Balta1701

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) In '05 Pods had a ~.370 OBP and 44 SB over 282 ABs in the first half of the season, that's going to make up some for a .344 SLG. Even then he only ended up scoring 80 runs that season. In '05 Pods had a ~.370 OBP and 44 SB over 282 ABs in the first half of the season, that's going to make up some for a .344 SLG. Even then he only ended up scoring 80 runs that season. To be fair again...Carl Everett was batting 3rd most of the year.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) If he steals 48 bases, his slugging percentage omits the fact that he's effectively turned 48 singles into extra-base hits. There's nothing wrong with an above-average OBP slap-hitter at the top of one's lineup IF he's a proficient base-stealer. Pods slugged .349 in '05 and he was most certainly a "productive offensive player" prior to the groin injury. But on the other hand, if he steals 48/58, his slugging omits the fact that he's turned 48 singles in to extra base hits, but his OBP also omits the fact that he's lost 10 other singles due to being thrown out.

Outside of CQ, who else is really worth voting for out of position players? I'd say Crede has a shot right now, currently #2 in the AL in OPS amongst 3rd basemen (Somehow behind Beltre?). AJ has the highest OPS amongst catchers in the AL right now, but he's been hitting in Uribe territory for the last week. Thome's winning the DH game right now, but that's in no small part because a lot of DH's have been ice cold (Thomas, Ortiz, Hafner, Sheffield).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) If its all about ease, why have polling places? Why not just let everyone vote over the internet? If fraud isn't a problem why waste money have poll workers asking people who they are? If we trust everyone, just let me go in and stuff a ballot in the box. Think how many people we are disenfranchising by making them put down the remote control and go somewhere? Think how many people don't vote because they have to stand in a line at the polling places? Damn, I'll bet if we got rid of polling places and election officials, we could add huge numbers of voters! How disenfranshising is all of that stuff? Again, if there are other problems, fix the other problems. These aren't mutually exclusive. The notion that this doesn't solve everything, or has a narrow focus, so it is worthless, is just ridiculous. Its a copout. We have laws all over the country for a very few people, that doesn't mean they aren't needed. Hell, how many people get charged with beastiality in a year? Should we get rid of those laws because of their narrow focus? How about corporate fraud? There aren't that many people who do it, so we don't need laws against it, right? Seriously the arguements are just silly IMO. Ok, then let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. The folks who say this law is necessary are arguing that it is necessary to prevent some limited incidence of voter fraud, and it is a worthy sacrifice to disenfranchise a significantly larger number of people than commit the fraud in the process. The arguments in reply have been that it's not that much of an undue burden, that there are plenty of other things that disenfranchise people, and so on. Therefore, I contend that it follows logically from these claims that absentee balloting should be banned. It will disenfranchise people, yes. But you have already said that does not bother you if certain groups are disenfranchised because they are unable to be polled for various reasons, such as not having a valid ID at the time of voting. Considering the factors involved, I claim that absentee ballot fraud is far more likely than the double-voting fraud that you're concerned about, and in fact exacerbates the problem. Absentee ballots make vote buying much more likely as it puts the ballots and the keys to them in people's hands and allows for verification of a vote. It enables mistakes and more fraud because it makes it impossible to determine who actually filled out a ballot, and it is impossible to guarantee chain of possession from the time that the ballot is mailed out until it is returned (And hence, you can never guarantee that the person who's ID you checked is the person actually voting). I can even point to an example in the state of Indiana of fraud happening entirely because of the existence of absentee ballots. Based on your standard, where you are willing to impose a barrier that will disenfranchise a larger group to prevent a smaller amount of fraud, I contend it follows naturally that you should oppose absentee balloting by following the exact same logic.

