Balta1701

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 09:16 AM) How does that make sense when he was put on the waivers or whatevr just a couple seasons ago when any team could of got him by just picking up his contract.... now they want 2 really good young players and 2 awesome prospects and the team to pickup the whole contract... If anyone had genuinely tried to pick Manny up on waivers he would have just been pulled off of waivers by the BoSox. The whole waiver trading deadline system is a joke. All that him being put on waivers meant was that the BoSox were able to try to trade him for another month if any genuine offers came along. Usually what happens is teams put almost everyone on waivers. If another team makes a waiver claim on that player, the team that has him pulls the guy back. The only reason why any team makes a claim on someone though is to try to make sure that the guy isn't traded for something that would help an opponent. Heck I think the Sox tried to put Buehrle on waivers last year before calling him back if Memory serves. Most teams get to a point where they only put in claims on players who they genuinely don't want to see moving, because they might want to trade someone in August a few years later and they don't want another team holding a grudge against them. The offer was a terrible deal for Anaheim obviously by the way.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 07:39 AM) Of course that is the true threat, and the heart of the current problem. How do we push a line with Iran on their nuke program that is hardline enough to get real results but still keeps Iran's oil flowing on the world market? That is simply impossible. There's nothing we can realistically do to be able to slow Iran down if they want the bomb now that our army is tied down in Iraq. That's why they're resuming enrichment now...they know full well there's nothing that anyone can do. The whole premise of Iran helping AQ attack the U.S. RIGHT NOW is also incredibly flawed...simply because Iran knows very well that if they don't have the bomb and they did help AQ attack the U.S., the U.S. would strike back no matter the condition of our army. I have a feeling we will see them be on surprisingly good behavior overall for the next few years, aside from the Uranium enrichment.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 06:56 AM) I would like to see a more accurate unemployment measure, over time (not just current). I never thought that the measure was an accurate portrayal, considering the math. People not "actively seeking" employment are out of the pool. I do think it gives you some idea, as a leading indicator, of where the job market is going. But I think the reality of unemployment is not fully captured in that number. So while I think this is good news, I also think you'll see that number go back up as the year goes on, when more people go back into the work force. Then, if the economy can stay strong, it will dip again. JMO. It's not an accurate measure of the job market by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, the 193,000 jobs added was a decent number. Not stellar, but at least decent. But the reason the unemployment "percentage" ticked down so much last month? You guessed it. Frank Stallone. No, wait a second, that's not right. The reason that the number ticked down 2 points was that another 168,000 people were counted as "Out of the work force" in January.

Ahem...(clears throat)...YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!! Link

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 07:05 PM) Actually I think it was planned. If you noticed he paused after he said it. Then he came right back with his comments about a bipartisan committee and working together. In my mind, it made the dems look pretty stupid. They cheer his failure and 5 seconds later he is calling for everyone to work together to solve the problem. The way it was played made him look much less political and the dems who cheered completely political. I believe that turns most Americans off. He paused after he said it as he gave the Democratic side of the aisle a really nasty glance, then he studdered a couple of times when he was trying to get back into the rhythm of the speech. It really threw him off for a few seconds.

Perhaps we should surround their embassy and threaten to take hostages. Oh crap, why do I type things like that...Hi Mr. Goss!

"English. Who needs it. I'm never going to England."

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Schools like to complain about students lack of physical fitness after they completely cut physical education and recess activities. But they can't put 2 and 2 together (probably because the majority of teachers couldn't pass a simple math exam). Clearly the problem is too many soft drinks in public schools. SUE COKE!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) One more thing on this subject. If a terrorist attack occurs on US soil in the next few years, I guarantee that someone in the Bush administration will hint (or say straight out) that it was the fault of people who "leaked" this information. I'm still waiting on an explanation about how terrorists knowing that we're spying on them without warrants that they never know about hurts our nation more than terrorists knowing that we're spying on them with warrants that they never know about. If a WMD attack occurs on our soil, can we blame it on the outing of a CIA agent who worked on WMDs'?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Well, this will be a big catalyst for reform in the near future, I guess. The more things change... Well, he did campaign on those "reform" sort of ideas, and he probably had to make some sort of deal with Shadeeg to get the extra support in the 2nd vote, but neither is a guarantee, and as I showed in a couple posts, he does have a history of being just as in bed with lobbyists as anyone else in that party's leadership. That, unfortunately for the country, is something the Republicans will have to deal with. If he claims to be a reformer while campaigning for a spot, and turns out to just be almost as corrupt as Delay (but just avoids the blatantly illegal stuff), then they'll have to decide whether or not having their leaders lie to them is reason enough to change their votes. So, I guess the only thing we really can do is hope his words speak louder than his previous actions (and maybe try to make him the minority leader in the fall.)

