Balta1701

Didn't I already start an Alito thread here?

QUOTE(TheDudeAbides @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) Didnt kenny say there would be a six-man rotation? If not, def. a spot starter or long relief Kenny has at least suggested it's a possible way to get some extra rest for the guys who pitch in the WBC. But as people (buehrle) start pulling out of that, it is starting to seem like less of a worry.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 10:06 PM) Los Angeles: we have Contreras waiting for you. I don't really think L.A. has too much of a need of him, they acquired Seo as a stopgap a few days ago, and they think Billingsly will be ready to come up before the end of this season.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 01:35 AM) He's not Johan Santana .... yet. Neither is BMac...yet

Torn ACL for Palmer. Surgery next. They hope he'll be ready for Training camp.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) Im standing by my Vince Young will be drafted by the Houston Texans. For all we know the Texans are trying to get some one to trade up to take Bush so they can slide down and take Young. Id rather have Young than any other offensive player in the draft. Well, naturally we haven't seen all the workouts and everything yet, but at least yesterday, the line leaking out of Texas was that they were going to keep David Carr and go with Reggie Bush regardless of whether or not Young comes out. I'm not sure that's a bad decision either. Carr at least has talent, but he's never been paired with anything that can keep the pass rush off of him.

Well, since Alito sure looks like a more contentious nominee than Roberts (he has both a much longer paper trail and a much more contentious one), it does seem like there is at least going to be something of an interesting fight going on in the Senate this week. Starting, of course, tomorrow. And given that, well, here's a thread. I'll lead off this thread with this one. I don't know whether to be impressed that they're trying to be non-partisan or scared that they're able to do that. Anywho, here we go, this one will be interesting to watch. Can someone drop some holy oil on this thread? So that it is an interesting discussion?

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) I'm guessing the Bengals won't make it that far. I agree. In fact, I've been sitting here today saying that this game is entirely to decide whether the Colts play the Pats next week or 2 weeks from now.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Ozzie is questioning Anderson's defense while KW raves about it. I think KW has seen more of it, and he thinks he's better defensively than Rowand. OF defense isn't all about errors. Rowand was very good defensively last season and phenomenal for a 2 or 3 week stretch in July and August, but Ozzie thought he was playing too deep in the playoffs, and he got some bad jumps. Also his throwing was pretty erratic last season. He made some great throws, but a lot of bad ones. Anderson should be more consistent in that area. Anderson supposedly has a significantly better arm than Rowand. Combined with better speed. He learns how to get jumps like ARow, and he does project as a damn good outfielder someday.

QUOTE(SoxPride56 @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) Um... Abreu won a gold glove this past year, he has to be a good OF to win that award Torii Hunter won a gold glove last year, and he didn't catch a single fly ball in the last couple months of the season. Derek Jeter won a gold glove last year, when Uribe was VASTLY better. Abreu won a gold glove because he performed so well with his bat that people noticed him. I don't know if there are better defenders in NL outfields than him or not, since I don't watch enough NL Ball, but these days, a gold glove means FAR less than it used to.

Palmer's left knee did almost exactly what my right knee did a year ago on a field trip. My right knee still hurts from that one. Kitna could lead them to the super bowl and I don't think Palmer will be playing.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) Maybe they should just keep a database of all of the people that Bush has met. Then, they can cross-reference that with any names that come up in a scandle. That wouldn't be a waste of tax payer money... Are you kidding? I'm sure they have a dozen databases of everyone the President has met. Or at least they should. They have databases and photos of virtually everyone who has ever come out to protest an appearance by the President, so they better know who he's meeting and when. Hell, if they ain't doing background checks of those folks first, there's something horribly wrong. Otherwise we could wind up with, I dunno, sleazy homosexual male escorts in the White House press corps or something ridiculous like that.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) Papelbon is still a rookie? He doesn't have enough innings to no longer qualify as a rookie, but he's exactly borderline on "Time on a big league roster." He was called up for 1 game in late July of last year, was sent back down, and recalled on August 15th. If you spend 45 days on a ML roster, you no longer qualify for the ROY award (or if you pitch 50 innings.) He only pitched 34 innings last year, but it seems to me like he spent 45+ days on a ML roster if he was called up on August 15th.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) Was wrong. I was surprisingly excited when I passed him for most posts by a Soxtalk Rookie in 2005. About 4000 posts ago. And he's had some sweet Sig's too.

I wanted pitching prospects and up-the-middle prospects for Jose anyway, and this doesn't change that. Give me an A-Ball pitcher or 2 and a very solid up-the-middle guy and I'll be happy. This still doesn't change the fact that I don't want to lose Jose for nothing at the end of 06.

Now This is exceptionally disturbing. Every single person here...if you have a cell phone, anyone anywhere, for any reason, can buy your cell phone records for $110, according to the Sun-Times. You Republicans here...you better be worried, because my fiance has a job now, and some of you have been very naughty! Lots more detail @ the link above, including the specific concerns. Want to know who's been calling your congressman? It only takes $110! Want to know how many calls Delay made to Abramoff last month? have fun!

Why is it I think the only team that really has a shot to beat NE before the Super Bowl is the Colts? Hey Jax, you want to talk about no respect for you? Yeah...don't fall down 28-3 to the Pats in the 1st round of the playoffs. You have to earn respect befroe you talk about it. If the Colts can't get past these guys this year...then the Colts may need to just spend 4-5 years rebuilding and try to win during the twilight of Peyton's career, like the Broncos with Elway.

