Balta1701

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) I just don't get what all the big fuss about what Arenas did,they were unloaded weapons...what Crittenton did was actually much worse. If nothing else he directly violated the NBA rules by having a firearm at an NBA facility. A suspension was fully appropriate.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) Conan would likely go back to 1135 or maybe ABC? Although, its all speculation at this point. He's got to go to ABC if they'll take him. He can't let them screw with him like that at NBC. Let them hang their future hopes on Carson and Fallon, while he builds up a long term fan base on another network.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) Dye has already said he does not want to be a full-time DH. He is willing to play 1B but not DH only. It was in the whitesox.com article after we exercised the buy-out. What if the question winds up being "what would you rather do, DH or retire?"

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 05:48 PM) Are you just forgetting about Lou Brock or do really think Raines was better? Until yesterday, Lou Brock had the lowest OBP of anyone else in the HOF.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 05:31 PM) prior to 2009, when was the last time either party had 60 seats in the Senate? The inability of the Senate to do virtually anything without a supermajority is a fundamentally new development.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) I think a Harkin-led Senate would be entertaining. Is there a single Dem senator that might potentially take over as leader that doesn't immediately make me think "Oh great, interest group X would then own the Senate".

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) Not shocking at all. I told you guys last summer that the sox had decided he wasnt going to play 3b and most people here said it was premature. I bet they would have kept him there had the Teahen trade never happened.

Texas count?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) Honestly, the best thing that could happen for the Senate as an institution is if someone other than Reid becomes majority leader. I think a Schumer led majority would probably have an easier time getting around the filibuster and would be less afraid to make the GOP put their money where their mouths are or use workarounds like reconciliation to get things done. The only way I'd have any interest in a Schumer led majority is if Dodd decides that the best way he could make a name for himself while going out is to get the Senate to pass the harshest Wall Street Regulation bill he can and dares either party to campaign next fall in favor of the banks. I don't want him in charge without that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) American terrorists working for Blackwater were charged with murder today. Did they attack Detroit?

I wouldn't sign Chapman for that kind of money. Unless...I was immediately going to deal Chapman to S.D. as the key part of a AG deal.

One thing worth thinking about...I know they said "AAA" for him in this article, but on the off chance he struggles in ST or gets hurt and they want him to go to AA again, the only way to play both him and Morel would be to move him. And whether the team views Morel as a long term piece or not, they're not going to want to hold him up now that he's developing legit trade value.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 01:16 PM) The MA seat gets filled this month, so it is basically a different cycle. Nate Silver's first prediction of a Senate this year seems to indicate a net 2 seat loss for the Democrats. If Blanche Lincoln loses her primary (assuming she gets the strong challenge she deserves) the electoral picture looks a lot more blue for Arkansas in November. But, unless something surprising happens pro-Dem...if the Dems wind up with a 57-59 seat majority in the Senate, they're going to have to choose between actually taking on the filibuster or just having the government shut down for 2 years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) If Bosh and the other team were willing to cooperate... You know as well as I do that in a lot of cases the other team is happy to cooperate because they get access to a player like Bosh without having to be fully under the cap. The team is basically trading his Bird rights. The only way that it doesn't work is if he jumps rapidly to a team that is already under the cap so far as to offer a Max deal. But...the team he's currently with can always offer more money than a team as a FA, so it's to his advantage to do the sign and trade route (That's probably a big part of the reason why Kobe isn't a Clipper, btw).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) You really can't say that. It would have happened 2x since the Anthrax attacks if these guys were better at preparing explosives and fuses.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) This could very well be a sign and trade type of deal. There is zero chance the Bulls trade for Bosh unless an extension is involved. If I could move Hinrich's contract I'd do it without the immediate extension. I could use Bosh in a sign and trade over the summer as well that way and use that as another way to bring in a piece while at the same time easily being able to offer 1 Max deal and another reasonably large deal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) Not sure why everyone is dismissing the idea that the gov't hasn't been able to prevent some things. Clearly they have. The combination of intelligence, military and law enforcement work dedicated to these sorts of things has, on numerous occasions we know of (and probably more we don't), prevented such acts. That said, its not like they have a magic wand and can fix it all. Eventually, it will happen. Because of the level of attack that we're discussing and how nearly impossible it would be to actually prevent. The government certainly claims its prevented things and probably has. But the level of attack they always claim to be preventing is the big "Blow up the Sears tower" "Bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch" type of attack, where the target is always something big.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) Interesting. Salazar was a sort of middle-of-the-road guy in terms of environmental concerns. I hope they get someone a little more future-focused in there to replace him, though I do not think Salazar was bad. I thought Salazar was doing wonders. But then again, that might only be by comparison with the previous work in that department.