Go-Go Gavin!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) That's the part that I don't get. The law is intended to help fix the electoral system. It isn't supposed to fix it all by itself, but that isn't its intent. I don't know why improving our electoral system is such a bad thing? People sure seemed to think it was important 8 years ago. For myself, if it improves it, I am for it. My issue with that statement is fairly simple...how does making it harder for people to vote, by doing something that has been shown conclusively does wind up disenfranchising thousands of voters in states where it is deployed, fix the system? In the decision that the Supreme Court rendered, in an effort to explain why this provision was necessary, Justice Stevens came up with 3 examples of voter fraud to try to show that it does happen. The 3 cases he came up with were a ballot-box stuffing scheme done by Boss Tweed (1800's), a case in Washington State where 1 man was involved in voting a couple times, and a fraudulent voting scheme in East Chicago...but that scheme involved absentee balloting and the Court acknowledges that this proposal would do nothing to prevent that sort of fraud.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 06:28 AM) That's the fun part... Everyone seems to want more refining capacity, but no one wants it built next to them. The NIMBY factor is huge here. Not to mention with all of the emphasis towards getting off of oil, why would any company look at putting up billions of dollars into technology that everyone is talking about phasing out? If the issue were refining capacity, then I doubt we'd really have a problem, because even with the NIMBY issue, there's more than enough land on earth to cover the refining capacity. It's not like we're actually not producing enough gasoline. There's no stations running out, there's no lines or quotas for people. The issue is that there's simply not enough oil coming out of the ground to keep up with the growing demand. There simply isn't enough energy available. Adding additional refining capacity does nothing if you don't have the material to refine. That's a big part of the reason why the oil companies are trying to shutter profitable refineries rather than build new ones, because they're smart enough to know that there's no reason to build additional refining capacity if there's not going to be additional crude coming out of the ground to refine.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) Kind of like Ethanol, huh. In many ways, yes. Both take a lot of fossil fuels to produce, both add to the cost of other goods. The one potential difference with ethanol is that it's possible that in the future, methods for generating it without the heavy use of fossil fuels in its production might be available, if we could ever develop some means of reliably producing it from things like algae or grasses.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 08:34 PM) Two words...Oil Sands. Even at those prices, it would take a couple years to begin ramping up production of those enough to meet the demand spike/production decline associated with a price spike of this magnitude. It takes an awful lot of energy and work and equipment and time to turn those in to usable gasoline.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 06:55 PM) Sorry Dems, no way you are getting some crazy voting system where no one ever shows any id and you can register and vote as many times as you want in a single election. However, you are still getting the system you want, where they find excuse after excuse to turn away voters who just happen to be African American, poor, and so on.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Which makes it sucky for the rest of us in the consumer industry. Come on, let's just tap into Alaska already. There isn't enough oil in Alaska to make a dent in this issue. Even if ANWR had been attacked by drillers 15 years ago and was at peak production right now, it wouldn't make a shred of difference. Any additional savings that would exist would have been eaten up by additional consumption growth in China and India.

While an undergrad, I was once @ a frat party where this fairly portly dude kept walking around, telling everyone how he'd done 21 shots, and then kept yelling "Hardcore" every chance he got, because doing 21 shots was hardcore! Every time my friend and I saw him around campus after that, we'd yell "Hardcore!" back at him, and he had no idea what we were talking about. I gotta go with Hardcore's group. Especially with the grand slams.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 06:06 PM) Gut check time....Who here would be willing to take on all of Zito's contract if it meant we got Lincecum in return? How much are we talking about giving up in return?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 06:29 PM) Ok, at the risk of breaking the rules here, can you read? I never said that they should have thier right to vote taken away from them. I said I don't give a flying f*** if they vote if they can't take the time to get up off thier asses and do something simple like have an ID or at least know SOMETHING about the issues. YES, they still have a right to vote even if they are a brain dead liberal, I just don't care if they can't be bothered to go excercise it. But if you're arguing that if they don't want to get a state issued photo ID they shouldn't have the right to vote, aren't you arguing that the right should be taken away from those people?

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) I miss the old thread, as I could always count on updated polls. What's the latest poll numbers for NC and Ind? Survey USA just came out with one today showing Indiana at Hillary 51, BO 43, which is down from a 16 point lead in their last poll but which is still generally the outlier of most polls showing a tighter race there. PPP and Rasmussen have been in N.C. the past few days and found Obama 51%, Clinton 39% and Obama 49%, Clinton 41%. Oh, and ARG has NC at Obama 52%, Clinton 42%. I would imagine that the N.C. polls can be considered something of a post-PA bump for HRC, and I think that one might fade away with time. In PA, Survey USA was a Hillary outlier until the very last poll, which found movement to Obama and again almost nailed it. Previous precedent suggests their poll will see that state close with time.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) Frankly, if someone can't come up with enough desire, energy and time to get off thier asses and go vote, I don't WANT them to vote. They are also likely to not have one clue as to any issue, or if they do, they are single issue voters at best who do nothing but piss away thier right to vote in blissfull ignorance. There will always be exceptions (such as SOME seniors who are not very mobile, but still have their wits), but if the average person is 'inconvenienced' at having to have an ID to vote, they can just stay home. It obviously isn't that important to them. Well, whether you like it or not, every person in this country who is a citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote. The fact that you or I pay more attention to specific issues than they do does not matter to me one bit, and it is not a reason by which we ought to start judging whether or not the person gets that right.

Aw hell, do I keep counting this game in the tally I've got going below or not?

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) Didn't that team win that game? The Giants aren't that far under .500 this year.

Oh joy, that's smart, load the bases for Crede.

Last I heard June was the new expected date for Danny.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) orioles quickly learning, just put Jim on 1st instead of letting him hurt you. i'd like to see paulie overly patient here, i'd rather a K than a groundout... I can remember when Cleveland did that once to Thome at the start of the 06 season. Usually PK responds well.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 01:40 PM) .303, 6 HR, 20 RBI, 1.047 OPS in 76 at bats. SICK. People questioned me in the offseason when I said he could put up a .900+ OPS this year.

QUOTE (rafacosta @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) Is Quentin 2-3 or 2-2? 2/3

Come on Brian...let's get on base again.

CQ>You.