Balta1701

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 06:36 PM) Yes. I don't agree with it necessarily but it seems to be what happens. It makes sense to me...the gains built up in recent months were created on the premise of increased profits in the near future. If those profits don't appear on schedule...the gains in recent months are not justified. The good part for investors is that most trends, IMO, tend to go too far - i.e. maybe they overpredicted gains this quarter, so if you were smart and sold at the end of December you made a ton, and if you're taking our shorts now, then you stand to make a lot based on the excessively high predictions.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) Wow, if Uribe can handle the 2 slot, our offense is argubly the best in the league. I think Gooch is capable of .290, 20-25 HR'S, 90+ RBI. Spring training is actually gonna be interesting this year. All year last year I said that on paper our offense was better than it seemed. It finally showed up in the playoffs. This year...on paper, with Thome, Konerko, and Dye at the heart of that order...if people play up to their potential...and if people stay healthy....we will be top 5, probably top 3. But that is a lot of "If"s. Thome's health is an if. Pods has to stay healthy (He could steal 80+ if he was healthy last year.) Uribe has to avoid backsliding. Ditto Crede. B.A. has to be adequate. Dye has to stay healthy. Iguchi has to justify dropping him out of the 2 hole when he was doing so well hitting the ball to the right side. Etc. If Thome, Konerko, and Dye stay healthy all season (which at least Konerko and Thome should since they'll get extra rest thanks to each other), our offense will be significantly better than last year's even if some poeple perform worse. But we really have a shot to hammer some people if everything comes together again.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:37 PM) I think they're overachieving right now. Like you said, outside of Kobe and Odom this is an nbdl type roster. Kobe's not gonna keep up this current pace he's on. However, I'll give them credit for what they've been able to accomplish to this point. I still pick Larry Brown for "idiot" of the year. The Pistons make him look dumber every week. The Lakers were actually doing all right last year too..until Kobe got hurt in January and missed a couple weeks. By the time he was back, Rudy T was gone, and the team was in shambles and had basically quit. With that $10 million a year deal Brown signed...I doubt he cares if you think he's an idiot. Get enough popularity with that opinion...and he'll buy you off.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:07 PM) No media outlet hits the exact middle, neutral point. You know, given how many media outlets are out there, I wouldnt' be surprised if one actually did...problem is, since I have no idea where the exact middle, neutral point is myself, it's difficult to say for certain which one it is.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:07 PM) We still do have that option for Iguchi's 3rd year. I can't imagine us not retaining him if he has another year like last. For the price of his option year...I think his leg would have to fall off for us to not pick it up.

I think this is more funny than informative, but I had to post it somewhere, cause I just can't stop laughing. Jayson Stark, talking about the Phillies trying to find a #1 starter.

Is it just me, or does anyone else here think Uribe will be surprisingly good if he's focusing on hitting the ball to the right side and getting extra fastballs because of Pods? As always, he just will need to take a few pitches too.

Well, interesting day for the Stock Market players around here, that's for sure. On bad earnings news from a couple companies, following poor earnings news yesterday from a couple companies, following some major hits in the overseas stock markets (Japan) in the last few days, and along with oil shooting back towards $70, the DJIA dropped 213 points today, it's Biggest 1 day drop since before the Mission in Iraq was Accomplished. Google slid 8.5% today, it's worst day since becoming a public company, on the heels of a bad earnings report from Yahoo and the news that the government was trying to get its hands on Google's search info.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) The Sox need to work it out, because if we don't, where do you think he'll end up in 2007 and beyond? My bet would be the Yankees. It would take an absolute, gigantic miracle for Jose to want to go back there.

Pete Rose can get his face in the Hall of Fame right after Shoeless Joe does.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Hit a google news search on Cisneros. It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now. I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked. Here's the LAT piece by the way. It's listed as 14 hours ago...so it may well have been in my morning paper or may be there tomorrow (was in a bit of a rush this morning so i did a lot of glancing @ stuff)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) -I don't get what it matters what they would do about it, all I said was I thought it was important enough that it merited some serious media attention, and didn't understand why it hadn't. I don't see what potential court actions in the future have to do with what is being reported now? Are you saying that a scandal shouldn't be front page news if you can't drag someone to court immediately for it? I don't understand what you point was on any of that stuff. -How much "stuff" should it take to make headlines when the President of the USA is being accused of Obstruction of Justice again? So far everytime I have seen any accusation of President impropriety it has made headlines. Why would that be different today. Hell Nixons tapes of him blathering on at the White House were front page news 30 years later, yet this is buried on blogs and websites for days. Ok, let me put it this way...a lot of things get buried in blogs. Furthermore, there are a lot of accusations made against people in power. Not all of them have actual teeth. By my question "where are the charges" I'm quite literally asking to see some proof, beyond the fact that Clinton's lawyers worked to prevent its release, that this report is not just some fantasy created by a person with a vendetta against the Clintons. Charges of obstruction of justice and tax evasion are serious f***ing charges. If there's any teeth at all to these charges, then at the very least, a grand jury should have been convened to hear the evidence and consider indictments. If no grand jury was ever convened, then why should I believe a word that is said in the report, if even the authors of it didn't feel it was solid enough to at least take it to a grand jury and try to do something with the evidence?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? So they could bill the Clintons for more hours?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger? Here's my question...if everything in this report were true...what would we expect to happen due to it? Would we expect charges to be filed? Or Hillary has to apologize? Or anything? When Hillary's campaign was facing charges for improper campaign contributions or something, it got a lot of coverage, more I think than the acquittal got even. But it actually involved a court case...something tangible the media could point to and say "a-ha there's a story here." Heck, if I wanted to count up all the things that I've thought this Administration has done which were clearly wrong and could have deserved their own investigations but have gotten almost no press coverage and died off because the Republicans control the Congress, I'd probably have a couple dozen. (The missing $10 billion from the CPA in Iraq, transferring funds from Afghanistan to Iraq without Congressional approval...blah blah blah). If this is a conspiracy involving tax evasion and obstruction of justice...where are the charges being filed?