It appears secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will be departing the Obama administration to run for the governorship in Colorado.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) the number of individuals who travel on trains vs the number of individuals who travel on a plane at least once during a year. the problem is, I have no idea how you'd determine unique riders on light/heavy rail, since you're not presenting an I.D. That's a really unique piece of data you're asking for.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) I see what you are saying about their ideology. I personally think small attacks on soft everyday targets would do more overall damage to the USA than a plane or two, but then again I'm not the one trying to murder the infidels, so what do I know? I totally agree, and I think that's one way in which we've gotten somewhat lucky. If they were trying to fight a tactical war to destroy the U.S. economy or to get the U.S. to spend itself into oblivion, it's disturbingly easy. Combine a few D.C. sniper type events with some unabomber type work, and you can pretty much shut down commerce. They're just not interested in that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) Actually you haven't proven that. You have proven that more people travel by train on any given day, but that was never my argument. More different people take planes over a year, than do trains. I think this may be debating semantics at this point. Are you counting total ridership as "Total number of trips taken" or as "number of different individuals who use the service per year"? And are you counting both of them the same way? Or are you counting by miles traveled (where airlines will easily win because of distance/velocity factors)? Here's official numbers from the government. July 08. Link 2

Chris Matthews with his usual crappy performance here, but he makes a useful point...and he includes the phrase "youtube is watching", so I guess i have to post it. He asks him point blank, "Tell me what the Republican party has done for this country in the past 20 years" and gets silence.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) I hate to be giving our government any credit, but does anyone think its possible that the reason they haven't tried any subway/train/mall/supermarket bombings is cause they have actually had a hard time setting up the bombers & explosives in the US? All the recent attempts have been based in foreign countries, and on 9/11 the only weapon was a box cutter. Maybe their opportunities to strike in the US are so limited that they have to make it something big to make it worth the effort? I could be completely wrong, it would require the feds to be doing a good job. I really don't believe that and the reason why is pretty easy. You don't even need explosives, all you need is firearms, and the U.S. is loaded with easily accessible firearms. Just ask the Tennessee sports teams. Or Gilbert Arenas. If all you want to do is kill people, pull out a gun and walk through any crowded place and you've got target after target, esp. if you're in a place with limited or unarmed security. You really don't need explosives to do it, all you need to do is get a person into the country with $1000 in their pocket. IMO, the reason why it hasn't happened yet has more to do with Al Qaeda's ideology than anything else. They're something of a near-apocalyptic group. They believe that by staging large attacks, they'll shake things up so much that with the help of Allah, they'll be able to overthrow the infidels and create a new order centered around themselves. That by launching monster attacks, like 9/11, or the other large, coordinated incidents, they'll provoke the final holy war that they're looking for. Thus, they haven't, at least so far, been interested in the piecemeal attacks that they could launch easily on any number of targets.

In terms of the damage train bombs do to a city...how long were London or Madrid's systems shut down after the train-bombings in those cities? Yeah, it did some security work, but it seems like at most the disruptions were a couple of days. Maybe longer if you can heavily damage or collapse a main line somehow but that's a pretty darn big blast.