Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) Except that we are now forcing EVERYONE to have health care and cover EVERYTHING, all of the time. Which is exactly the argument against security you keep making. You can't cover everything, as it would be too expensive and impractical is the mantra I have seen here. But now you're arguing for rationing, and as long as we're pretending that we're not rationing right now, that's evil! (The big flaw in your argument is of course that we're already paying for a system that would cover everything all the time, we're just the only developed nation not getting it).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) Welcome to law enforcement. The fact that they got anything from this loser is a gift. Clearly he should have been water-boarded instead.

Until the end of the world

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) Pep Hamilton better be gone. Per other reports, the Bears will be keeping their RB and WR coaches and scrapping their O-Line, TE, and QB coach.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) I never said preventative medicine was bad, just that the diminishing marginal returns argument you were using was the exact opposite of what you were just saying else where. So, your argument is that providing even basic health care for the lowest wage earners in society is too expensive, and furthermore is somehow more expensive than providing health care for others, such that expanding the health care system to include them somehow falls into the diminshing marginal returns category?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) The one way to make sure it happens again is to not spend money to prevent it. So, you bring the health care debate into this, then argue for spending money on prevention because of the benefits it provides? (walks away slowly)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) That would make your argument that liberals get to decide and conservatives don't. I would argue that your definition of rights is very different than mine. You seem to believe that people have the right to take things that people have from other people as often as possible. I feel is should be done as little as possible. BUT...you also feel perfectly ok in making decisions about when it should be done. No matter how much you want to try to make it sound like an absolute position here, you've left yourself that back door, whether it comes to abortion, or gay marriage, wiretapping, whatever, pick your issue. The only difference we really have on these sorts of general policy questions is how we respond to certain motivations when we ask people to give up individual rights. I look at the current health care system and think "it's killing people, costs are out of control, and in 10 years its going to bankrupt the country if nothing changes" while you respond "but you're taking away individual freedoms". On the other hand, I look at the government, oh, let's say, requiring me to pay for some variety of military occupations around the world, and you respond by trying to justify them. In some cases you're probably going to be right, and in some cases I'm going to be right (and the odds of us admitting it approach zero with time). But right now, you're trying to present conservatism as this holy standard that you guys follow, compared to those dirty liberals, and neither your representatives nor you ever actually follow that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) Trillions of dollars going to something that is always going to happen (sick and dying people) with a very large diminishing marginal return? That is exactly why you have been arguing that extra security precautions are worthless. As I just noted though...the marginal return there is much, much, much higher.

So, your argument is that Conservatives should get to decide which groups have rights and Liberals shoudn't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) The funny part, besides it being Al-Jazeera, is that the argument would be pretty vilified if health care were substituted for security in that article. Not sure i get the comparison. For that to be hitting health care reform, the extra tens of billions of dollars a year would have to go to prevention of a very uncommon occurrence. People going without health care because of costs is a very, very, very common occurrence. And then we get into all the other discussions of how this actually helps prevent cost growth by allowing better preventative care and so forth.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) I'm not going to argue right or wrong on the platforms. I am saying why it is where it is. Unlike some, I don't take on the entire platform of my party as my own. But you've missed the key point here. You've argued that conservatism is all about preserving individual rights. But you've offered up an example where preserving individual rights on one side means denying it to others. I can play this same trick on a lot of the ones you've given. Health care, for example; you have a right to not have to pay for someone else's care, but what happens when the system doesn't exist when you need care, or when you can't afford the health care because there's an inefficient system built up that only caters to the rich. This is of course the great game of conservatism; picking which groups get to have their rights preserved.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) -tell that to the dead babies that are harvested for stem cells So you are in favor of banning In-Vitro fertilization then? Why is it a conservative opinion that families that can only conceive through that technique should not be allowed to reproduce?

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) instead of a pure salary cap I would imagine the first step would have to be a franchise/transition player type system put in place. Some tweaks would have to be done, but that might be a good first step The only reason that exists in the NFL is that it's what the players gave up in exchange for the right to be Free agents. That's a pretty big concession from the players.

Yeesh.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) What if the yanks throw ARod money at him and St. Louis can't match it? St. Louis would be crazy to let it get to that point. Either they need to trade him first or they need to sign him before it gets to that point.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:45 AM) Tex's post is what's wrong with people's views on "conservatism". And it speaks volumes as to the message that the Republican party is spewing out. Republicans and conservatism are not on the same page, which IMO is why they are getting their rear ends handed to them right now in elections. "Conservatism" is not "evangelical" or "the party of morals" or "low taxes, no government" or "make abortion illegal". But that's the message, and they get outright dismissed by people, just like in this very thread. Then what is conservatism?

Pau Gasol is again dealing with hamstring problems.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:23 AM) I'm really starting to think that baseball needs a salary cap... You do realize the Sox are probably amongst the teams that benefit from not having a salary cap, right?

Here's an argument by a Swedish professor that I find intriguing.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) Ultimately they did. The whole thing was a game of charades to figure out how to ram it through without pissing off VOTERS, not each other. So, it was a game of charades to figure out how to make the large group of voters who elected them happy without pissing off the voters who didn't elect them. In other words...it was a normal policy debate, just like virtually every other one, except it took a while longer. Evil, scary, horrible democrats.

Every rose has its thorn.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) If Bill Cowher does not have a job, I think he gets the call after Lovie fails next year. I think Cowher clearly wants to take a job along the Southeast coast close to where he lives. That's why we kept hearing he was interested in Carolina or Tampa, and when those jobs didn't open, suddenly he wasn't interested in coaching this year.

Not sure how to interpret it, but frankly it's a good point; these scanners may violate child porn laws, at least in the UK. The celebrity issue is another one. Those are the type of images that people might well try to steal/take out of that room.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) I wonder if KW even tried? Knowing him though I bet he did. That's way more money than this team has available to spend on a player like Beltre. For this year at least, that's probably more than he's worth to us as well.

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 10:53 PM) It looks like the Mets are looking seriously to bring Delgado back. http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/met...lgado-1.1683971 With their monetary resources I don't know why they wouldn't target Laroche.