Steff, I'm sure no words can do anything justice, and since I'm not a religious person, I would like to just express my full and heartful sorrow at your loss.

I'd love to see the Who, but sadly there's only so much money, and they're just not high enough on the list. God I hope U2 Does another tour leg in the spring, now that the Fiance is employed and i have a small amount of disposable income.

Sadly here I think I agree with the Republicans, George W. Bush is only 1 man, and not a smart man at that. If you expect him to remember every person he's met over the last 6 years, you're pushing it. This is not like Ahmad Chalabi, where the guy not only met with Bush, he sat behind Laura at the SOTU speech right before the Admin denied ever meeting him. In this case, you're talking about 1 contributer among hundreds. I need more than proof that Bush met with the guy 1-2 times to care that Bush met with him 1-2 times. Thus far, I've basically come to believe that the Abramoff mess is fundamentally a Congressional one, because Abramoff really used his influence on Congresspeople. When you get multiple free skyboxes, free golf functions, and free flights to Saigon, along with $100,000+ all bundled because of 1 guy, you will know who he is if you're a congressman winning election based on a few million dollars. However, if he's just donating to the President, that's not proving the President was involved. Show me proof of multiple sessions between the Pres and the guy, or travel for the President arranged for the guy, or other meetings arranged by the guy, and I'll change my opinion, but thus far I haven't seen full evidence that the Bush Admin knew what Abramoff was doing like, say, Delay did.

So, what I would say is this...an American city is completely destroyed. There were people with and without money which lost their homes. People with and without insurance which lost their homes. Now, the key in my eyes is this; there were people without insurance who lost everything. In any American city which is destroyed, that same thing will happen...it is simply insanity to expect that every single person inside a destroyed american city will have insurance against the force which destroyed the city. So, as I see it, in general there are 3 options. 1...you can do nothing, tell the people without insurance they're totally out of luck, and let people starve to death. I find this intolerable, especially considering it's not those folks' fault that the Corps destroyed the barrier islands and built levees only for a Mag 2. Hurricane. Secondly, you can hand out aid, but use some sort of means testing to decide who gets aid...i.e. you find out which people are truly needy and you specifically direct aid to those people. Third, you could just hand out aid to everyone. The government has chosen the latter plan in this case. While this is fair, it's not necessarily the most cost-effective method of helping people. Everyone, whether they had insurance against that specific disaster or not, has been eligible for the government assitance. So is it surprising that government assistance is turning up in high-end stores? Not in the least. That was how the Bush Admin. chose to deal with this tragedy. How would I have done it? Find some way of classifying the people who lost homes based on their means. There's no reason for the family with flood insurance and tons of savings who moves next to 1 of our posters within 2 months to receive tons of aid from the government, but there's plenty of reason for the family renting a house which loses all of their property because of crappy levees to receive that aid. Will some of these people be stupid enough to blow that aid at strip clubs? Unfortunately yes. There is simply no way to prevent people from being stupid. If you give them money that can only be used on certain goods, they'll take the money they do have and blow that on a strip club. Some people simply cannot be helped. But does the fact that 1 small group of Americans decides to be stupid justify completely ending the recovery aid programs? No. If 95% of the people use the aid properly, then even if 5% use it improperly, it is doing an extraordinary amount of good in helping people out of a tragedy caused in a significant part by government ineptitude. In any government bailout situation, you will have people who blow the money in pigheaded ways, but you will also have people who survive entirely because of the government aid. The goal should be to direct the aid as best as possible to the people who use it correctly. You won't be able to pull 100%, and either the people opposed to the current administration or the people who are totally anti-taxation will find the examples of the stupid people and highlight them, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that the aid isn't working, if it is directed properly. I would advocate a "directed-aid" sort of program, where given the massive size of the government failure in this case, the government would try to bail out the people who didn't plan for the failure. We didn't do that, so some of the cash will be wasted. But if you even estimate that 50% of the people receiving the aid will use it to help themselves out of this mess, while 50% don't, then those who use it to help themselves will justify the expenditure. There should be ways for the government to raise that number if their goal is not to enrich campaign contributors, but you just can't ever expect 100% of the people to behave rationally, because they're people.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) There are TONS of Native American team names in Illinois. When I lived in Southern Illinois, it seemed like if your mascot wasnt a dog or a cat, it was the Indians or Redskins etc. If the Native Americans succeed in one case, I have feeling that there is going to be alot of re-named mascots. Man do we dislike those Valpo "Vikings". I'm afraid this is one of those I can't offer a solution to. Is the word "Indian" offensive? Some people say it is, but I don't know if I can offer a justification as to why, or why the word "Viking" isn't offensive to the Norse peoples of modern day. Redskins? Ok, maybe that would be pushing it, but Indians? I just don't see how that is offensive, but if people claim it is, I don't know whether tradition or offense should win out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_co/delay

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 12:04 AM) Who would have thought this? .... I disagree with you in that I think this squarely on Bush's shoulders. That chain of command runs down as well as up. Maybe it's just that I want the WBC to die a quick death anyway to protect our starting pitching, make it easier for us to trade Jose, and make KW more willing to give the ball to BMac 30+ times this year as a starter, and anything that helps that along won't make me too mad.

Anywho, I want Owens to have a full year at AAA before we bring him up unless someone gets hurt, so I won't be too mad at anything which helps that.