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Is the new leader considered a reformer, that is, reducing lobbyists' influence and limiting earmarks? In the mid 90's...Boehner was so into lobbying reform that he was handing out checks from the tobacco lobby on the House floor. Out of the 3 candidates, he has a big lead in number of his former staffers working as K street lobbyists (14 for Boehner, 3 for Blunt, 2 for Shadeeg).

I heart rhetoric.

The Hill on Boehner's lobbyist connections.

"The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting." - Roll Call.

QUOTE(Gldfinger5 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 07:19 AM) Speaking of Borchard, does anybody else see him as a a possible Adam Dunn type? I don't think he could put up as many HRs, but I see a similarity. I would love for him to turn into an Adam Dunn type...or even a Rob Deer type (remember him?). He hasn't even gotten that far yet. Let's hope he will.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) Here is whats going to happen.... Borchard will get the job than Dye will get so many spider bites he will be out for 2 months in which time Joe Borchard will hit 25 HR's with a .315 avg. And than he will keep the job and finish with 40 HR's a .310 avg with a .400 OBP.... also having 160 K's and he will win RoY/MVP. Ive said it so it must be true. You've also said one thing which is impossible. Borch is ineligible for the ROY. Way too much playing time already.

I wonder, if KW were to think about this sort of deal...if he might do one of his classic "I'll make the deal if you include $x million" sort of moves, given how expensive Abreu's contract is. I'm still going to sit here and think that no matter what happens, if anything, it would not happen if the Sox did not have a way penciled in to give Mark Buehrle a contract extension and bonus. I have enough confidence in KW right now to believe that one. One other thing I think I like about the concept...we have Abreu for several years...so it's entirely possible to let Sweeney sit in the minors for another 2 years, let Abreu hit 35 home runs a year in the Cell, and then move Abreu 2 years from now when Sweeney is ready to bring in another big-time player.

QUOTE(Balance @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 08:11 PM) Then they should talk about Hillary. Bill Clinton is no longer the president, yet he still serves as a rallying point for the right wing nuts. If Bill is doing something inappropriate, it reflects directly on Hillary. For example, Tom Delay's family managed to conveniently wind up with high paying jobs funded by his donors in his campaigns for several years before people started paying attention. Does the fact that it was his family doing it and not him mean that it doesn't reflect on him?

There are some states where I just wouldn't expect to see anything like that even come close to passing...

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 09:43 PM) Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years? Yeah, not so much... http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation You know quite literally what happened? Some of those folks @ Opec came forwards and said today, to paraphrase..."Well, if you're going to cut the amount of oil you need, then we're not going to invest as much in infrastructure to get that hard to pump, expensive oil out of the ground".

I'm curious to see what the spectrum of reactions to this are, particularly from the left. This Monday, the Washington Post ran this editorial cartoon by one of its artists named Tom Toles, showing a man lying in bed seemingly with all 4 of his limbs blown off, and a "Dr. Rumsfeld" saying his condition was now battle-hardened. The Joint Chiefs of Staff found this cartoon so reprehensible that they sent a letter of protest to the Post describing the cartoon as "reprehensible" but not asking for any specific actions to be taken in reply. For my part, I believe that the cartoon in question appeared in my LAT one morning this week (I can't remember which day honestly, I don't take careful notes of these things), and I remember finding it pretty tasteless. So, bunch of questions; on the comic itself, should the Post have run it in the first place? Should it do anything in response? On the Joint Chiefs...is it appropriate for the military to officially protest the expression of opinions in ways it finds "reprehensible", or should the military stand by and say nothing so as to avoid intruding on the press?

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) f*** you... thats like 40 popups You know, sometimes Firefox frustrates me...it has lately had a nasty habit of slowing down my computer or even crashing it when I'm running Word at the same time...then I hear things like that, and remember why I started using it. I didn't have a clue there were popups.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) And where would we put that army? Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons. I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy. Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something. Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other. It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees. The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves. And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point. The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well. Iran will be dealt with, one way or another. Um...first of all...Kuwait has recently allowed the U.S. to put an army on its territory. That's sort of how we got into Iraq. Secondly...none of those countries shares a border with Iran. Kuwait's the only one even close, but to do that we'd have had to march across Iraq anyway. Iran does share a significant border with Turkey, and given sufficient international support for the operation and the fact that the only thing which stopped us from using them to invade Iraq was the fact that like 90% of their population despised that war, they would be a prime candidate.

Charges against Sheehan dropped...Capitol police say they "Screwed up".

QUOTE(KWs OK for Me @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) We have no right handed power off the bench. That is my only real concern about the bench. Other than that its great and versatile, I love how many multi-position players we have. Borchard is at least a switch hitter.