Balta1701

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) I agree. Hopefully they let him face a few. It could help his development. In his career, he's split his AB's roughly 60/40 righties/lefties. It's not saying all that much given how bad his overall numbers are, but he's put up better batting averages and OPS against righties than lefties.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) Since when is it a "or" matter? BA is horrendous, as is anyone who has had the opportunity to hit leadoff. Getz is horrendous?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) Actually almost all of the military budget cuts were done by the Bush administration following the end of the Cold War. I would have said this before you but I actually checked and the numbers just don't agree with you. Relative to every other standard of spending (compared to the GDP, compared to discretionary spending, etc.) the share going to the military slowly decreased year over year during the Clinton administration. I'm sure it went up in total dollars, but relative to inflation I doubt it did. It started going back up in 2001.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) Somalia was done really badly though, and I don't think the Dems were being "tough" by staying - they were creating the illusion of tough while accomplishing nothing and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers. Kind of like Bush/GOP (and some Dems) and Iraq, but on a smaller scale. So...the Dems tell us that the Bush disaster is a disaster and we should be figuring a way out of it, and that makes them weak on defense. The Republicans tell us the Somalia disaster is a disaster and we need to figure a way out of it, and that makes them strong on defense.

Esp. since he's a celtics fan, I think I'm going to highlight this blurb from Bill Simmons.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 10:04 AM) I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough. That's really "supporting the troops". To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did. So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) I don't recall now, though I do recall some articles since that point out the latest information had Obama with a lead (not a huge one) over Ryan just before the scandal broke. It's difficult to actually interpret the data from that race because the court case regarding the release of the divorce documents dragged out over months. It was talked about in the Republican primary. Prior to the document release, Obama had a lead of somewhere in the 11-22 point range, according to whatever limited polling I could drag up. The documents were released well before his speech to the DNC and Ryan was out over a month before then.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military. It's a lame ass stereotype, but as long as it works, those Vietcong hugging, fake purple heart earning, commie Democrats are weak on defense and are going to surrender to the terrorists/pirates/insert enemy of the week here and everyone knows it. You know where it comes from? It comes from the fact that it works as a selling point. The media buys it, so the other party has every reason to push it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts He'd probably get a much, much, much better response, because everyone knows the Democrats hate the military. I'll give you a great example. That he? Dick Cheney, who oversaw the post-Soviet-detente defense cuts. He didn't get everything he wanted...but he got a lot of it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) At least when most of the clowns like Rush and Hannity do something, they let the whole clip play and then comment. So, if I go through and find a dozen examples from this week of MMFA playing the whole clip of something they deemed controversial, and giving the transcript, I assume you'll issue a formal apology to MMFA and endorse all of their other productions for meeting your standard?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 07:38 AM) Get more biased why don't ya. Because nothing's more biased than showing someone's actual words as a method of proving what they said. We all know that Media Matters has CGI versions of Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity that they use to generate their smears.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 06:05 AM) I know I've read that US losses are estimated to be as high as 95% in the DMZ if NK ever decided to roll through full-force. They might not be able to take and hold SK, but they could put up a hell of a fight. There's a reason why we've built the world's biggest minefield there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:53 AM) (more accurately, a reorganization and slowdown in spending) And a 4% increase in the DOD budget...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:28 AM) Let's not forget how good Pods looked in Spring Training. He hit .240.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 07:24 AM) I think Mauer may be on and off this season, which is a huge blow to that team. And Liriano is just not himself anymore. I think this may finally be the Twins team that falls into the basement, or close to it. If by "The basement" you mean "Firmly ensconced in to the #2 slot in the division", I'll agree. They're just not going to fall below that.

Pending court approval, Rod Blagojevich will make an appearance on NBC's "I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here!"

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 06:13 PM) I'll be honest, I opened a spreadsheet right after I read it. Depending on his definition of "gave" and "all year long" I'd say he's full of s***. You mean you don't have those #'s committed to memory?

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 06:04 PM) The last paragraph by Ozzie is just begging for Kalapse to prove incorrect. I read it...thought about it...and thought..."eh, why bother any more..."

The Times tomorrow is running an expose on the smuggling of guns across the Mexican border.

Padres Closer Heath Bell.

Ray Allen is suspended for tonight's 76ers Celtics game.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) How about the very first link under North Korea underground Nuclear program dated Feb 2009? http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/ar...s/20090219.aspx When I checked that report earlier, I found it interesting how no one else seemed to pick up on it or believe it. Not even the South Koren press seemed to run with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) Google it, its not hard to find. Not to mention their history has always had them working underground on these things when they had agreements in place. Why would 2007 be any different than any other time? Don't you think I tried before asking? Whatever you're saying they did just isn't something that has been published out there, at least not obviously. Give you an example...in 2007 they agreed to the latest framework, in 2008 things had improved enough that that terrorist-loving-communist-appeaser George W. Bush hailed their performance and had them dropped from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. So, I'd like to know what evidence you've read that they continued with their nuclear development programs from 2007 through just now. Not just supposition.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) Where did I say "prefer war"? I would prefer that Il go away and the military government fail and the country transition back to free. At worst it would be nice if an agreement actually meant that NK lived up to their end of the bargain. Past that, I would prefer we not keep enabling a madman to keep his military machine running. Because the only coherent interpretation of that statement or this one, frankly, is that you think war would be a better option. Do you think I'd prefer the Kims stay and the government keep its power? Do you think that I like the situation we're in, where they constantly make small military gains to extort concessions from the west, is a good one? Clearly a better option would be to have the North Korean people rise up and cast him out tomorrow, but we don't have the ability to magically make that happen. So, I'm left with your statement that we'd be better off not enabling him. This is not a solution, it's a cop-out, a catch-22...because if we stop negotiating with them, we're enabling them by allowing them to continue demonizing the west while at the same time working on their weapons programs and even selling them off to other countries, or if we do continue negotiating with them, we're enabling them by negotiating with them and providing them supplies that allow them to stay in power. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that yes, it would be nice if things were better, if we didn't have to keep stringing along this madman. But simply imagining that things were better isn't going to make it so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) And they still operated underground the whole time, just like they did through every single agreement we have ever had. Can you offer up a source on that?