So it seems Pakistan is still claiming that they killed that bomb-maker, but they haven't produced any evidence to that fact, including examinations of the bodies.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) People don't know what happened, other then what was leaked in the NYSlimes. And the parts that Mr. Bush was willing to admit, amongst quite a few other sources now. If you'll note the title of this thread...I didn't launch it based on the NYT report, I launched it when Mr. Bush gave his radio address a few days later confirming the NYT report's accuracy and defiantly stating that he was going to keep doing it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) I would call that conclusive evidence that he is alive (Just playing devil's advocate since I think he's clearly alive) Didn't the CIA also conclude that Saddam had 3 body doubles and hadn't appeared on TV since the mid 90's? Hell, didn't at least some parts of the CIA think that Iraq had WMD and Ahmed Chalabi wasn't a lying SOB?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) its funny, as a democrat, whenever i see lieberman's name it takes a second for me to remember that he is, in fact, also a democrat. but that's mostly because he's not. Yes, he actually is...in his voting record. But the problem is...he's vastly more outspoken on things that there's no voting on (ike when it's not ok to criticize the President), and on those few things he does vote on that disagree with his party. You don't hear him coming out and even offering vocal dissent on environmental issues at all, for example. If he wanted to avoid this sort of thing...he could have done something very simple. Just like McCain, the media will let him make news by speaking because on occasion he's willing to disagree with his party. But when McCain does things like that, he also takes the time and effort to stress positions where they agree. He'll pass a torture ban, but he'll also shut up when the Administration says it won't follow it, and then he'll go and campaign loudly for another Administration initiative. When I see Lieberman speak these days, all he is doing is criticizing other Democrats. He doesn't take those opportunities to work towards building the party's strenght on issues where he does agree with the party; all he does is tear down the party on issues where they do disagree.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) That's funny, cause I thought when the White Sox non-tendered Willie and Timo, it was a sign that the offseason was a success. I can understand him saying that about Willie. The question is...would he say that if they also signed Timo?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy. BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power. The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them). Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty. I think I agree with this point...if it was a resolution passed by a vote of the House and the Senate, does it not basically have the force of law? There are still 2 major questions remaining - whether or not the "Whereas" clauses can be taken as justification for actions, and whether or not that resolution in fact gave the President the authority to override FISA with those statements in the Whereas parts. But that the resolution does have the force of law I didn't think was in doubt.

Is it just me, or in the last paragraph, does she make the same mistake the Bush administration made when it decided to rid the Mideast of WMD - replacing the N with a Q? (Somehow, I doubt that many people right now want to be supporting the opposition in Iraq. Unless she's suggesting that the Sunni rebels are already in control of the country, and the elected leadership is now the opposition)

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) So the law is not actually a law? He may have followed the law and we just don't know? Please explain to me why it is only MY OPINION that he broke the law. I would love to know why it is not that clear cut. It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority. While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law. I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) I'm sorry, but just because the nasty rightists did this with Clinton does not mean that the nasty leftists are doing the same thing to Bush. I think a large majority of America feels lied to and scammed by this president. The fact is that we may be over protecting ourselves from letting it happen again, or to maybe from letting it to keep on happening. I actually disagree with the phrase "Over-protecting ourselves" here...I don't think it's that we're over-protecting ourselves, rather I think its the reverse...we're leaving several obvious avenues of improved protection untouched, while going after various other avenues of highly dubious relationships to the actual war itself.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 09:45 AM) I see your point, but don't all mining accidents that involve the possible loss of life make the news?? Yes, but they're usually a 1 paragraph blurb in my LA Times in the morning a few pages behind the national page. Put there right next to the latest 2 car accident from Oklahoma and the woman in Michigan who poisoned her husband and son with milkshakes. They're not the biggest story of the day.