting that Chan Gailey is about to be hired as the head coach of the Bills. The score was reporting that he was being strongly considered as OC for the Bears. There's shooting for the moon and missing...and then there's that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) Awesome. Keep him in Seattle and out of NY or Boston. Only a matter of time.

One other comment on the Cubs here...after all of the Bradley escapades last year, it seems like the Cubs have totally forgotten the reasons why they signed him in the first place. Their 2007-2008 lineup was lacking 2 things: OBP and power from the LH side. Bradley blew up and provided neither of those at a high cost. Their solutions to that issue for this year are seemingly; Carlos Silva and Jermaine Dye. Yeah, that'll do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:17 AM) You mean average with the glove, right? I said at best he's average. His OPS+ last year was 102. I checked that before writing it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:14 AM) apparently ahead of "get a DH that isn't awful" Between waiting on the last scraps to shake out of the market as teams did last year so successfully (both LA teams for example) and wanting to have 100% cost certainty on his roster, that's not a terrible schedule

Chargers extended Turner through 2013.